The Warmakers

Via The Saker,

Between the US strikes on Syria in April and the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, we are in somewhat of a lull in the Empire’s search for a new war to start. The always helpful Israelis, in the person of the ineffable Bibi Netanyahu, are now beating the drums for, well, if not a war, then at least some kind of false flag or pretext to make the USA strike at Iran. And then there is the always bleeding Donbass (which I won’t address in today’s analysis).

So let’s see where we stand and try to guesstimate where we might be heading. To be honest, trying to guess what ignorant warmongering psychopaths might do next is by definition a futile exercise, but since there are some not negligible signs that there are at least a few rational people still left in the US White House and/or Pentagon (as shown by the mostly “pretend strikes” on Syria last month), we can assume (hope) that some residual degree of sanity is still present. At the very least Americans in uniform have to ask themselves a very basic and yet fundamental question:

Do I want to die for Israel? Do I want to lose my job for Israel? How about my pension? Maybe just my stock options? Is it worth risking a major regional war for such a “wonderful” state?

A lot depends on whether the US military leaders (and people!) will have the courage to ask themselves this question and, if they do, what their reply will be.

But, first, let’s begin with the good news:

The DPRK and ROK are in direct talks with each other.

This is indeed a truly great development for at least two reasons. First, of course, the main and objective one: anything which lowers the risks of war on the Korean Peninsula is good. But there is a second reason which we should not discount: Trump can now take all the credit for this and claim that his (empty) threats are what brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table. I say – let him. In fact, I hope that they organize a parade for Trump somewhere in the USA, with confetti and millions of flags. Like for an astronaut. Let him feel triumphant, vindicated and very, very manly. MAGA, you know?!

Yeah, that will be sickening to the thinking (not to mention counter-factual), but if a little bit of intellectual nausea is the price to pay for peace, I say let’s do it. If Trump, Bolton, Haley and the rest of them can feel that they “kicked ass” and that their “invincible military” is what brought “Rocket Man” to “give up his nukes” (he never said any such thing, but never mind that) then I sincerely wish them a joyful and highly ego-pleasing celebration. Anything to stop them from looking for another war to start, at least for a now.

Now the bad news.

The Israelis are at it again

Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years, and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.

So what are these guys really up to? Listen to the one man who knows them best, and whose every single word you can take to the bank, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah (ever wondered why Hezbollah, which has not committed anything even remotely looking like a terrorist attack since the 1980s is called the “A-Team of terrorists”? Just saying…):

The first event is the Israeli blatant and manifest aggression against the T-4 base or airport on the outskirts of Homs, that targeted Iranian forces from the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution of Iran who were present there, hitting them with a large number of missiles, causing 7 martyrs among its officers and soldiers and wounding others. This was a new, significant and important event. Maybe some people do not pay attention to its importance and magnitude. In this operation, Israel has deliberately killed (Iranian soldiers). This is an unprecedented event. In the past, Israel has struck us [Hezbollah] for example in Quneitra, and it turned out that coincidentally Guardians [of the Islamic Revolution] officers were with us. Israel declared hastily that they did not know it, and thought that all (targeted soldiers) were Hezbollah’s. This is an event that has no precedent since 7 years, it is unprecedented since 7 years, that Israel openly targets the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Syria, killing deliberately, in an operation that caused a number of martyrs and wounded (…) I want to tell the Israelis that they must know – I wrote that statement accurately and I read it to them – they must know that they have committed a historic mistake. This is not a simple blunder. They committed an act of great stupidity, and by this aggression, they entered in a direct confrontation with Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And Iran, O Zionists, is not a small country, it is not a weak country, and it is not a cowardly country. And you know it very well. As a comment on this incident, I stress that it constitutes a turning point in the situation of the region. What follows will be very different from what preceded it. This is an incident that cannot be considered lightly, contrary to what happens with many incidents here. It is a turning point, a historic turning point. And when the Israelis committed this stupid act, they had some assessment (of the situation), but I tell them that their evaluation is false. And even in the future, since you have opened a new path in the confrontation, (you should ensure) not to be wrong in your evaluations. In this new path you opened and initiated, don’t be wrong in your assessment, when you are face to face, and directly (in conflict) with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I can only agree with this evaluation. As does The Jerusalem PostNBC News, and many others. Regardless of how crazy this notion might sound to rational people (see below), there are all the signs that the Israelis are now demanding that the USA start a war against Iran, either by choice or more likely, to “stand by our Israeli allies and friends” after they attack Iran first.

Israel is truly a unique and amazing country: not only does it openly and brazenly completely ignore international law, not only is it the last overtly racist country on the planet, not only has it been perpetuating a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians for decades, it also constantly uses its considerable propaganda resources to advocate for war. And in order to achieve these goals, it does not mind allying itself with a regime almost as despicable and evil as the Zionist one – I am talking about the Wahabi nutcases in the KSA. And all that under the high patronage of the United States. Some “Axis of Kindness” indeed!

What is their plan? Actually, it is fairly straightforward.

The Israeli plan “A” (failed)

Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israeli would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the USA who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand niggers”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).

Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:

The Israeli plan “B”

Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to ever face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.

Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.

You might object that the USA does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the USA established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.

You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?

My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!

Of course not!

All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.

In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomenei) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!

So what the Israelis really want to do is:

  1. inflict a maximum amount of economic damage upon Iran

  2. punish the Iranian population for daring to support the “wrong” leaders

  3. overthrow the Islamic Republic (do to it what they did to Serbia)

  4. make an example to dissuade any other country who dares to follow in Iran’s footsteps

  5. prove the omnipotence of the AngloZionist Empire’s

To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).

The Israelis hope that by making the USA hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.

In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.

Consider this:

IF the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and IF the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by the IDF’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.

Risks with Israel’s plan “B”

Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1000 man) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.

