That Guy on the Bridge

Sydney is getting weirder by the day:

"A protester is facing jail time and a fine of more than $22,000 after allegedly climbing the Sydney Harbour Bridge... The 33-year-old allegedly... hung the US, Iranian, Israeli and Australian flags off the bridge... It is understood the man is part of the Restart group fighting for regime change in Iran... Some 15 environmental activists were charged in May after the group protested on the harbour bridge to demand action on climate change." (Harbour protester faces jail, Emily Ritchie, The Australian, 8/7/19)

"A man who scaled the Sydney Harbour Bridge and unfurled a number of flags to protest against the 'oppressive Iranian regime' has avoided jail... The court heard that [Naghi] Pirzadeh, an Iranian national, was forced to flee his homeland after he stood up to the 'oppressive regime' and was beaten as a result.." (Iranian protester pleads guilty to Harbour bridge climb, avoids jail, smh.com.au, 8/7/19)

Interesting how this guy got off so lightly compared to those environmental activists cited in Richie's report. My initial thought was that this was a Mujahidin Khalq stunt connected to Reza Pahlavi, son of the deceased Shah of Iran (See my 28/3/18 post Bolton Out of the Blue), but, on closer examination of Restart, you'll find a Daily Beast Vendetta for ReStart tweet of 12/9/18 which reads as follows:

"Assuming the role of leader, Hosseini often issues instructions to his supporters via the Restart channel and announced that he wants to revive the empire of Cyrus the Great or create a Sufi empire." You'll see Hosseini in slick, over-the-top videos wearing a swanky bright blue jacket, accompanied by the image of a standing lion holding aloft a slightly curved sword with the the word restart written in Iranian script to its left, which leads me to suspect that what we have here is a member of monarchist group harking back to the dictatorial Shah of Iran.

Like I said, weirder by the day.

Scott Morrison Courts Trump at G20 Summit

Why not come and play golf here in Australia?

"Prime Minister Scott Morrison has invited US President Donald Trump to visit Melbourne in December... to attend the President's Cup golf tournament, seizing the opportunity to strengthen ties with the President during their working dinner at the G20 summit... While Mr Morrison extended his invitation during the private meeting, Mr Trump was asked during the opening remarks at the start of the meeting if he would attend the the golf tournament and replied: 'I'd like to. It might not be easy, but I'd like to." (PM invites President to visit in December for golf tournament, David Crowe, Sydney Morning Herald, 29-30/6/19)

Mind if we join you in a war against Iran?

"Prime Minister Scott Morrison backed Donald Trump in taking a harder line against Iran in an escalating dispute over its nuclear program after the US President came close to launching a retaliatory strike last week.* Mr Morrison said the federal government would throw its support behind Mr Trump's effort to force Iran to the negotiating table as experts predict it will breach its agreed cap on low-enriched uranium within days... Mr Morrison said Mr Trump made 'no requests' for Australian measures but he did not rule out military... assistance." (PM backs Trump on Iran, David Crowe/David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 29-30/6/19)

[*Clarification: Yes, I'm aware that Iran didn't attack any oil tankers, hence no "retaliatory strike."]

Morrison Itching to Attack Iran

Read and digest this opening paragraph from Peter Hartcher, international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Iran is far from Australia. Yet if it goes to war with America the consequences could be uncomfortably near." (Acute problem with US-Iran war, 25/6/19)

If IRAN goes to war with America?

Incredibly, what Hartcher is doing here is reversing over a century of US regime change dating back to the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii in 1893 under US president Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) (See Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, 2006, pp 11-30)

Typically, Hartcher's only concern is how this will affect Australia - and who does he cite on this matter? Who else but the former Liberal senator and Australian Army commander responsible for the siege of the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004, major-general Jim Molan:

"We are 90 per cent dependent on imported fuel... and we have only around 23 days' supply in Australia." (ibid)

Moving on, however, Hartcher cannot help but deal with the stark reality of the matter:

"The new US President pulled out of [Obama's] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)]. He was persuaded by the urgings of US hardliners and by the governments of Iran's biggest foes - its neighbours Israel and Saudi Arabia. These countries want Iran crushed, and they want the Americans to do the crushing for them." (ibid)

Will wonders never cease? Hartcher's got Israel right for once!

Now the Sydney Morning Herald of the same day (25/6/19) carried the following report:

"US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is touring the Middle East and Asia looking to build a global coalition against Iran... not only throughout the Gulf states, but in Asia and in Europe... " (Pompeo seeks anti-Iran coalition, Darlene Superville, AP)

Unsurprisingly, in yesterday's (26/6/19) Sydney Morning Herald, we read that:

"The Morrison government has left the door open to joining a co-ordinated international effort to ratchet up pressure on Iran, saying Australia is 'in consultation with our allies and partners' as tensions rise between Washington and Tehran." (Australia open to anti-Iran push, David Wroe)

Could it be any clearer than this? The United States is gunning for Iran, not, as Hartcher has it, the other way around. And Morrison wants in on the action, just like his Liberal Party predecessor John Howard did in 2003. Incredibly, we have learnt nothing as a nation since then.

