Tuesday 26th of November 2024

the american conquest of europe after WW2 — killers of the republic.....

THE AMERICANS AND THE ENGLISH WORKED A PLOT TO DESTROY GENERAL DE GAULLE AND FRANCE (AND EUROPE), VIA ISRAEL'S MOSSAD... FAR FETCHED?

 

BY LEE FERRAN

I have no compunctions about eliminating a particularly dangerous man,the short, unremarkable Frenchman said flatly. “Killing… one of your American presidents would serve no purpose; they would simply be replaced by someone else. But de Gaulle embodied a policy; he was irreplaceable…

 

Though they’re are on the printed page, there’s almost a visible wistfulness in Alain de Bougrenet de la Tocnaye’s words. If only — if only his plot to murder then-French President Charles de Gaulle in 1962 had succeeded, things would’ve gotten better.

“We had reached a point where the guns were going off by themselves,” he told The New York Times a decade after the plot. “Killing de Gaulle was only the first step; we would have proceeded with a coup d’état.”

Instead, de la Tocnaye’s bumbling band of assassins managed only to wound de Gaulle’s car in a poorly executed drive-by attack. Still, the attempt would make de la Tocnaye famous around the world, if not for his real-life action than for the infamous espionage villain he helped inspire — the assassin known as “The Jackal.”

https://www.insidehook.com/article/military/real-life-jackal-revealed-killing-de-gaulle-first-step

 

-------------------------

 By

 Denis Voltaire

 

Top French Intelligence Operative Sent to Capture Carlos the Jackal Says that the Jackal Was Protected by Israeli Mossad For Years

His case, along with that of the Italian Red Brigades, points to double standards in War on Terror going back to the 1970s

In August 1994, Carlos the Jackal was arrested in Khartoum, Sudan, after a long sting operation by the CIA, and he was subsequently tried and convicted on murder charges.

The operation seemed like a great success for the CIA. However, according to Ivan de Lignières, a top French intelligence operative, Carlos could have been apprehended almost 20 years earlier—before he carried out a wave of deadly bombings in France in the early 1980s.

De Lignières said that men under his command had identified the Jackal but could not act because they knew that he was “under surveillance by Algerian and Israeli intelligence services.”

“The light was always red for Carlos,” a livid de Lignières explained years later, “because of the Israelis. The latter appeared to protect him. Carlos had been the poster boy to discredit the Arabs and beef up the case of Israel. Any time we got close to [Carlos], we would see [the Israelis] around the corner.”[1]

Carlos the Jackal’s case is an excellent example of Western governments’ manipulation of terrorism and complicity in it—something that has begun to receive growing scholarly attention and is becoming better known.

Due to the extreme sensitivity of the subject, the literature on the topic is understandably relatively limited, but it has already produced considerable achievements.[2]

Historical, criminal and independent investigations, spanning the last two decades in particular, have improved our understanding of how government actors may manipulate terrorism for political purposes.

Two case studies may deserve attention in the U.S., because the relatively recent, sensitive findings in both are largely unknown in the Anglophone world: that of the Venezuelan terrorist Carlos “the Jackal”, and the Italian Red Brigades, a “left-wing” leaning, radical terror group.

As the most significant investigative developments took place essentially in France and Italy, English material on either case is, in fact, quite scant. 

Both cases are better understood in the context of the current state of research and understanding of “counterterrorism” operations, which they significantly contribute to enrich.

 Tracking down “the Jackal

It was August 14, 1994, in the Sudan capital, Khartoum. At 3:00 a.m., the unusual Venezuelan resident was abruptly awakened and pinned down to his bed. 

A special operation run by French operatives, building on the decisive cooperation of U.S. special forces, had finally captured the Jackal

He had been one of the most wanted fugitives for more than two decades. 

Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, better known to the world as “Carlos the Jackal,” or simply Carlos, was born into an affluent Venezuelan family in 1949. 

His father, a wealthy, well-connected lawyer, was a radical Marxist. 

After an unremarkable academic path in London and at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, Carlos joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), where he pursued his revolutionary training.

It was in service of the PFLP that Sánchez executed his most well-known operations.

Carlos was one of the most notorious political terrorists of his time, with the most “spectacular” exploits taking place in the 1970s.