As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.

There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the USA into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranian have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).

The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the USA, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).

Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the USA, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?

Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.

Which one do you think they will choose?


Going nuclear?

Here is the paradox: in purely military terms, using nukes on Iran will serve no pragmatic purpose. Nuclear weapons can be used in one of two ways: against military assets (“counterforce”) or against civilians (“countervalue”). The point is that by the time the Neocons and their Israeli patrons come to the point of considering using tactical nuclear forces against the Iranians, there won’t be a good target to hit. Iranian forces will be dispersed and mostly in contact with allied (or even US forces) and nuking an Iranian battalion or even a division won’t fundamentally alter the military equation. As for nuking Iranian cities just out of savagery, this will only serve one purpose: to truly get Israel wiped off the map of the Middle-East. I would not put it past the Neocons and their Israeli bosses to try to use a tactical nuclear weapon to destroy some Iranian civilian nuclear facility or some underground bunker with the very mistaken hope that such a show of force and determination will force the Iranians to submit to the AngloZionist Empire. In reality, this will only infuriate the Iranians and strengthen their resolve.

As for the currently “macronesque” Europeans, they will, of course, first show “solidarity” on the basis of “highly likely”, especially Poland, the Ukies and the Baltic statelets, but if nuclear weapons start going off in the Middle-East, then the European public opinion will explode, especially in Mediterranean countries, and this might just trigger yet another major crisis. Israel wouldn’t give a damn (or, as always, blame it all on some totally mysterious resurgence of anti-Semitism), but the USA most definitely does not want the Anglo grip on the continent compromised by such events.

Maybe a Korean scenario?

Is there a chance that all the huffing and puffing will result in some kind of peaceful resolution as what seems to be in the works in Korea? Alas, probably not.

A few months ago it sure looked like the USA might do something irreparably stupid in Korea (see here and here) but then something most unexpected happened: the South Koreans, fully realizing the inanity of Trump’s reckless threats, took the situation in their own hands and began making overtures to the North. Plus all the rest of the regional neighbors emphatically and clearly told Trump & Co. that the consequences of a US attack on the DPRK would be apocalyptic for the entire region. Alas, there are two fundamental differences between the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East:

  1. On the Korean Peninsula, the local US ally (the ROK) does not want war. In the Middle-East it is the local US ally (Israel) which pushes the hardest for a war.
  2. In Far-East Asia all the regional neighbors were and are categorically opposed to war. In the Middle-East most regional neighbors are sold out to the Saudis who also want the US to attack Iran.

So while the risks and consequences of a conflagration are similar between the two regions, the local geopolitical dynamics are completely different?

What about Russia in all this?

Russia will never *choose* to go to war with the USA. But Russia also understands that Iran’s security and safety is absolutely crucial to her own security, especially along her southern borders. Right now there is a fragile equilibrium of sorts between the (also very powerful) Zionist lobby in Russia and the national/patriotic elements. In truth, the recent Israeli attacks in Syria have given more power to the anti-Zionist elements in Russia, hence all the talk about (finally!) delivering the S-300s to Syria. Well, we will see if/when that happens. My best guesstimate is that it might already have happened and that this is simply kept quiet to restrain both the Americans and the Israelis who have no way of knowing what equipment the Russians have already delivered, where it is located or, for that matter, who (Russians or Syrians) actually operate it. This kind of ambiguity is useful to placate the pro-Zionist forces in Russia and to complicate AngloZionist planning. But maybe this is my wishful thinking, and maybe the Russians have not delivered the S-300s yet or, if they have, maybe these are the (not very useful) S-300P early models (as opposed to the S-300PMU-2 which would present a huge risk to the Israelis).

The relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex one (see here and here), but if Iran is attacked I fully expect the Russians, especially the military, to back Iran and provide military assistance short of overtly engaging US/Israeli/NATO/CENTCOM forces. If the Russians are directly attacked in Syria (and in the context of a wider war, they very well might be), then Russia will counter-attack regardless of who the attacker is, the USA or Israel or anybody else: the Zionist lobby in Russia does not have the power to impose a “Liberty-like event” on the Russian public opinion).

Conclusion: Accursed are the warmakers, for they shall be called the children of Satan

The Israelis can eat falafels, create “Israeli kufiyeh” and fancy themselves as “orientals”, but the reality is that the creation of the state of Israel is a curse on the entire Middle-East to which has only brought untold suffering, brutality, corruption and wars, wars and more wars. And they are still at it – doing all they can to trigger a large regional war in which many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die. The people of the USA have now allowed a dangerous cabal of psychopathic Neocons to fully take control of their country and now those, who Papa Bush used to call the “crazies in the basement” have their finger on the nuclear button. So now it all boils down to the questions I opened this article with:

Dear US Americans – do you want to die for Israel? Do you want to lose your job for Israel? How about your pension? Maybe just your stock options? Because make no mistake, the US Empire will not survive a full-scale war against Iran. Why? Because all Iran needs to do to “win” is not to lose, i.e. to survive. Even bombed out and scorched by conventional or nuclear strikes, if Iran comes out of this war still as an Islamic Republic (and that is not something bombs or missiles will change) then Iran will have won. In contrast, for the Empire, the failure to bring Iran to its knees will mean the end of its status as the world Hegemon defeated not by a nuclear superpower, but by a regional conventional power. After that, it will just be a matter of time before the inevitable domino effect breaks up the entire Empire (check out Richard Greer’s excellent book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” for a very plausible account on how that could happen)

Okay, unlike Russia, Iran cannot nuke the USA or, for that matter, even reach it with conventional weapons (I don’t even think that the Iranians will successfully attack a US carrier as some pro-Iranian analysts say). But the political and economic consequences of a full-scale war in the Middle-East will be felt throughout the United States: right now the only thing “backing” the US dollar, so to speak, are USN aircraft carriers and their ability to blow to smithereens any country daring to disobey Uncle Sam. The fact that these carriers are (and, truly, have been for a long while) useless against the USSR and Russia is bad enough, but if it becomes known urbi et orbi that they are also useless against a conventional regional power like Iran, then that’s it, show over. The dollar will turn into monopoly money in a very short span of time.