Something Unique in Modern US Regime Change Wars

It must surely be unique in the context of post-World War II US regime change wars/imperial interventions that one has to go no further than the following report, Mission ends in flames, published in those two mainstream organs, the LA Times and the Washington Post.

So bold, blatant and in-your-face has the US lust for regime change in Iran become under Trump that, wonder of wonders, one has no need to look beyond the mainstream press itself to establish that dirty tricks, provocations and false flag operations are being deliberately used by the US as pretexts for a war against that country.

I rest my case:

"Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe went to Iran this week for a two-day trip that was aimed at cooling tensions in the region. And then things blew up. On Thursday, two oil tankers - one a Japanese-owned ship - came under suspected attack in the Gulf of Oman... US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo quickly blamed Tehran for what he called 'a blatant assault'... Shortly after, the US military released a video it said showed Iran's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded mine from the side of one of the tankers...  But the Japanese ship operator and sailors on board its ship, the Kokuka Courageous, saw 'flying objects' just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn't damaged by mines and contradicting the US military. The apparent attacks, a month after four other tankers were damaged in mine explosions that the Trump administration also blamed on Iran - without providing evidence - sharply raised fears in the strategically important region that Washington might use such incidents to punish the Islamic Republic even without ironclad proof of its involvement [...] Also unclear was what Iran would gain from such an assault - coinciding with Abe's high-profile visit to Tehran aimed at salvaging the 2015 international nuclear deal. Both ships, according to the Japanese government, were carrying 'Japan-related' cargo, leading Iranian foreign Minister Javid Zarif to question the timing of the apparent attacks. 'Reported attacks on Japan-related tankers occurred while PM Shinzo Abe was meeting Ayatollah Khamenei for extensive and friendly talks. 'Suspicious,' he tweeted, 'doesn't begin to describe what likely happened this morning'." (Nabih Bulos, 15/6/19)

Spotlighting Netanyahu's Role in the US War on Iran

The following article (If the US goes to war with Iran, Netanyahu will be the prime suspect, Chemi Shalev, Haaretz, 16/5/19), is of considerable interest when we consider that Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister at the time of the 2003 Iraq War, felt obliged to keep as low a profile as possible with respect to Israel's crucial role as the key detonator of the war. Sharon relied instead on his US Ziocon assets and the Israel lobby to steer the Bush administration in the direction he wanted, that of regime change and the balkanisation of Iraq, and to utililise the US military, as opposed to the Israeli, to bring this about.

Since that time, it should be clear to all and sundry that the current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has ditched the pretense of Israel as an innocent bystander in matters of regional regime change and balkanisation, and come out, time and again, publicly swinging in favour of a war with Iran. As Shalev points out, if and when the US takes on Iran militarily, there'll be no hiding the key role of Netanyahu's Israel in initiating the move to Iraq Iran. (Note that I have somewhat truncated Shalev's essay in order to highlight his thesis):

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the only world leader to openly express support for the escalating US campaign against Iran, but his statement is an exception to the general Israeli rule... The attempt to distance itself from an American military operation in the Middle East, as if Israel were merely a fan sitting in the bleachers cheering its favorite team, inevitably sparks analogies to Yitzhak Shamir's policy of restraint in the 1991 Gulf War and Ariel Sharon's similar attitude during the 2003 war in Iraq... And while Israel did not come under direct attack in the 2003 Iraq War, it was nonetheless compelled to defend itself against claims, which proliferated as the war progressed, that it had pushed President George W. Bush to decide on the attack in the first place. In the lead up to that ill-fated war, Netanyahu was once again one of a handful of prominent Israelis who preferred to break the silence. In public testimony before the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives in 2002, Netanyahu assured American lawmakers that Saddam either had nuclear weapons or was on the verge of acquiring them... Deposing Saddam, Netanyahu promised, would do wonders for the Middle East as a whole...

"But even without his damning testimony from the past... if war breaks out between the US and Iran, he will be named as the prime suspect as far as its opponents are concerned. Netanyahu... persuaded Donald Trump to abandon Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu convinced Trump that a combination of crippling economic sanctions and a credible military threat will force Tehran to beg for a new and improved nuclear deal, which will include its malevolent regional activities... Netanyahu become a one-man cheerleading squad for Trump's latest moves.

"But while the campaign to blame Israel for the Iraq War was limited to a relatively small clique of its most vociferous critics - the most prominent of which were Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their book about the Israel lobby - conflagration with Iran would dramatically expand the circle of Israel-accusers... It's situation today is substantially worse. After burning his bridges with American liberals, including most Jews... many Democrats are far more likely to point fingers at Netanyahu the moment the first American soldier is killed... Netanyahu believes that the Iranian leadership, like much of the Arab, understands only force. He is convinced that the intense economic pressure coupled with the nightmarish specter of American bombers laying waste to their country will compel Tehran to come back to the negotiating table on all fours in order to carve out the fabled 'better agreement' that both Trump and Netanyahu claim, with no evidence, is eminently achievable... [But] Iran does not view itself as a weak and vulnerable state that has no choice but to capitulate to US ultimatums, but as an equal rival determined to foil Trump or, at worst, survive him...