He is probably most remembered for the attack he orchestrated against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

On December 21, 1975, Carlos and five associates took hostage a group of OPEC representatives holding a meeting in Vienna. They killed two security guards and a Libyan economist and detained more than 60 others. Carlos and his team subsequently obtained an aircraft and, after releasing some of the hostages, they flew the remaining 42 on an adventurous journey that ended in Algiers.

While the most flamboyant, that was just one of the many terrorist actions that spanned more than a decade.

The Jackal, largely marginalized and abandoned by his mentors with the decline of the Cold War, was finally captured in a “joint” operation of U.S. and French special forces.[3] 
U.S. operatives had been able to monitor the movements of Carlos in Sudan and turned over their findings to French intelligence, which was able to get to Carlos and spirit him away from the country.

He was then tried in France, where he received multiple life sentences. He remains in prison. 

 Carlos, a French obsession

Since as far back as 1974, when he was suspected to have orchestrated his first terrorist operations against French targets, Paris was especially involved in the pursuit of Carlos.

He had participated in the planning of the September 13, 1974, occupation of the French embassy in The Hague, Netherlands, carried out by operatives of the Japanese Red Army. 

As of June 1975, Carlos’s file was certainly very high on the French priority list. The Jackal was then accused of murdering two French officers of the DST, then the most prominent domestic law enforcement and intelligence service in France, approximately equivalent to the U.S. FBI.

Rigorous inquiries, performed by several investigative journalists, have uncovered a number of highly sensitive operations planned by Paris against the Venezuelan terrorist.

As it happens, several French presidents had ordered extreme action to be taken against the “Jackal.”

To be true, the official narrative of the assumed “chase of the Jackal,” as divulged reflexively by the mainstream media, has always been particularly problematic.

Sánchez, while ostensibly on the target list of most professional intelligence services covering half the world, was hardly in a position to evade detection and capture for such a long time (approximately 20 years).

Certainly, Carlos benefited from the protection of several countries, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, which were not sympathetic to Western security interests.

Yet, he also traveled freely and extensively in Europe, South America and elsewhere in the West, and he even enjoyed the luxury, under the circumstances, of spending vacation time in popular resorts (such as the Hotel Eden Beach in Malta).

The Carlos affair smacks of what certain scholarship described as “capability gap-driven” implausible, if not impossible outcome.[4]

Its inherent flaws aside, recent findings challenge directly the claim that more than 20 years of unsuccessful efforts to track Carlos were simply due to either negligence or “bad luck.”

One investigative book that deserves special attention is Les Tueurs de la République, by Vincent Nouzille.[5]

Nouzille, a very respected investigative journalist in France, has extensive experience reporting on covert activities of French intelligence services, and has published extensively on the topic.

Les Tueurs de la République is an in-depth, fascinating, even when troubling, look into more than 60 years of covert operations, most notably executive actions, of French special forces. 

Drawing and expanding on the best secondary literature, Nouzille fleshes out its research with fresh disclosures from top-level intelligence officers, including operatives who were intimately involved in the hunt for Carlos.

The most valuable contribution of this work is to provide an organic, updated account, providing an improved understanding of relatively known, yet not entirely appreciated, facts of terrorism.

First, the intelligence sources of the French author confirm that Presidents Giscard d’Estaing (despite repeated public denials) and François Mitterrand ordered “neutralization,” read assassination operations, against Carlos the Jackal.

Sensitive operations to kidnap and or “neutralize” Carlos had been implemented since 1975. 

A special squad was first dispatched to Algiers. The terrorist had taken shelter in the Algerian capital following the spectacular operation against OPEC representatives in Vienna.

It is important to note that this original mission was headed by a very skilled professional, Philippe Rondot, a future general and specialist of the Middle East (his father was also a high-profile intelligence officer).

Rondot would never cease to go after Carlos and was the officer in charge of the Sudan operation, where the terrorist was ultimately apprehended.

However, the mission in Algiers could not be accomplished. 

Reportedly, a kidnapping in Algerian territory could ignite diplomatic tensions with local authorities, not exactly on the friendliest terms with Paris.

It was the beginning of quite an impressive series of presumably unsuccessful efforts.

A recurring fact, in the narrative reconstructed by the investigations, is that French special operatives had tracked Carlos plenty of times but then, for one reason or another, the ultimate go-ahead for carrying out the operation never came.