Wars often have “Nietzschean consequences”: countries which wars don’t destroy often come out even stronger than before they were attacked, even if it is at a horrendous price. Both the Israelis and the Neocons are too dialectically illiterate to realize that by their actions they are just creating increasingly more powerful enemies. The old Anglo guard which ran the USA since its foundation was probably wiser, possibly because it was better educated and more aware of the painful lessons learned by the British (and other) Empire(s).

Frankly, I hope that the ruling 1%ers running the USA today (well, they are really much less than 1%, but never mind that) will care about their wealth and money more than they care about appeasing the Neocons and that the bad old Anglo imperialists who built this country will have enough greed in themselves to tell the Neocons and their Israeli patrons to get lost. But with the Neocons controlling both wings of the Uniparty and the media, I am not very hopeful.

Still, there is a chance that, like in Korea, somebody somewhere will say or do the right thing, and that awed by the potential magnitude of what they are about to trigger, enough people in the US military will follow the example of Admiral William Fallon and CENTCOM commander at the time who told the President “an attack on Iran will not happen on my watch”. I believe for his principled courage, the words of Christ “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9) can be applied to Admiral Fallon and I hope that his example will inspire others.


Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 00:07 Permalink

Iran's George Washington: Remembering and Preserving the Legacy of 1953

By Sam Sasan Shoamanesh

To trace the roots of Tehran’s animosity towards Washington and the West in general, one must turn the pages of history not only to the Cold-War dynamics often cited by academics; but to the cause of oil politics as well. the time, the heart of British power – but also the success of its entire economy at large. From the 1920s through the ‘40s, Britain received all of its oil from Iran, and enjoyed a reasonably high standard of living at least in part as a result.

What's more, APOC increasingly engaged in unfair practices and failed to honor even the marginal royalties that it had contracted to pay Iran. In 1948, for example, while APOC reported profits of ₤62 million and paid the British government ₤28 million in income taxes, Iran received a meager ₤1.4 million on its oil resources. The company also regularly reneged on obligations and withheld payments when its demands on the Iranian government were not met.

On behalf of Iran, Teymourtash requested, inter alia, a 25-percent share in the company. If a new concession was to be drawn, he stressed, only a 50-50 split would be acceptable. His “bold” demands placed Teymourtash on a fast collision course with the British government.

Teymourtash died in solitary confinement (1933) under suspicious circumstances having endured regular torture.

Dr. Mossadegh had supported the constitutionalists in the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911, restricting the absolute powers of the traditional Iranian monarch, notwithstanding ties with the royal court through his mother. As a politician, he called for political and economic independence; the strengthening of civil society, and competent, corruption-free government. He further advocated for an independent judiciary, free elections, freedom of religion and political associations, women’s and worker’s rights, and projects aimed at supporting the country’s large agricultural sector. For all intents and purposes, he was to the majority of Iranians, the figure of a national hero, the new founding father of Iran in the modern age, who carried on his aging shoulders the promise for democracy and true independence – he was to many the “Iranian George Washington."

After taking office in 1951 as Prime Minister, Mossadegh led the National Front’s campaign to nationalize Iran’s oil industry by sponsoring nationalization bills passed by Parliament in March 1951. The Oil Nationalization Act received Imperial assent on 1 May 1951. This act of “hostility” as perceived through the British lens quickly resulted in mayhem. Oil production came to a standstill as British technicians left the country en masse, damaging refineries on departure. Britain moved aggressively and took a series of steps to penalize Iran. An embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil as well as a ban on exporting goods to Iran were soon put in place, as were measures to freeze Iranian sterling assets. Britain mobilized its navy and paratroopers as a show of military might and Iran was placed under increased pressure to abandon its nationalization plans 

1.3. Showcase Before the World: Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (United Kingdom v. Iran)

In Autumn 1951 with the case before the ICJ being litigated, the British government attempted to increase the mounting international pressure on Iran by concurrently bringing the case before the Security Council

The Iranians found the Security Council referral most peculiar, questioning if a dispute between a private oil company and Iran – what should have been a purely domestic matter

Finally on July 22, 1952 by a 9-5 vote, the ICJ declared that the 1933 agreement could not constitute a treaty between the two states as the UK claimed, but merely a concessionary contract between a private company and the government of Iran to which the UK was not a party. The court declared it lacked jurisdiction – as contended by Iran – to rule on the merits of the case.

As a clearly visible exhausted Prime Minister Mossadegh walked through the halls of the Peace Palace, having just successfully defended Iran’s position, there was little room for celebrations. Perhaps he intuitively knew Iran’s difficulties were far from over. History was to prove such intuitions well founded.

Apart from growing British discontentment with the turn of events, the embargoes and the drastic reduction in oil output had placed extreme pressure on Iran’s economy, thereby triggering domestic divisions. Furthermore, frustrated by Iranian resilience, Westminister Palace became convinced that Mossadegh posed a direct threat to British interests and had to be removed. As with Teymourtash decades earlier, Mossadegh presented as an obstacle to British interests and ‘had’ to be neutralized. A resort to the British Intelligence Service was made, yet an attempted coup was uncovered and bore no fruit. In retaliation, the Iranian government severed diplomatic ties (November 1, 1952). Anxious about what losing Iranian oil would mean for the British navy and economy, Winston Churchill, by then prime minister, lobbied the Americans to commit the deed.