"Small wonder that in the past 48 hours, White House officials have started to brief US reporters that Trump is less happy with the bellicose approach of his National Security adviser John Bolton, known as one of Israel's closest confidantes in Washington. The catalyst for Trump's reservations was the leaked story of a Pentagon paper prepared for Bolton that envisaged sending 120,000 US troops to fight against the Iranians. Trump boasted that if it came to open conflict, the size of the US force would be much larger, but distanced himself from what critics describe as the warmongering winds emanating from Bolton's office. Experienced Washington observers claim that, based on previous patterns, Trump will soon start criticizing Bolton in public and, after a short hiatus, boot him out of the White House as well... Netanyahu may have to face the possibility that his all-in bet on Trump has failed to produce the dividends he sought and that the anti-Iran strategy built on his beautiful friendship with the US president could be on the verge of collapse.

"The remaining options are both unpalatable for Netanyahu. The first is that Iran will resist recently fortified economics sanctions and continue to incrementally abandon its commitments under the 2015 nuclear accord, without risking any retaliation from the countries that still adhere to it. The second is a military fare-up between Iran and the US, which or may not cripple Tehran's nuclear infrastructure but is certain to inflict human suffering, financial upheaval, escalating internal strife in Washington and the certainty that Netanyahu will be held responsible for them all. Worse, Trump may eventually reach the same conclusion."

Trump Conscripts Morrison

Strap yourself in, Australia, and brace yourself for what could be Christian Zionist PM Scott Morrison's first regime change war:

"The ABC confirmed the President and Mr Morrison spoke at length about security challenges around the world, especially Iran. Mr Trump warned Tehran to 'never threaten the United States again' as concerns over a potential US-Iran conflict escalate. The US is sending B-52 bombers to the Middle East to counter what the Trump administration says are 'clear indications' of threats from Iran to US forces there. Shortly after the leaders spoke, the White House issued a formal read-out of their conversation. 'The two leaders reaffirmed the critical importance of the long-standing alliance and friendship between the United States and Australia, and they pledged to continue their close cooperation on shared priorities,' Deputy Press Secretary said in a press statement." (Donald Trump likens Scott Morrison's election victory to his 2016 presidential win and Brexit, Andrew Probyn/Andrew Greene, 20/5/19, abc.net.au)

The Ascendancy of the Christian Zionist Crazies

Under the presidency of George W Bush (2001-09), the US administration was riddled with neocon crazies (or "fucking crazies" as then secretary of state Colin Powell once memorably referred to them), who recognised no difference between US and Israeli interests, and were responsible for tearing Iraq limb from limb from 2003 on.

In addition to its share of neocon crazies, such as national security adviser John Bolton, and special representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams, the current Trump administration contains yet another layer of lunacy - Christian Zionists, such as vice president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who are itching to do to Iran what Bush and his neocons did to Iraq.

For example, could the annals of US foreign policy possibly furnish anything quite as crazy as the following exchange between Chris Mitchell, Middle East Bureau Chief of the US Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), and Pompeo at a recent press conference in Jerusalem?

Q: "Could it be that President Trump right now has been raised up for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace?"

A: "As a Christian, I certainly believe that's possible. It was remarkable - so we were down in the tunnels where we could see 3,000 years ago... the remarkable history of the faith in this place and the work that our administration's done to make sure that this democracy in the Middle East, that this Jewish state remains. I am confident that the Lord is at work here." (Secretary of State Pompeo to CBN news: God may have raised up Trump like he raised up Queen Esther, David Brody, cbn.com, 21/3/19)

(For those unversed in obscure biblical lore, Esther, a Jewish queen of the Persian king Ahasuerus, is credited with interceding with her husband to save her people from the plotting of his evil adviser Haman.)

Hands Off Iran

February 11 marked the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which toppled the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah, whom the US had installed after overthrowing the democratically-elected government of prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.

Trump, of course, bent on a reprise of the 1953 coup, used the occasion to tweet his tender concern for "the long-suffering Iranian people":

"40 years of corruption. 40 years of repression. 40 years of terror. The regime in Iran has produced only #40YearsofFailure. The long-suffering Iranian people deserve a much brighter future."

In response Iran's foreign minister simply spelt out the facts:

"#40YearsofFailure to accept that Iranians will never return to submission. #40YearsofFailure to adjust US policy to reality. #40YearsofFailure to destabilise Iran through blood and treasure. After 40 years of wrong choices, time for @DonaldTrump to rethink failed US policy."