“We had received the order to eliminate Carlos. We had detected his location several times, including once in Algiers” recalled Alexandre de Marenches, legendary director of the SDECE, the French foreign intelligence service.[6]

Significant efforts were also undertaken under the presidency of François Mitterrand.

The socialist President authorized “extreme prejudice” operations against the Jackal.[7]

The intelligence sources interviewed by Nouzille make clear that Mitterrand had limited such executive action orders to just two instances—denying the same option in any other case—of Carlos and Abu Nidal, another well-known terrorist.

That is an authoritative confirmation of how sensitive, yet also how crucial, the elimination of Carlos was regarded.

They also reveal that in doing so, “Mitterrand had actually re-enacted the same directives issued by d’Estaing,” before adding, not so cryptically, that those orders “were the only ones that were not ultimately implemented.”

To resume: Since at least 1975, Carlos was on the assassination list of some of the most professional and well-trained special forces in the world. 

Yet, it would not be until 1994 that he was finally captured.

It was Ivan de Lignières, however, a close associate and friend of Philippe Rondot, who would make the most explosive claims.

Early in 1977, Rondot and de Lignières engineered a sophisticated operation to get Carlos in his Venezuelan hometown, San Cristobal. 

They managed to infiltrate the entourage of the Jackal’s father, José Ramírez. 

One of the ideas was to make Ramírez seriously ill, in order to prompt his son to visit and to then capture him. 

The preparations went on for months. Posted in Colombia, near the border with Venezuela, Rondot and de Lignières waited for the final “green light” from Paris.

Yet, it was a cancel order that they received, only a few hours before the operation was to take place.

Many years later, de Lignières stated his belief that the failure to get Carlos was intentional, due to the opposition of parallel intelligence services. In the immediate surrounding area where they intended to carry out the Venezuelan operation, the French team had spotted a Mossad agent. 

In 1976, during another attempt in Malta (where Carlos was a regular vacationer at the Hotel Eden Beach), Rondot had to abort the operation one more time. His operatives had identified and spotted Carlos, but they could not proceed because the French operatives knew that they were under surveillance by Algerian and Israeli intelligence services.

There is hardly any doubt that de Lignières’ claims, stunning as they may appear, should be taken very seriously, particularly with the benefit of hindsight. 

De Lignières was a top-level intelligence officer, involved, quite evidently, in the most sensitive operations of French special forces.

The relationship between French and Israeli authorities is also highly sensitive and, due to the extreme seriousness of the charge, it is wildly implausible that such a high-level official would make it without solid grounds.

The thesis that Carlos profited from highly placed protection, beside his own “safe havens,” is by far the most convincing in itself and with the benefit of the current state of research and available information. 

If one perplexity might be leveled against the statement of de Lignières, it is that it may be too focused on the Israeli side. It is not credible that France, only because of Israeli involvement, would cancel, repeatedly, exceptionally elaborate operations against such a sensitive target which, one must recall, had already killed two French intelligence officials. It may be more plausible to assume that France may have had its own agenda for not ultimately carrying out the neutralization plan.

Yet, if anything, it reinforces the conclusion that Carlos was, indeed, protected by government authorities.

Despite the disturbing nature of these revelations, the least one may say is that they have been overwhelmingly underreported, if at all.[8]

Alternative explanations, by which the inability to get Carlos was largely, if not entirely, due to diplomatic sensitivities (which Nouzille himself appears to endorse at times), do not hold up to scrutiny.

First, the record is clear in showing that, when a threat is deemed to be considerable enough, governments and professional intelligence services establish priorities, risking in such cases a diplomatic incident.

The very core subject of Les Tueurs de la République, after all, is the story of highly sensitive assassination operations.

Citing one of the most significant cases, Nouzille recalls the notorious killing of the exiled Cameroonian leader Félix-Roland Moumié, on October 15, 1960, in a fancy restaurant in Geneva, Switzerland (the “execution team” had poured thallium, a powerful poison, into Moumié’s glass).

French intelligence leaders, such as General Paul Aussaresses, admitted openly to their responsibility in this assassination, that they saw it as necessary to eliminate a dangerous “political extremist” in the African nation.

If the official narrative deserved any credit, carrying out an assassination in Switzerland would not be significantly more problematic, in diplomatic or operational terms, than executing a kidnapping in Venezuela.[9]

More importantly, scholarly, criminal and independent inquiries have now exposed a long and extensive pattern of government protection of or involvement with terrorism activities.