MoreSun IntercoursetheEU Mon, 05/07/2018 - 00:26 Permalink

The israeli lobby zionist banking cartel network that runs not only jewmerica, but also the u.k., canada, je(r)wmany, belgium, austria & france by their covert & overt operatives & dual israeli citizens, Aipac, Aclu, Jdl, Jwc, Zoa, Adl, Splc, Cfr, Trilateral Commission and 10 thousand more worldwide terrorist groups- WANT, PURSUE, AGITATE FOR, PROPAGANDIZE FOR- WAR! WAR! and MORE WARS !!

Death, Destruction & Economic Chaos is their means, and the end game is total domination of all areas of the world and its peoples. 

Then they cry, whine and hide behind their holohoax ruse that they invented and shoved down the throats of all by their edward bernaysian all encompassing media propaganda machine.

In reply to by IntercoursetheEU

Slack Jack MoreSun Mon, 05/07/2018 - 00:33 Permalink


There are no ancient Jewish cities in Israel,...
but there are lots of ancient Greek cities.

What is weird is this; that 2000 years ago, it seems that there were no people even resembling Jews, in Israel.

It turns out that there is not a single ancient Jewish city in what is now called Israel. There is not a single ancient city where Hebrew characters are used on the statues and buildings. There is not a single ancient city where the buildings are in the ancient Jewish architectural style. In fact, there is not even a category of "ancient Jewish architectural style".

Of course, the Hebrew characters that are desired, are those of the Dead Sea scrolls (supposedly from 2000 years ago), which are essentially the modern Hebrew characters without points.

If you check out all the ancient cities in Israel from 2000 years ago, they are all Greek, and their ruins are still there for you to visit. Their inscriptions are in the Greek script and the buildings are in the ancient Greek architectural styles.

Here is a list of some of the known ancient Greek cities in (and near) Israel; Ecdippa, Seleucia, Ptolemais, Taricheia Arbela, Asochis, Sepphoris, Hippos, Dion, Sycaminum, Bucolon Polis, Itabyrium, Gadara, Abila, Dora, Comus, Gephrus, Crocodilion Polis, Caesarea, Straton's Tower, Narbata, Scythopolis, Pella, Samaria, Amathus, Ragaba, Gerasa, Apollonia, Sicima, Pegae, Joppa, Arimathea, Jamnia, Port of Jamnia, Lydda, Modiin, Aphaerema, Philadelphia, Birtha, Gazara, Beth Horon, Dok, Jericho, Samaga, Esbus, Medaba, Ladder of Tyre, Azotus, Port of Azotus, Accaron, Jerusalem, Ascalon, Anthedon, Gaza, Marissa, Beth Zur, Hebron, Adora, Engeddi.

The ancient Jewish cities in Israel are,....... well there aren't any. Not even one.

Here's an interesting example of a first century BC Greek inscription (i.e., in Greek letters) from Jerusalem's Temple Mount forbidding the entry of strangers to the Temple precinct.

The pictured stone was found in 1935. It was actually the second such warning-stone to be found, the first being discovered by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. This stone was deemed so dangerous to the "Jews inhabited Israel 2000 years ago" theory, that it completely disappeared for 13 years before resurfacing in Istanbul, where, it was correctly calculated, it would not attract much attention.


The first Jerusalem Temple Mount warning-stone, now found in the Archaeology Museum, Istanbul, is pictured below:

It says (in Greek): "No stranger is to enter within the balustrade round the temple and enclosure. Whoever is caught will be responsible to himself for his death, which will ensue."

The oldest synagogue in Israel (is a Greek synagogue).

The word synagogue = ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓΗ is a Greek word for a gathering of people, assembly, or meeting place.

It is exceedingly strange that Jews should have chosen a Greek word to name their churches.

Here is a photo of the dedication stone of the oldest (once existing) synagogue in Israel.

Note that the inscription is in Greek letters.

The stone is known as the Theodotus Inscription. The building that the stone was once part of, has not survived. The stone was discovered by Raimond Weill in 1913 at Mount Ophel in Jerusalem. It was found dumped in a cistern. The style of the Greek characters dates it to the first century B.C.

It states: "Theodotus, son of Vettenus, priest and archisynagogue, son of an archisynagogue, grandson of an archisynagogue, built the synagogue for the reading of the Law and the teaching of the commandments, and guest-house and the rooms and the water supplies for the lodging of strangers in need, which his fathers founded and the Elders and Simonides."

Note that Theodotus has a Greek name.

Note that his father Vettanos has a Greek name.

The word archisynagogos means "leader of the synagogue". So, it seems that three generations of Greeks headed the oldest (known) synagogue in Israel.

I wonder why the early "Jews" hated Hebrew and loved Greek.

Slack Jack's CHALLENGE:

Name ONE ancient city (that existed in what is now called Israel) where the building inscriptions are all in Hebrew, and the buildings are constructed in the ancient Hebrew architectural style (whatever that may be).

Then give a summary of "the ancient Hebrew architectural style" (you will have to make this up as it does not yet exist).

Then give links to photos of the ancient building inscriptions which show that they are written in Hebrew.

Then show that the buildings are constructed in the ancient Hebrew architectural style (that you have just invented).

It's been MANY MANY MANY months now and still no one is up to the challenge.

So, no one can provide solid evidence that even ONE ancient city in what is now called Israel, was unequivocally Jewish, 2000 years ago.

In reply to by MoreSun

Slack Jack Slack Jack Mon, 05/07/2018 - 00:35 Permalink

So, this is all Déjà view has to say about the American involvement in Iran !???

Winston Churchill (a Jew), by then prime minister, lobbied the Americans to commit the deed.

So let's remember a little;

Kermit Roosevelt (President Theodore Roosevelt's grandson; more Jews) headed the CIA coup which had Mohammed Mossadegh removed from power.