The Good Old Days

Times journalist Charles Bremner profiles 80-year-old Farah Pahlavi, widow of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last shah of Iran, whose inglorious reign ended in 1979 with the birth of the Islamic Republic (A queen's treasure, The Australian, 9/2/19). Some gems from the former empress:

"In those days, Iranians were respected everywhere in the world, says the woman who was called the Jackie Kennedy of the East. 'Now you say you're from Iran and people look at you as if you'd said you come from god knows where. For 90 countries in the world, Iranians didn't need a visa. Now, even with a foreign passport they stop you at the frontier with 10,000 questions'."

"Devoting her life at a distance to the cause of the shah's orphaned people has enabled her to survive terrible knocks, she says."

"She is fueled by bitterness for the mullahs who, in her view, fomented revolution in 1978 with the connivance of communists, drove out a beloved monarch and crushed his people under Islamic dictatorship."

"Pahlavi... finds no fault in her late husband's reign. 'His Majesty', as she still calls him, was for her the wise and beloved father of a grateful nation."

"It is natural, she says, that Iranians yearn for a return of the shah. Reza [her 58-year-old son] is working from his Washington DC base to offer himself, should they want one day to restore him at the head of a constitutional monarchy."

What better example of the old adage 'They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing' than this?

US Imperialism: Red in Tooth & Claw...

... and, in the case of Iran, as elsewhere in today's Middle East, doing Israel's bidding:

"The Iranian regime has a choice: it can either do a 180-degree turn from its outlaw course of action and act like a normal country, or it can see its economy crumble, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said." (Iran on notice for 'outlaw policies', The Australian/ Reuters, 7/11/18)

Trump Whisperers

Just to revisit the issue of rising petrol prices:

"The risk of a global energy shock is rising rapidly as the looming US sanctions on Iran and a rising US dollar combine to export layers of stress to the rest of the world. While the renewed US sanctions don't officially kick in until early next month they are already having a significant effect as Iran's customers scramble to find different sources of supply. Iranian oil production is falling quite rapidly... Trump, who sometimes appears to have trouble seeing the relationship between cause (his sanctions) and effect (the soaring oil prices) has accused OPEC of 'ripping off' the the rest of the world." (Rising oil prices, $US put pressure on energy costs, Stephen Bartholomeusz, Sydney Morning Herald, 4/10/18)

There is, of course, more to this msm story than meets the eye. But don't expect it to be spelt out in the corporate media. Sure, you'll hear some gibberish on the matter from Trump from time to time, but don't be deceived. It's those who are whispering in his ear that matter here, in particular US national security adviser John Bolton and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bolton is a neocon - more accurately Ziocon - from the Bush era, and a long-time advocate for regime change in the Middle East, including, of course, Iraq. He has a record, like his fellow Ziocons, who became an integral part of the Bush administration, of wanting to topple Middle East governments opposed to Israel, and reconfigure the Middle East in its interests, stretching back to his association with neocon think tank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the 90s. Revealingly, in 2005, Bolton was awarded the Zionist Organisation of America's Defender of Israel award.

Netanyahu's obsession with Iran as a so-called existential threat to Israel also goes back decades. One only has to observe his theatrical sabre-rattling directed against Iran in the UNGA and other international fora, not to mention his unprecedented hold (through the Israel lobby) over both houses of the US Congress and his easy access to the president himself.

If you really want to understand why you're paying more for your petrol, mark these words of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter from his 2006 book, Target Iran. (p 208):

"The conflict currently underway between the US and Iran is, first and foremost, a conflict born in Israel. It is based upon an Israeli contention that Iran poses a threat to Israel, and defined by Israeli assertions that Iran possesses a nuclear weapons program. None of this has been shown to be true, and indeed much of the allegations made by Israel against Iran have been clearly demonstrated as being false. And yet the US continues to trumpet the Israeli claims, and no individual more loudly than the US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton."

In Case You Were Wondering

"The CEO of peak industry body the Australian Institute of Petroleum, Paul Barrett, said: 'The basic reason why [petrol] prices have gone up over the last six months is a tightening crude oil market driven by Iranian sanctions, Saudi tightness because of a war in Yemen, Venezuelan production going through the floor and disruptions in Libya." (Gouging fuels $1.2bn petrol costs hike, Sam Buckingham-Jones, The Australian, 1/10/18)

Go figure...

The CIA's Regime Change Playbook (1953)

An absolute must-read, 1953 Iran coup - a crime authored in London and Washington, by John Wright (rt.com, 17/8/18):

"This week marks 65 years since the Western-orchestrated coup in Iran. August 19, 1953 is the day that Iranians were taught a hard lesson in the rules of the game when it comes to empire and hegemony. For on this day, the country's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown at the hands of Washington and London. It was, by any measure, an act of international banditry that continues to cry out for just redress.

"Operation Ajax was planned, organized and unleashed by the CIA in conjunction with MI6 in response to the decision that was taken by Mossadegh - acting with the support of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) - to nationalize Iran's oil and husband the resulting revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people. Up to this point, the lion's share of the revenue garnered from the exploitation of Iranian oil was sucked out of the country by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - the British state-owned oil company established in 1908 with this objective in mind and the forerunner of today's global oil conglomerate BP.