The more the historiographical process carries on, the more problematic the connection between government actors, through their intelligence arms, in particular, and terrorism groups, turns out to be.[10]

CAM itself has recently reported about the disturbing information concerning the links between U.S. intelligence and at least two of the 9/11 hijackers.

In Italy, parliamentary and judicial investigations, some of which are ongoing, have also exposed penetrating intervention in or manipulation of terrorism on the side of government agencies, both domestic and international.

 

Mario Moretti, the Sphinx of the Red Brigades

Some of the most sensitive disclosures concern the infamous group Brigate Rosse (“Red Brigades”). 

The Red Brigades were assumed to be a radical left group, which engaged in extensive acts of terrorism in Italy throughout the 1970s. 

They are most notorious for allegedly carrying out the kidnapping of Aldo Moro, the prominent representative of the Italian Christian Democratic Party and two-time prime minister, in the spring of 1978. 

Moro was kidnapped in Via Fani, Rome, on the same day he was heading to the Italian Parliament to debate the first coalition government that would include the Italian Communist Party.

After 55 dramatic days of botched tracking and failed negotiations, the body of Moro was found in a red Renault in the very center of Rome.

The Red Brigades had taken an increasingly violent turn after Mario Moretti, the most ambiguous of its founders, took the helm of the organization, following the arrests of the previous leadership in 1974.

The official line is that the Red Brigades had always operated independently of any assistance or government protection.

Subsequent inquiries have largely invalidated the standard storyline, showing extensive external protection and manipulation of the “red terror” group, on the side of intelligence agencies and government apparatus.

An early critic of the official account, and most competent expert of the Red Brigades, is Senator Sergio Flamigni. 

Flamigni, a member of the early parliamentary commission on the Moro affair, established in 1979, has investigated the case for more than 40 years and published extensively on the topic. 

The Senator is also responsible for the organization of an archive and documentation center on the Moro case.

Flamigni was ultimately able to reconstruct the real profile of Mario Moretti, exposing sensitive and substantial information that completely contradicts the accepted narrative.[11]

Digging in his early years, Flamigni was first able to find out that, far from being the radical Marxist he was eventually portrayed as, Moretti had a neo-fascist political background.

This information is disturbing enough on its own. Ever more so, it dovetails flawlessly with other major criminal investigations in Italy, which exposed a complex hub of connections and complicity between intelligence services, domestic and NATO’s, and right-wing terrorist groups.[12]

Flamigni was also one of the early observers to note that the Red Brigades did not have the operational capability to pull off such an extremely complex operation as the kidnapping of a top-level politician like Aldo Moro, who was protected by a tight security detail (to abduct Moro, the “Red Brigades” had to attack and kill the entire Moro escort, consisting of five professional law enforcers).

It is essential to stress that the differences between the Moretti and the Carlos case, certainly significant, are to the disadvantage of the official version in the Moretti affair (with the exception of the time interval of the reported track, evidently longer in the case of Carlos).

First, Moretti, just as much as the Red Brigades in general, could not benefit from military training even remotely comparable to that of Carlos.

It is a matter of common knowledge that most Red Brigades members, including Moretti, actually maintained quite a bourgeois lifestyle.

More importantly, even though the Red Brigades enjoyed extensive international connections, Moretti could not claim any “safe haven” country granting him political and security protection.

During the most sensitive years, the Italian terrorist operated essentially in his home country, well “under the nose” of domestic law enforcement and intelligence services.

It is a matter of record that Italian intelligence and security services had successfully infiltrated the Red Brigades.

One of the most powerful Italian intelligence officers during the Cold War, Federico Umberto d’Amato, known as “the Italian Hoover,” also admitted as much in a 1992 BBC documentary on Operation Gladio.

It was as a result of such infiltration that the leadership of the group, prior to the Moretti era, could be arrested in its entirety in September 1974.

Yet, as Flamigni notes sarcastically, Moretti happened to be way luckier. He continued to evade capture for more than six years, and was ultimately arrested in Milan only on April 4, 1981, after more than nine years of clandestine life, and three years after having supposedly orchestrated the kidnapping, detention and assassination of Aldo Moro.