He wrote a book about it, called, "Countercoup".…

In reply to by Slack Jack

???ö? Slack Jack Mon, 05/07/2018 - 00:54 Permalink



Israel operates a heavy water nuclear reactor called IRR-2 at the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona for production of nuclear materials used in Israel's nuclear weapons program. This reactor does not operate under the inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency.



In reply to by Slack Jack

Slack Jack ???ö? Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:01 Permalink


Its a real shame that Israel has no nukes.

They were too cheap to spend trillions of dollars developing them.

Much cheaper just to lie and claim you have them.

That's why Mordechai Vanunu got 11 years in solitary. That way no one could know that he wasn't in prison at the time.

That's why they have never conducted any testing of nukes.

In reply to by ???ö?

Byte Me Slack Jack Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:41 Permalink

Britain performed half of their 46 tests underground in Nevada.

France conducted nearly 300 tests, mostly underground in the Pacific.

Whether or not Israel has a deterrent is a bit moot. The US could have either covertly tested for Israel or just surreptitiously furnished them with an arsenal.

Or France for that matter. Any of their later 'tests' could have been for Tel Aviv on the qt.

In reply to by Slack Jack

DaveTraDamus Slack Jack Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:36 Permalink

The real 12 Tribes of Israel are Europeans.  Anglo-Saxon, British, Celts, Scots, Danish, German, etc.  The people of israel today are the ancient Babylonians who continuously paid barbarians to seige Israel until the 12 Tribes of Israel had enough and fled.  They crossed the Caucus Mountains and founded new civilians across present day Europe.  That is why white people are called Caucasians to this day.  


The ancient Babylonians moved into abandoned Israel and aquired the Israelite's religious texts and eventually took on the identity of the original 12 Tribes of Israel.  The Babylonians didn't stop there, they followed the 12 Tribes to Europe.  For hundreds of years they relentlessly attempted to infiltrate the various city-states and nations across Europe.  They were expelled at least 90 times during these years and actually banned from all of Europe for hundreds of years.  Unfortunately, they were eventually successful in their infiltration.  You can probably pick up the story from there.



That belief is called British Israel and White Identity, it's almost completely concealed on the internet and anymone talking in public about it is ignored and called an antisemitic.  


There's the real history of who you are and where you came from.

In reply to by Slack Jack

liyaa.jaaan FlKeysFisherman Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:17 Permalink

Google pay me $130 to 180$ per hour for online working from home.i have made $21K in this month online work from home.i am a regular student and i work 2 to 3 hours a day in my spare time easily from home..everybody can do this job and earn more dollars online in part time by just follow this link and follow details…
So Just Open This Website....


In reply to by FlKeysFisherman

LightBulb18 FlKeysFisherman Mon, 05/07/2018 - 03:40 Permalink

White gentiles think that it is due to their virtues and standards that dictates their standard of living. But the reality is that it has been Jewish money that made the british empire A world power, it is Jewish money that made American freedoms possible, and when the American gentiles reject justice for the Jewish people, it will end the subsidy of the American lifestyle, and shift Jewish money from the gentiles to the Jews of Israel alone, G-d willing, until the time when countries in the world accept the Jewish people as the chosen people of G-d, meriting the blessing of Jewish money and living in a society of bliss where good dominates evil according to the standards of each people. Perhaps support for the kingdom of G-d is more accurate than Jewish money, but without acceptance of His people, the Kingdom of G-d is impossible to attain. In G-d I trust.

In reply to by FlKeysFisherman

MoreSun Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 00:25 Permalink

The jews of the world declared war on the good people of Germany in March 1933, six full years before they finally forced Germany to move into Poland due to the killing and persecution of the native Germans by the Poles & the jews of Poland. And the fact that Poland would not grant a corridor to Danzig which had been stripped from Germany by the jews after jew war I.

The jew supremacists & their faked holohoax machine needs to be fully exposed on all levels and then proceed with a mega-scale prosecution process for their incessant ongoing worldwide crimes against humanity. 

In reply to by Déjà view

Harry Lightning MoreSun Mon, 05/07/2018 - 02:38 Permalink

So it was six million Jews among a German country of 60 million that caused the Nazis to become the belligerent force that ravaged much of Europe in the early 1940s ? Tell me, how many Jews lived in Leningrad and Stalingrad at the time ? If the Nazis became a warlike regime due to the actions of Jews, there must have been a lot of Jews up in those two Soviet cities for the Nazis to lay siege to them for so long at the cost of so many of their best young warriors. I am surprised that Stalin, in his numerous purges that claimed the lives of 20 million people, had not beaten Hitler to the punch and eradicated the Jewish presence in his country prior to Hitler doing it for him. In point of fact, why did Stalin even object to the Nazis ridding him of his Jewish populations in two of his most important cities ?

Your argument would be comical if it did not denigrate the sacrifice of 9 million innocent human beings by the Nazi butchers, 6 million Jews and 3 million Poles. You should re-evaluate your conclusions from a different perspective, such as how would you feel if you and your family was sent to concentration camps and starved to death because you opposed the political leadership of the country in which you live.

In reply to by MoreSun

Déjà view Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 03:00 Permalink

Lucky 10,000,000 Congolese murdered by Belgium King Leopold ll aka "Butcher of Congo" were not luck would have it...survivors hands and feet were severed from 'lazy' rubber harvesters...including children...

"Belligerence" was instilled much earlier...

30 Years' War 1618-48 (most destructive until WWl)

Episodes of widespread famine and disease devastated the population of the German states and, to a lesser extent, the Low Countries and Italy. Over the course of the war, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%. The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half. The population of the Czech lands declined by a third. The Swedish armies alone destroyed 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.…


9 Years' War 1688-97 mostly SW germany

Heidelberg Castle ruins fine example of French attempt to set town ablaze.