"London's colonial assertion of control over Iran's natural resource was undertaken at the point when its Royal Navy was moving from coal to oil-powered engines. In the interests of an empire that covered a quarter of the world at that time, the global reach of the Royal Navy was indispensable. Thus, the domination and exploitation of Iran's oil assumed, for London, a priority of critical strategic importance. None other than Britain's future prime minister, Winston Churchill, proclaimed the importance of Persian [Iranian] oil with customary bombast: 'Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams. Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.' Such an open celebration of the opportunity for national enrichment at another country's expense is so unabashed it would make a low-rent mafia hood blush.

"Over the years of Britain's control of Iranian oil, Tehran received a derisory percentage. It was a one-sided arrangement of such unabashed colonial arrogance that it could only succeed in triggering a rise in national consciousness. And it was on the back of this rise in national consciousness that Mohammed Mossadegh was appointed Iran's prime minister in 1951 by a reluctant shah, upon being nominated for the post by the country's parliament (Majlis) by an overwhelming majority. The young shah, Mohammad Reza, whose father had been forced of the throne in 1941 by the British and the Soviets due to his pro-German sympathies in World War II, sat on the throne as a constitutional monarch during this period.

"Mossadegh and the nationalist current he represented was anathema to the shah's ambitions that were encouraged by the British with the protection of its oil interests in mind, resulting in rising tensions as the country approached a crossroads in its history. Upon coming to power, Mossadegh carried through his plan of nationalizing and seizing control of Iran's oil reserves from the British, while confiscating the assets of the AIOC. Mossadegh justified his actions thus: 'Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries [over a just distribution of oil revenues] have yielded no results... With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people.' He went on: 'Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.'

"The British responded by making it impossible for Iran to sell its newly nationalized crude on the world market. However, for a colonial power whose empire had gone into steep decline, this wasn't enough to satisfy its desire for retribution. Lacking the requisite strength and ability to settle accounts on its own, it was then that London turned to Washington, which had been established as the first among equals of Western imperial powers, for assistance. The reasoning employed by London to draw the Americans into their feud with Mossadegh was that Iran was in danger of turning communist, citing the growing popularity of the country's Tudeh (Communist) Party as evidence. With Washington in the throes of anti-Soviet and anti-communist fever, it succeeded and the plan to topple Mossadegh - Operation Ajax - was put in motion with the CIA assuming the lead role. Key to its success was the bribing of senior army and police officers, along with journalists, religious clerics, and members of the Iranian parliament, who were tasked with whipping up anti-Mossadegh sentiment. A smear campaign, designed to inflame the religiosity of a large section of the Iranian population, accused Mossadegh of being a communist.

"According to declassified CIA documents, when it began on August 15, the coup appeared to have failed. Mossadegh's security forces made dozens of arrests and forced the shah, who was also in on the conspiracy, to flee the country. However, utilizing the momentum of mass demonstrations that were organized with money provided by the CIA, on August 19, 1953, Mossadegh was arrested along with thousands of his supporters. Thereafter, the shah returned from exile to become Washington's placeman, ruling the country with extreme brutality and corruption, until the Iranian Revolution removed him and his clique from power in 1979.

"The context to this history is, of course, Washington's unremitting demonization of Iran today. The false depiction of the country as a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to the region has been used to justify the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), the tightening of sanctions, and the looming threat of war. The fact that the precise opposite is the case - ie that Iran has been indispensable in combating Western-backed terrorism in the region and stands as a pillar of resistance to the sectarian regional ambitions of key US strategic allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia - has been willfully abstracted in favor of this Alice in Wonderland narrative.

"The CIA- and MI6-orchestrated coup to topple Mohammad Mossadegh reminds us that no region has endured more at the hands of US hegemony than the Middle East. It cements, as well, Mossadegh's place in history as a man with the courage to defy the West. It is a proud legacy of defiance that lives on in the refusal of the Iranian people to submit to Washington's writ in our time. While that will be rightly celebrated in Tehran on the 65th anniversary of the CIA-led coup, the eve of the occasion was marked in Washington this week by the creation of a so-called Iran Action Group, tasked with coordinating its policy towards Iran, and with 'changing its regime's behavior'."

As it happens, Friday's Australian republished a Wall Street Journal piece - part of the propaganda barrage currently softening us up for a hot war with Iran - contained an unctuous column by Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the late King of Kings and Light of the Aryans, Mohammad Reza. Some gems:

"My life's mission is not to assume a personal leadership role in the future state; it is... to serve as a source of hope... for the Iranian people."

On the other hand, if they really want me...

"The Iranian people have a message: we want our country back."

We the people! LOL

"From the inception, the regime has sought to subvert Iran by transforming it from a nation into a cause... It denies our people the right to gather for special occasions at the tombs of their heroes."

What? The tomb of granddaddy, Reza Shah? Certainly not Mossadegh's.