It has also been known for a long time that the government Crisis Committee, established to manage the Moro kidnapping in 1978, was largely made up of members of the notorious Masonic Lodge P2, headed by U.S. asset Licio Gelli, including the heads of Italian military and civil intelligence, General Giuseppe Santovito and General Giulio Grassini, respectively.[13]

The plan of Moro to involve the Italian communists in the government had always been resisted by the U.S. and NATOespecially by Henry Kissinger

Considering the neo-fascist agenda and affiliation of the P2, it is at the very least incongruous that members of the Lodge were in charge of handling the Moro crisis.

It is precisely because of the extremely problematic flaws of the government-supported narrative that the Moro affair continues to engender controversy.

After the first parliamentary commission of inquiry in 1979, multiple criminal trials focused on the case throughout the 1980s.

And new, critical investigative developments occurred in the 2000s. Among these is the revelation of the extremely ambiguous role played by Steve Pieczenik, a Cuban-born, Harvard-trained psychiatrist and international crisis manager at the U.S. State Department.

In 2008, it was revealed that Pieczenik, sent by President Carter to assist the Moro Crisis Committee in 1978, had been crucially instrumental to the ultimate fate of Moro.

Italian investigators strongly suspected that the real mission of Pieczenik was to prevent Moro from ever getting out alive.

 The New Moro Commission

The persistent discrepancies and new findings prompted the creation of a new Parliamentary Commission, during the 17th legislature, which completed its work in December 2017.

The last “Moro Commission” produced several reports documenting its extensive findings. The Commission reports endorsed the implausibility of the official narrative, exposing evident protection of the Red Brigades on the side of military intelligence and law enforcement.

Top insiders testified to the Commission, calling into question, when not directly contradicting, the standard account.

The most damning disclosures, largely under-reported, possibly came from investigative magistrate Pietro Calogero.

In the late 1970s, Calogero, who had already developed considerable experience in high-profile cases of terrorism, conducted a very sensitive investigation tying the Red Brigades to another well-known radical left group, Autonomia Operaia.

Calogero testified to the last Moro Commission on November 11, 2015. However, large chunks of his statements, deemed extremely sensitive, originally were classified.

The author extensively interviewed prosecutor Calogero, who confirmed and elaborated on the critical information shared in his testimony.

Calogero told the parliamentary committee that, in 1979, he was contacted by then-Colonel (and future General) Pasquale Notarnicola, head of the counter-terrorism division of Italian military intelligence (SISMI), for a highly confidential meeting.

Notarnicola, claiming to represent the “loyalist” group of SISMI, was acting unbeknownst to his superiors.

He revealed to Calogero that SISMI had learned, as early as 1974, that the Red Brigades and Autonomia Operaia were indeed in close contact, and the leaders of the two met frequently.

Crucially, he told Calogero, showing him classified military intelligence to that effect, that the Red Brigades had been identified and monitored for exactly as long, and extensive files existed on them.

Considering that the most violent crimes were perpetrated by the Red Brigades under the Moretti leadership, i.e., after 1974, the implications of this hypersensitive disclosure was quickly understood by Calogero.

What the General was implying, and that Calogero bitterly regretted throughout his life, and in his own testimony to the Parliament, was that the Red Brigades could have been easily exposed and stopped, years in advance.[14]

A mystery inside the Moretti mystery: the language school Hyperion.

Calogero also confirmed and expanded on the details of a previously known, yet equally sensitive investigation, concerning the much discussed episode of the “language school” Hyperion, an organization tied to Moretti and Western intelligence.[15]

Moretti had maintained all along close ties to a group of original members of the Red Brigades, who then assumedly departed from the organization for ideological divergence, and was known as the “Superclan,” meaning “super-clandestine,” led by Corrado Simioni.

The ”Superclan” founded a mysterious school of languages, denominated “Hyperion,” that appeared to serve quite a different purpose. The headquarters of the Hyperion was in Paris, to where Moretti traveled frequently.

An investigation promoted by Calogero, and ultimately run by French domestic intelligence (Renseignements Généraux) and Police Commissioner Luigi de Sena, led to the discovery of a connection between the Parisian location of the Hyperion and a facility in Rouen, Normandy.

French investigators found out that the Rouen structure, a villa, was protected by highly sophisticated technical systems, including triple sensor-rings, set up to alert against intrusion.

The officers of the Renseignements Généraux, Calogero reported, explicitly told de Sena that foreign intelligence used that type of structure, and that the system of the Rouen villa, in particular, was used by the Americans.

The continuous surveillance of the Hyperion led to the discovery of two more centers, in Brussels and London.