Napoleonic Wars 1803-15 mostly all of Germany. Poles were allied with French.



On 27 October, 1806, after the victories at Jena and Auerstädt two weeks earlier, Napoleon rode in triumph into Berlin passing under the Brandenburg Gate. It would appear that the four-horsed chariot caught his eye, because Vivant Denon, director of the Musée Napoléon (the museum which was to become the Louvre) gave the order for the work to be brought back to Paris.…

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 03:47 Permalink

What does this have to do with your argument that it was the presence of violent Jews that forced Germany to launch one of the most vicious wars to its time in history ? Sure, there have been other terrible wars in history, no one is doubting that. And Jews had nothing to do with them.

But in the specific instance we are discussing, you claimed that it was Jews who caused the Germans to become warlike. And if that is so, then I ask why did the Germans attack with their most forceful attacks areas where there were no Jews, rather than just reserve their war efforts against the people who you claim were the instigators of the conflict ?

In reply to by Déjà view

MoreSun Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 03:01 Permalink

Hey HL a not to subtle segueing attempt, you jew supremacist sympathizers are everywhere.

Please go read some true history and not the jew propagandized lies that have been shoved upon all the world for the past 80+ years. Really- Check previous posts, listed 35+ and you probably have not read one. Bet your a w. shirer the jew guy so-called NSDAP historian. You probably don't even know what NSDAP means.

You tell us about the jewish world congress and their incessant war cries, tell us about all the jew papers and activists in england and the financiers of churchills fallacies, tell us about the jews attacking Mosley in the streets with razor blades etc, tell us about edward bernays and all his fellow jew assosciates working for roosevelt propagandizing america for war against their fellow goys and on and on and on.

Either you are a jew supremacist or an extremely naive jew media propagandized individual. Its late and I'm sounding to fiesty, it just boils me bones when the lying jew so-called historians are used to supposedly inform the uninformed.

Karl Marx your buddy said "deny the people of their history and they are easy to control" It works for you don't it. 

Here HL, go ahead and explain away your jew supremacist buddies quotes below: 

"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but soon." - Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted in his book "The New Holy Alliance").

"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).

"We want to bring about a deep hatred for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We must hate until we win." - Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich Goitsch.

"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S. A will be formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." - Paul Dreyfus, "La Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938.

On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew boasted that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France, and that these "three sons of Israel will be sending the Nazi dictator to hell." - Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew.

"Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her. One may be sure of this: We will lead that war!" - Bernard Lecache, the president of the "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism," in its newspaper "Droit de Vivre" (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning MoreSun Mon, 05/07/2018 - 03:31 Permalink

Please, save your rubbish for the ignorant, I have no time for such nonsense. I am not Jewish nor am I communist, just a very objective observer of history...much of which you never availed yourself of learning because you locked into a mindset that foreclosed your ability to learn. 

Its your choice to believe in concocted fantasy about a people who most likely never did any harm to you but for whom you save the vitriol of what you perceive to be a failed life. I have better things to do than watch rubbish corrode.

btw, if you are trying to make the argument that WW2 was the result of Jewish hatred of the Germans as opposed to the debilitating effects of the Treaty of Versailles, you are arguing against a very detailed and exact rendition of history which no serious observer or historian would join you in.

I am surprised that you could ascribe such power to such a small group of Jewish European quasi-intellectuals...if what you believe is correct, did it ever dawn on you that the group to which you think had so much power to shape European opinion at the time must have been far more intelligent and superior than everyone else to pull off what you claim they did. How else could such a miniscule number of people cause all of Europe to fight a battle royale to the death if not being far more superior to the warring parties ? 

Sorry, but no one is that smart, that shrewd, that effective., They would have had to be a super race of human beings, which they were not. History is not made nor reported accurately by cherry picking some quotes of people who never left any noticeable mark on the societies in which they lived, notwithstanding your hyperbolic attempts at claiming otherwise.

In reply to by MoreSun

MoreSun Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 04:10 Permalink

Did not think you would try to refute anything with any substance, because facts you despise, so all you can do is shrilly scream " rubbish, anti-semite, racist, bigot" and then scream some more & more.

All the meanwhile you and yours plan, execute and create more death and destruction for the world- makes you happy, so you can all sit around and say to each other "we had a good day"

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning MoreSun Mon, 05/07/2018 - 04:19 Permalink

I have given you all the facts that are pertinent to this discussion without screaming or cap letters or bold type. Germany started WW2 as a result of the harsh punishment they received from the European nations and Britain in the Treaty Of Versailles. Had nothing to do with Jews. While it is true the Jews were political opponents of the Nazi Party, which is why they were rounded up and imprisoned, they had no military force that could compete with the German military, and hence no one in the Third Reich ever could or did consider them a military threat. 

Those are the facts that 99.9 percent of the world knows to be true. Why you would try to argue against what is already settled history is incomprehensible. 

In reply to by MoreSun

MoreSun Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 04:41 Permalink

Yes to 99.9 % of jewified propagandized zombies. But you are actually very, very wrong and that scares you a little don't it? 

The world has awoken from its pack of jew supremacist pacified pack of lies and fairy tales. You have lost the initiative and your starting to have to play not only a top notch offense but an equally great defense and even with all the U.S.A. aid to the tune of near 18 billion $'s you are finding it hard. That's history for you- the times they are a changing, as one of your fellows jews sang.

You find that very hard to accept, but it is true non the less- the world is waking up ! 

This may help you conceptualize:

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Déjà view Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 04:58 Permalink

“As anti-war sentiment gained strength throughout Russia,” writes Gilbert in his history of Israel, “the British government became increasingly anxious to find a way to persuade the Jews of Russia to regard an Allied victory as an essential element in Jewish national aspirations.”