"[Iranians] want to be sought out by other other countries as trusted friends and partners as they take charge of their country and lead it into a new chapter of history."

Reza wants a kiss and a cuddle from USrael, just like his Dad.

When Zionists Urge

The "independent, always" Sydney Morning Herald is now almost as much a conveyor belt for Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) propaganda as Murdoch's Australian.

In today's AIJAC emission, Colin Rubenstein, AIJAC's executive director, informs us, essentially, that Iran is a rogue state, run by extremists - a classic case, of course, of the pot calling the kettle black.

Particularly touching is his tender concern for the "long-suffering" people of Iran. What a mensch!

But it's this that really gets me heaving:

"Australia needs a clear and consistent position that should be based on Australia's national interest in robustly addressing the threat posed by a belligerent, expansionist and irresponsible (pot/kettle/black again!) Iran." (Australia must face the new Iran reality, 13/8/18)

A Zionist operative pontificating on the subject of Australia's "national interest"?

Think about that!

Was it not Zionist operatives, otherwise known as neocons, who were instrumental in persuading the Americans that it was in their national interest to invade Iraq in 2003? And, hey, didn't that end well?

And was it not Zionist operatives, in the form of Chaim Weizmann's Zionist Organisation, who persuaded Lord Balfour and his colleagues in 1917 that it was in Britain's national interest to lay the foundations of a Jewish State in Palestine? And, hey, how has that turned out?

And don't forget: when a Zionist operative urges us to "robustly address" a "threat," think what he means by that word 'robust'.

Think Deir Yassin, or Sabra & Shatila. Think operations Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge. Think death, hell and the grave.

Have a nice day!

How a Hot War With Iran Might Look

Former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, anticipates how Iran might respond to ongoing USraeli* aggression:

"Iran learned the lessons of Hezbollah's ongoing conflict with Israel, and in particular that of the 2006 war, all too well. To win the war, Hezbollah did not need to defeat Israel, it had only to make sure Israel did not defeat it. This is an ambition Iran readily aspires to - it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, cripple the global economy and ride out any American military response. In the end, the United States will succumb to international pressure and search for a negotiated settlement, and Iran will emerge victorious simply because it survived. Iran would accept this outcome rather than surrender its hard-won diplomatic achievement regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)." From Three reasons why 'fire & fury won't work with Iran, truthdig.com, 3/8/18)

[*USraeli? Of course! Here's Ritter again, laying it on the line in his 2006 book Target Iran: "The conflict currently underway between the US and Iran is, first and foremost, a conflict born in Israel. It is based upon an Israeli contention that Iran poses a threat to Israel, and defined by Israeli assertions that Iran possesses a nuclear weapons program. None of this has been shown to be true, and indeed much of the allegations made by Israel against Iran have been clearly demonstrated as being false. And yet the US continues to trumpet the Israeli claims, and no individual more loudly than the US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton." (p 208)]

Trump Fires the First Shot...

... in USrael's regime change war on Iran:

"You cannot stand with Iranian people and at the same time destroy all of their life savings and any chance they have to put food on the table. By imposing sanctions aimed at destroying the Iranian economy, Trump is declaring economic war on the people of Iran." Trita Parsi tweet, Aug 6

Who is Mohammad?

Ever notice how corporate journalists sometimes feature in their reports the views of a member of the public who appears to be, at one and the same time, both a village idiot and an apologist for imperial military intervention?

Meet Guardian journalist Saeed Kamali Dehghan's 'Mohammed':

"A combination of factors ranging from economic grievances and a lack of social and political freedoms to international pressure and sanctions has put [Iran] under unprecedented pressure. Many Iranians would now agree with Mohammad [?] that the country faces a pivotal moment. 'People are desperate to find a way out,' he says. 'If it's war, so it be, but quick; if it's reaching an agreement, so it be, but quick; if it's regime change, so it be, but quick'." ('Desperate to find a way out': Iran edges towards precipice, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, theguardian.com, 20/7/18)

I mean, surely only a complete dill could possibly imagine war or regime change as "quick."

Then there's this bizarre assertion from 'Mohammad':

"All the 'down to America', 'down to Israel' chants put us in this agony."

I mean, hello? doesn't it occur to him that launching an economic war (aka sanctions) on Iran is just a tad over-the-top for protests against USraeli bullying in the region.

Who the fuck is 'Mohammad'? Sacha Baron Cohen?