However, at that point, leaks to the press and other acts of sabotage, most likely orchestrated by intelligence services, forced Calogero and de Sena to abruptly terminate the investigation.[16]

The mystery of the Hyperion has yet to be solved.

As may be seen, the disclosures from Calogero do not take place in a vacuum. They fit a consistent pattern of revelations.

Multiple parliamentary and criminal investigations, taking place in several European countries, have exposed the complicity of Atlantic intelligence in some of the most notorious acts of terrorism in Europe during the Cold War.[17]

The leadership of the Italian SISMI in the 1978-1981 period, particularly General Giuseppe Santovito, General Pietro Musumeci and Colonel Giuseppe Belmonte, was involved in other highly controversial episodes of terrorism. 

In particular, they were investigated and (in the case of Musumeci and Belmonte) convicted definitively for obstructing the investigation into the most serious terrorist attack in Italian history, the bombing of the Bologna railway station in August 1980.

They also turned out to have extensive connections with the U.S. political and intelligence establishments, particularly through their affiliation with Masonic Lodge P2, led by Gelli, who was also convicted for cover-up activities against the Bologna criminal inquiry.[18]

In 2018, General Notarnicola also testified in new criminal investigations, concerning the Bologna station bombing of August 2, 1980.

He confirmed, adding sensitive disclosures, that the leadership of military intelligence, aided by U.S. agents, had intimate knowledge of the Bologna case and had, from the beginning, consistently sabotaged the judicial investigation into it.

At this writing, beside the Bologna case, most critical trials are taking place in Italy, especially in the jurisdiction of Brescia, where NATO is explicitly charged, for the first time, with backing right-wing terrorism in Italy throughout the Cold War.

This story is still to be written.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/08/03/top-french-intelligence-operative-sent-to-capture-carlos-the-jackal-says-that-the-jackal-was-protected-by-israeli-mossad-for-years/

 

---------------------------

 

SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF ALL THIS "TERRORISM"? 

A) DESTROY THE INDEPENDENCE OF EUROPE BY MAKING IT A VASSAL OF THE ANGLO/SAXON SPHERE

B) REMOVE THE ANTI-ANGLO/SAXON POLITICAL ELEMENTS IN EUROPE, ESPECIALLY FRANCE AND ITALY

C) ELIMINATE COMMUNISTS OUT OF EUROPE

D) PREPARE THE GROUND FOR THE NEXT SHOT: THE DESTRUCTION OF RUSSIA

E) MAKE THE UK ENTER THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TO MAKE IT CUMBERSOME

F) PLANT A NEW GENERATION* OF EU POLITICIANS WHO WILL BE SIMPATICO TO THE USA

G) PROPAGANDA TO USE NATO BEYOND ITS USED-BY-DATE, INCLUDING THE DESTRUCTION OF YUGOSLAVIA

H) LIE TO GORBACHEV ABOUT NOT MOVING ANINCH EASTWARDS

I) PREPARE THE GROUND IN UKRAINE BY KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH THE NAZIS

J) PUSH FOR THE MAIDAN REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE AFTER A COUPLE OF FAILED COUPS.

 

*THE NEW EUROPEAN GENERATION OF AMERICAN ARSE-LICKERS ARE:

MACRON

VON DE LEYEN

SCHOLTZ

MORRELL

CHARLES MICHEL

AND MANY MORE: IN POLAND, IN LATVIA, IN ITALY, ETC.... AND OF (ZELENSKY) COURSE ZELENSKY IN UKRAINE....

 

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/35134

 

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

agent zelensky.....

Scott Ritter speaks with Stephen Gardner about the Russia-Ukraine war. Sadly, Ukraine is being blown apart by Russia. Ukraine has attempted to terrorize the citizens of Moscow to get them to turn on Putin, but this plan has backfired and made Russian more resolute in their desire to see Ukraine lose the war.

Scott Ritter: UKRAINE IS BEING BLOWN APART BY RUSSIA!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNvCOGpH4s

 

ZELENSKY 

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

killing kennedy....

IF YOU FOLLOW THIS CHANNEL (SITE) YOU WOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT JFK WAS ASSASSINATED BY THE AMERICAN SECRET SERVICE. THE QUESTION IS WHY?

IS IT

BECAUSE OF CUBA?

BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHER CHASING THE MAFIA?