Other historians posit the theory that the British Empire produced the declaration as a way to convince American Jews to use their influence to bolster US commitment to fight the war with Britain and France against Germany.…

Had France not insisted on German Alsace-Lorraine which was part of Germany from 900s' to 1648 when it was taken from a 30 Years' War devastated Germany there most likely would not have been a WWI...

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:17 Permalink

You left out the most important part of the story, which was why Eisenhower acceded to British requests to terminate the rule of Mossadegh. The Cold War was a very serious matter to the Americans of the early 1950's, and especially to their President Eisenhower who saw half of Europe fall under the control of totalitarian dictators in Moscow after he had just spent years of his life trying to free all of Europe from a German dictator. In that light its quite obvious that Mossadegh tried to play both ends of the candle and wound up getting his fingers burned. That's what happens in war, and make no mistake, the Cold War was not a polite exercise of war planners playing a board game. It was a shooting war of terrible proportion that damn near destroyed humanity. Mossadegh stumbled perhaps unknowingly right into the middle of that disastrous fray by at least giving the impression that he was going to ally his nation and their nationalized oil reserves and machinery with the Soviets. 

"The United States saw the coup essentially as a Cold War maneuver. For the British, who were also eager to overthrow Mossadegh, the main beef with the Iranian Prime Minister was that, in May of 1951, he had nationalized the oil fields controlled by the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, the precursor to BP. From the perspective of Washington, though, as the newly released documents confirm, Mossadegh’s biggest sin was his flirtation with the Soviet Union, which, like Britain, had colonial ties to Iran. As the animosity between Tehran and London escalated, the British moved to prevent Iran from selling any oil internationally, thus depriving the government of much-needed revenues. The C.I.A. and other U.S. agencies became concerned that Mossadegh would turn to the Soviets for economic and even military help. From the Agency’s history:

Had the British sent in the paratroops and warships, as they were to do a few years later against the Egyptians at Suez, it was almost certain that the Soviet Union would have occupied the northern portion of Iran.… It was also quite probable that the Soviet army would have moved south to drive British forces out on behalf of their Iranian “allies.” Then not only would Iran’s oil have been irretrievably lost to the West, but the defense chain around the Soviet Union which was part of U.S. foreign policy would have been breached. The Soviets would have had the opportunity to achieve the ancient Russian dream of a port on the Persian Gulf and to drive a wedge between Turkey and India. Under such circumstances, the danger of a third world war seemed very real. When it became apparent that many elements in Iran did not approve of Mosadeq’s continuing gamble or the direction in which he was pushing their country, the execution of a U.S.-assisted coup d’etat seemed a more desirable risk than letting matters run their unpredictable course."… 

In reply to by Déjà view

Déjà view Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:32 Permalink

Vietnam lack of OIL reserves...

French would have received U.S. assistance at Dien Bien Phu 1954 'Uncle Ho' communist siege...

NOT a communist platform: political and economic independence; the strengthening of civil society, and competent, corruption-free government. He further advocated for an independent judiciary, free elections, freedom of religion and political associations, women’s and worker’s rights.

In July 1951, with British-Iranian tensions continuing to rise, President Truman dispatched Secretary of Commerce Averell Harriman to Tehran to preempt a confrontation. The Truman administration opposed military action against Iran and appears to have sympathized with its position. Truman’s Democrats were seemingly of the view that diplomacy should be employed as a first strategy in dealing with the nationalization question. The following summary of the statement made by General Patrick J. Hurley before a Senate investigation committee convened in June 1951 is telling in this regard:

[T]he danger in Iran is from an imperialistic and colonial policy and not from communism. The Shah and the people of Iran had repeatedly complained to him about the colonial policy. And in this dispute the Oil company, who made enormous profits and gave a very small share to Iran, is to be blamed. It would have been more appropriate and just to sit down and see what can be done instead of threatening the country by paratroops. However, this was not done and like many similar problems it is now too late. (5)

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 01:57 Permalink

It was a series of miscalculations on the part of Truman relative to the Soviets that led to his party losing the Presidential election of 1952. Truman made some of the great errors of modern history, the first and foremost being his diversion of military aid from China and into the Marshall Plan to re-build Europe, which was the prime catalyst for the communist takeover of China. It was Truman's soft resolve to fight communism that led to the Cold War which lasted over forty years and cost the Americans trillions of dollars. Truman also rejected MacArthur's plan to counter-attack Mao's army and restore democracy to China. And he was the one who approved the atomic bombing of Japan when the question still remained whether a military blockade of what was an importing country at the time would not have achieved the same unconditional surrender that the morally questionable use of the atomic bomb brought forth.

I find it hard for anyone today to question the military and foreign policy decisions made by Eisenhower while he was President. No one at the time understood the world military and geo-political forces at work as well as Eisenhower, and for him to have approved the meddling in a foreign nation's politics - which he was extremely loathe to do - meant that he had some very good reasons to do so. Mossadegh clearly made the wrong moves on the international chess board at precisely the wrong time, which led to his demise. 

Remember also what Truman and his staff were not able to comprehend : throughout history, nearly all major outcomes between nation states have been achieved only at the point of a weapon. Diplomacy is the provence of the weak or the scared.

Regarding your take on Vietnam and US involvement - a topic dear to my heart as I spent four years of my life living in their jungles and fighting for my life - the US post war involvement there was a sordid tale. But one lie perpetuated about Vietnam was that Ho Chi Minh was a good guy who originally was aligned with the American democracy, a freedom fighter against the harsh methods of colonialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ho was a cunning rat, a sneak little fuck who feigned being in favor of democracy even though his entire life was characterized by study and embracement of Marxism and Leninism. He studied in Moscow, was a leader of communist student groups in France, and imported the Soviet brand of communism to his country. He was a vicious dictator who sent a million of his soldiers to their deaths, and millions more of his people to theirs. He accomplished nothing, as South Vietnam was lost only after the US cut off all military funding to defend the nation's democracy in 1975. 