Going for the Soft Underbelly

Cor blimey, if this Mordechai Kedar chap isn't the love-child of Oded Yinon, then my name isn't Sir Mark Sykes:

"We may see reports of the frictions only occasionally, but Iran is always a nation on the verge of fragmenting - and right now things are particularly fragile. The social makeup of Iran's population is complex because there is no such thing as an Iranian people or Iranian nation. There are, instead, Iranian citizens divided into many ethnic groups [...] There is a deep hatred of the ayatollahs simmering inside large sectors of Iranian society, a hatred that burst into the streets in a series of large demonstrations last November... The cry 'death to the dictator' was shouted by many, including many women who stood on podiums in front of the public, removed their head coverings and hung them on sticks to show their mockery for the Islamic law they are forced to observe... This is the soft underbelly to which anyone concerned about Iran must pay heed. It is the target at which arrows must be aimed, straight at those ethnic groups fighting for independence and the restless youngsters fighting for liberty. The civilised world can and should find those anti-ayatollah forces, support them and empower them to bring Iran to the same end that met the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia by creating homogenous ethnic states on the ruins of the artificial state of Iran." (Iran is hardly a nation and will likely fall apart, Mordechai Kedar, The Australian, 17/7/18)

And note how Trump, in his own deranged way, seems to be reading from the same script:

"Later, Mr Trump said Russia's position on Iran was because of trading benefits between Moscow and Tehran. 'It is not good for us or for the world, but they have riots in all their cities,' Mr Trump told Fox News of Iran's situation. 'The inflation is rampant, going through the roof. And not that you want to hurt anybody, but that regime wouldn't let the people know that we are behind them 100 per cent'." (Backing for Bibi unlikely unifier, Jacquelin Magnay, The Australian, 18/7/18)

Iran: The Reality

Iran has long been the subject of a demonisation campaign by USrael and its camp followers*, and as my previous post indicates, western public opinion is being softened up for a forced regime change in Tehran. In these uncertain times, therefore, it is important to understand just what is at stake here. The following, heartbreaking, story, from The Irish Times, shows, like no other, just how undeserved is the prevailing, assiduously cultivated and promoted, negative image of Iran in the West:

"Irish paediatric oncologist Dr Trish Scanlan was in unfamiliar surroundings when she broke down and cried some weeks ago. Sitting with the chief of paediatric oncology in the Mahak hospital in Tehran... she became overwhelmed when she found what she had spent more than a decade travelling the world in search of.

"Scanlan works with children suffering from cancer in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In her 11 years there, she has failed to save a single child suffering from a particularly aggressive form of cancer called acute myeloid leukemia (AML), which affects the blood and bone marrow. Dozens of children are diagnosed with the condition each year, and the treatment is both toxic and expensive. The hospitals in Tanzania are simply not equipped for the job. 'We don't have enough blood products, platelets and other support care to get the children through the treatment because it's basically like hitting them over the head with a sledgehammer, and doing that at least four times,' Scanlan says. 'We get through one, two or even sometimes three of these courses, and they usually die of fever, sepsis or want of blood. We've never managed to cure a child. They all died, which is really sad because Crumlin [Ireland's largest paediatric hospital] for example would probably save about 60%. I've tried to get help. I've had help from all over the world for all the things I do, but to treat a child with AML costs $50,000. Loads of countries and hospitals help us but it was beyond their ability tp provide support for 30-40 children. It's a lot of cash. I had tried and tried and tried. I had been all over Europe, America, South Africa and India, but I had never been able to access a hospital that was willing and able to support these kids.'

"A few weeks ago, Scanlan flew to Tehran. As she landed, she was on edge. 'When you arrive in somewhere like Iran - the axis of evil - you wonder what people are going to be like,' she says. 'I thought I was going to a closed, suspicious sort of place.' But, as she made her way through the airport, queuing for visas and collecting baggage, she found 'entirely the opposite' was the case. 'People were offering me cakes and tea,' she says. 'I've never been to a place where the people were doing everything in their power to make each situation as pleasurable and friendly as possible.'

"During her stay, Scanlan visited Mahak hospital, an independent organisation supporting children with cancer, funded entirely through charitable donations. The idea was to go and see how they do things, and hopefully learn something to take back to Tanzania. 'Everywhere we went people knew about Mahak,' she says. 'It provides all the cancer services for Iran. They will pay for children's cancer care in any hospital in the country. You send them the bill and they pay it. If the children survive, they pay for all of their schooling up to and including university. I can't tell you how unbelievable they are.' Following her tour of the hospital and meetings with department heads, Scanlan asked whether she could give a presentation of her week in Tanzania. They agreed, and she told them all about the children suffering and dying from AML. 'When I'd finished, we all sat down and they asked what they could do to help,' she says. 'I asked was there any way they could take the AML kids, and they just said: 'Sure. No problem. No charge.' They asked could we afford to transport them and I said we'd find a way. If we could get the kids to the door of the hospital, they would take care of them after that. I started to cry. I've been looking for an answer to this for 10 years, so it was pretty insane.'

"The very next day though, everything changed. US president Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, reimposing sanctions on the Gulf state. 'The price of things  - simple commodities - went up overnight by as much as 50 per cent,' says Scanlan.'A run on the banks had closed foreign exchange. Naively I thought the sanctions wouldn't affect the hospital or the work of the charity where they don't apply, but they do apply to the money it uses to pay for everything. From one day to the next after that, people were glued to the television screen or radio. They were waiting for the next announcement. It wasn't a small deal what happened. They were holding their breath, waiting for how it was going to affect them.'