NOT TRUSTING THE CIA?

OR

KENNEDY WAS TRYING TO MAKE PEACE WITH RUSSIA?

 

WE KNOW THAT THE AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT/DEEP-STATE/SWAMP/RICH-SOCIOPATHS DEVELOPED A HATRED OF RUSSIAN SINCE 1917 (AND PROBABLY BEFORE, SAY 1905 WHEN HALFORD MACKINDER FORMULATED THE WAY TO CONQUER THE PLANET ON BEHALF OF THE ANGLO/SAXONS). THIS IS THE RECORDED HISTORY.

WE KNOW THAT :

WW1 WAS INSPIRED BY CECIL RHODES TO PREVENT THE GERMANS FROM RISING.

WW2 WAS INSPIRED BY AMERICAN ELITES WHO "FINANCED HITLER" AND THE ENGLISH SECRET SERVICES THAT HELPED MUSSOLINI.

AMERICA ENCOURAGED HITLER TO INVADE RUSSIA (DOCUMENTS EXIST TO THIS EFFECT) DESPITE THE RUSSIA/GERMANIC NON AGGRESSION PACT.

THE RUSSIANS WON THE MAJOR BATTLES OF WW2 — LOSING 26.8 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS.......

AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST WERE ALWAYS BROKEN BY THE WEST (AMERICA).

GENERAL DE GAULLE WORKED TO EXCLUDE THE ANGLO/SAXONS' INFLUENCE IN EUROPE.

GORBACHEV TRUSTED THE WEST.

PUTIN KNOWS THE GAME BEING PLAYED AND MADE MOVES PREEMPTING THE WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST THAT HAS BEEN PLANNNED BY THE WEST.

RUSSIA IS HOLDING BACK THE DESTRUCTION OF UKRAINE.

AMERICAN IS ENCOURAGING RUSSIA TO DESTROY UKRAINE SO THAT AMERICAN CORPORATIONS LIKE BLACKROCK CAN "OWN" UKRAINE AND MOVE IN WITH NATO.

WHERE IS THIS GOING?

WHO KNOWS — BUT:

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK WAS PART OF THAT GAME... THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF GENERAL DE GAULLE WAS PART OF THAT GAME. THE MASSIVE WESTERN PROPAGANDA IS PART OF THAT GAME....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

killing democracy....

 

Iran 1953: MI6 Plots with Islamists to Overthrow Democracy

 

Declassified British files highlight a little-known aspect of the joint MI6/CIA coup in 1953 against Iran’s democratically elected government, Mark Curtis reports. 

By Mark Curtis
Declassified UK

  • British officials wanted “a non-communist coup d’etat” in Iran to install a “dictator” who would promote U.K. oil interests
  • U.K. and U.S. governments backed Islamist forces to stir up unrest and even considered installing Ayatollah Kashani as a client leader following a coup

In many accounts the C.I.A. is regarded as the prime mover behind the 1953 coup in Iran, yet Britain was in fact the initial instigator and provided considerable resources to the plot, which U.K. planners named “Operation Boot.”

In the early 1950s, the Anglo–Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), or BP as it is now known, was run from London and owned jointly by the British government and private citizens. It controlled Iran’s main source of income and oil, and by 1951 had become, according to one British official, “in effect an imperium in imperio [an empire within an empire] in Persia.”

Iranian nationalists objected to the fact that the AIOC’s revenues from oil were greater than the Iranian government’s. 

Britain’s ambassador in Tehran, Sir Francis Shepherd, had a typically colonialist take on the situation. The declassified files show his writing: “It is so important to prevent the Persians from destroying their main source of revenue…by trying to run it themselves.”

He added: “The need for Persia is not to run the oil industry for herself (which she cannot do) but to profit from the technical ability of the West.”

Of course, Iran was perfectly capable of running its own oil industry. In March 1951 the Iranian Parliament voted to nationalise oil operations, take control of the Anglo–Iranian Oil Company and expropriate its assets. 

In May, Mohammed Mossadeq, the leader of Iran’s social-democratic National Front Party, was elected as prime minister and immediately implemented the bill. 

Britain responded by withdrawing the AIOC’s technicians and announcing a blockade on Iranian oil exports. Moreover, it also began planning to overthrow Mossadeq. 

“Our policy”, a British official later recalled, “was to get rid of Mossadeq as soon as possible”.