Truman also miscalculated that situation, and it was far too late to be corrected by the time Eisenhower came to power. The French had made numerous mistakes in their stewardship of the country, and their military made the same mistakes as they always have made in warfare. Besides, the US had a more pressing issue in Korea by the time Eisenhower came to power. 

Bottom line was that Truman was a poor student of Asia, which is why he turned a blind eye to the deprivation of human political and social rights that occurred there during his time in office. Over a billion people are subjected to communist dictate today because of Truman's ignorance. 

In reply to by Déjà view

Déjà view Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 02:08 Permalink

"Bottom Line"...

Truman diary reveals scorn 'for cruel Jews'

"The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish," Truman wrote in July 1947, 10 months before the British mandate in Palestine expired and David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence.

"They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment."

He continued: "Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.…

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 02:20 Permalink

Don't you find it odd that Truman always found a way to turn his back on the defenders of freedom in favor of dictators who would just as soon shoot their citizens in the back of the head rather than give them the opportunity to have a say in how they are to be governed ? 

Global anti-semitism against Jewish people was not unusual in Truman's time, so its not surprising he felt as he did about them. The point that later became apparent to American political leaders is that whether or not you like Jews, Israel is the only true democracy in that region. As democracy's foremost defender, America has an obligation to support Israel as it does to support any democracy anywhere in the world.

Personally, I have known, worked with and worked for Jewish people. I was a bodyguard for a number of Hollywood bigwigs in the 1970s. Having come to America from a small sheep station in southwestern Australia via the jungles of Vietnam, I had not met many Jewish people in my life prior to my setting foot on American soil. I came away from the experience wondering if I had known the only nice and generous and intelligent Jews in the world. For as much as I heard so many bad things said about Jews, I found none of it to be correct. They were very good to me when I was in their employ, and many became my clients when I moved into more suitable work for a middle aged guy, becoming a stockbroker in the 1980s.

So maybe your experiences differ, but from what I have experienced in life you cannot get a bad word about Jewish people from me. Aside from the fact that you cannot get near a bakery on Sunday mornings in Jewish communities, which is offset by the fact that they seem to know where all the best Chinese joints are. 8-)

In reply to by Déjà view

Déjà view Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 02:32 Permalink

Billy Graham, Nixon and anti-Semitism: The Bombshell Tapes That Tarnished the Faith Leader's Reputation

''They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,'' Graham said to Nixon - "the Jewish stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,'' he continued.

Graham also confided in Nixon that he hid his true feelings about Jews from them: ''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal (then executive editor) at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''…


Kissinger in Nixon-era Document: Jews Are Self-serving 'Bastards'

According to transcripts released by the State Department, Kissinger, who was Haigs deputy, said to Garment: Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community? Kissinger is Jewish.

Garment, also Jewish, replied: None in the world.

At this point, Kissinger was quoted as saying What the hell do they think they are accomplishing?

Kissinger went on: You cant even tell bastards anything in confidence because they'll leak it.

In reply to by Harry Lightning

Harry Lightning Déjà view Mon, 05/07/2018 - 02:51 Permalink

And your point ? Graham and Nixon harbored ill feelings towards Jews. Which was not uncommon in their generation. Nixon may have felt that way but he did not govern that way, as he was a staunch defender of Israel and had as his closest national security a German Jewish guy. And yes, American Jews may quite well be self-serving, but only because they have been shrewd enough to game the system to get what they want. Anyone would do the same if they could, the complaint is more one of jealousy than anything else. I have heard that in the days of mass immigration from Europe, you could not get a job as a cop or fireman or union member in New York unless you were Irish. Were they wrong for getting control and keeping jobs for their own people ? Its human nature if you ask me.

I am amused by the people who think that the three million Jews in America somehow rule that country of 300 million people. Are Americans so intellectually blind so as not to make their own decisions but instead allow their minds to be held hostage to such a small group of people who are in the business of trying to guide public opinion (such as in Hollywood or in the media)? I traveled a great deal while in America and I never have seen such independent self-thinking people who will fight to the death to defend their thoughts and property. And so I cannot reconcile what I have seen with the idea that these same shotgun toting people would so easily surrender their minds to what a small group of Jewish people may be trying to get them to accept. 

Some may answer that the problem is with the politicians who seemingly are controlled by the Jewish lobby in the States. But don't those politicians have to stand for re-election ? And why would they get re-elected if they represent the will of the small number of Jews in America if that support flies in the face of what their constituents want ?

Jews are history's scapegoat, and continue to be. Whether you like them or not, you give them far more credit in influencing American policy than they deserve. America does the things it does because the people of the country re-elect 91% of the incumbents in your Parliament, not because some Jewish newspaper editor or movie producer is telling everyone how they should think. 

America has a boatload of problems which is why I departed when they elected that fool obama. Blaming Jews for the problems that the people themselves create and allow to fester is not going to get the country out of the messes it is in. Time for the people of the States to look in the mirror and start thinking about what they are doing wrong, and then change it, I think that Trump's election was a move in that direction, but it remains to be seen if America has the resolve to continue on the path of correction. Israel has no influence over that, because when you are in your voting booth, you are the one pulling the lever or chosing the box on the touch screen.

In reply to by Déjà view

Déjà view Harry Lightning Mon, 05/07/2018 - 03:16 Permalink

Henry Kissinger...

 “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be anti-Semitic,” he once quipped, and “any people who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.” Another time, he told a friend, “I was born Jewish, but the truth is that has no significance for me. … America has given me everything.”…

In reply to by Harry Lightning