'The following night, Scanlan had dinner with the two women who set up Mahak. 'These were jolly, fun, really dynamic women,' she says. 'Both of them were like: 'We think war is coming.' These were not histrionic, dramatic women. Both of them had set this up 27 years ago in the middle of sanctions. These weren't women to flip. They said the offer was still there but that we needed to think very carefully about bringing children to a potential warzone."

'Despite the change in the landscape, Scanlan is determined to press on. 'We're going forward with the idea, but we're on tenterhooks because we certainly don't want a child to go and be at risk,' she says. 'It's mind-blowing what's happened. I don't know what the future holds. But I know that in recent weeks, a hospital in Tehran, funded by ordinary Iranians, offered to help children with cancer in Tanzania. In times full of threats, this was a promise of humanity'." (15/7/18)

Think about it: Iran is under attack, currently by sanctions, later by God-knows-what, from a country where paying for medical expenses can bankrupt you.

[*By way of a reminder, here's the latest dollop, in Sydney's Sunday Telegraph, from Piers Akerman: "Iran is offering hyper-malevolent support for terrorism in the Middle East and supporting all manner of criminal activity elsewhere." (15/7/18)

What Modern War Propaganda Looks Like

War propaganda alert from Caitlin Johnstone: This is what modern war propaganda looks like (medium.com, 5/7/18)

"I've been noticing videos going viral the last few days, some with millions of views, about Muslim women bravely fighting to free themselves from oppression in the Middle East. The videos, curiously, are being shared enthusiastically by many Republicans and pro-Israel hawks, who aren't traditionally the sort of crowd you see rallying to support the civil rights of Muslims.

"Well, you may want to sit down for this shocker, but it turns out that they happen to be women from a nation that the US war machine is currently escalating operations against. They are Iranian.

"Whenever you see the sudden emergence of an attractive media campaign that is sympathetic to the plight of civilians in a resource-rich nation unaligned with the western empire, you are seeing propaganda. When that nation is surrounded by other nations with similar human rights transgressions and yet those transgressions are ignored by that same media campaign, you are most certainly seeing propaganda. When that nation just so happens to already be the target of starvation sanctions and escalated covert CIA ops, you can bet the farm that you are seeing propaganda.

"Back in December a memo was leaked from inside the Trump administration showing how then-Secretary of State, DC neophyte Rex Tillerson, was coached on how the US empire uses human rights as a pretense on which to attack and undermine noncompliant governments. Politico reports: The May 17 memo reads like a crash course for a businessman-turned-diplomat, and its conclusion offers a starkly realist vision: that the US should use human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 'Allies should be treated differently - and better - than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,' argued the memo, written by Tillerson's influential policy aide, Brian Hook.

"The propaganda machine doesn't operate any differently from the State Department, since they serve the same establishment. US ally Saudi Arabia is celebrated by the mass media for 'liberal reform' in allowing women to drive despite hard evidence that those 'reforms' are barely surface-level cosmetics to present a pretty face to the western world, but Iranian women, who have been able to drive for years, are painted as uniquely oppressed. Iran is condemned by establishment war whores for the flaws in its democratic process, while Saudi Arabia, an actual monarchy, goes completely unscrutinized. This is because the US-centralized power establishment, which has never at any point in its history cared about human rights, plans on effecting regime change in Iran by any means necessary. Should those means necessitate a potentially controversial degree of direct military engagement, the empire needs to make sure it retains control of the narrative.

"This is what war propaganda looks like in the era of social media. It will never look ugly. It will never directly show you its real intentions. If it did, it wouldn't work. It can't just come right out and say 'Hey we need to do horrible, evil things to the people in this country on the other side of the world in your name using your resources, please play along without making a fuss.' It will necessarily look fresh and fun and rebellious. It will look appealing. It will look sexy.

"And it's working. I am currently getting tagged in these videos multiple times a day by Trump supporters who are eager to show me proof that I'm on the wrong side of the Iran issue; the psyop is so well-lubricated with a combination of sleek presentation and confirmation bias that it slides right past their skepticism and becomes accepted as fact, even the one with the Now This pussyhat propaganda logo in the corner.

"Be less trusting of these monsters, please. The people of Afghanistan haven't benefited from the interminable military quagmire that has cost tens of thousands of their lives. The invaders of Iraq were never 'greeted as liberators' by an oppressed population. The humanitarian intervention in Libya left a humanitarian catastrophe in its wake far more horrific than anything it claimed to be trying to prevent. Saving the children of Syria with western interventionism has left half a million Syrians dead.

"If the Iranians do in fact wish to change their government, it should happen without crippling sanctions, collaboration with extremist terror cults, or the rapey tentacles of the CIA manipulating the situation. There has never been a US-led regime change in the Middle East that wasn't disastrous. People should be screaming at the US and its allies to cease these interventions, not applauding propaganda that is clearly being manufactured by that same empire."