 

‘An Authoritarian Regime’

Following the well-worn pattern of installing and backing compliant Middle Eastern monarchs, British officials were keen on “a non-communist coup d’etat, preferably in the name of the shah,” which “would mean an authoritarian regime.”

The ambassador in Tehran wanted “a dictator” who “would carry out the necessary administrative and economic reforms and settle the oil question on reasonable terms” – meaning reversing the nationalisation. 

The military strongman chosen to preside over the coup was General Fazlollah Zahedi, a figure who had been arrested by the British for pro-Nazi activities during the Second World War, and was by the early 1950s Iran’s interior minister.

Despite British propaganda, Mossadeq’s government was privately recognised by U.K. officials as generally being democratic, popular, nationalist and anti-communist. 

One difference between the National Front and other political groupings in Iran was that its members were, as Britain’s ambassador privately admitted, “comparatively free from the taint of having amassed wealth and influence through the improper use of official positions.”

Mossadeq had considerable popular support, and as prime minister managed to break the grip over Iranian affairs exercised by the large landowners, wealthy merchants, the army and the civil service. 

 

Danger of Independence

The popular nationalist threat posed by Mossadeq was compounded by his alliance of convenience with the pro-Soviet Iranian communist party – Tudeh. 

As British and U.S. covert planners met throughout 1952, the former tried to enlist the latter in attempting a joint overthrow of the government by deliberately playing up the scenario of a communist threat to Iran.

One British official noted in August 1952 that

“the Americans would be more likely to work with us if they saw the problem as one of containing communism rather than restoring the position of the AIOC.”

However, neither the British nor U.S. planning files show that they took seriously the prospect of a communist take-over of the country. Rather, both primarily feared the dangerous example Mossadeq’s independent policies presented to Western interests in Iran and elsewhere in the region.

By November 1952, an MI6–Foreign Office team was jointly proposing with the C.I.A. the overthrow of Iran’s democratic government. British agents in Iran were provided with radio transmitters to maintain contact with MI6, while the head of the MI6 operation, Christopher Woodhouse, put the C.I.A. in touch with other British contacts in the country. 

MI6 also began to provide arms to tribal leaders in the north of Iran.

 

Ayatollah Kashani

 

The most important religious figure in Iran was the 65-year-old Shia cleric, Ayatollah Seyyed Kashani. He had helped German agents in Persia in 1944, and a year later helped found the unofficial Iranian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Fadayan-e-Islam (“Devotees of Islam”), a militant fundamentalist organisation.

The Fadayan was involved in a number of terrorist attacks against Iran’s then ruler, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in the late 1940s, including an assassination attempt in 1949, and killed the Shah’s prime minister, Ali Razmara, in 1951. Around this time, it appears Kashani broke with the organisation.

By the early 1950s, the Ayatollah had become the speaker in the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, and a key ally of Mossadeq. 

A U.S. intelligence report noted that, like Mossadeq, Kashani had a large popular appeal and strongly supported the National Front’s policies of oil nationalisation and the elimination of British influence in Iran. 

However, by early 1953 relations between Kashani and Mossadeq became strained, notably over the latter’s proposals to extend his powers, and in July of that year Mossadeq dismissed Kashani from the post of speaker. 

Tensions between Mossadeq and Kashani and other religious supporters of the ruling National Front were further stirred up by two of the principal British agents in the country: the Rashidian brothers, who came from a wealthy family with connections to the Iranian royals. 

Instrumental in securing the Shah’s endorsement for the coup, the Rashidians also later acted as go-betweens among army officers distributing weapons to rebellious tribes and other ayatollahs, as well as Kashani.

In February 1953 rioting broke out in Tehran, and pro-Zahedi supporters attacked Mossadeq’s residence, calling for the prime minister’s blood.

Stephen Dorril notes in his book, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, that this mob had been financed by Ayatollah Kashani and was acting in collaboration with British agents. 

Kashani’s potential for attracting the Iranian street had been noted by the British Foreign Office, which remarked on his “considerable following in the bazaar [markets] among the older type of shop-keeper, merchant and the like. This is the chief source of his political power and his ability to stage demonstrations”. 

British pay-offs had also secured the cooperation of senior army and police officers, deputies and senators, mullahs, merchants, newspaper editors and elder statesmen, as well as mob leaders.

 “These forces,” explained MI6 officer Christopher Woodhouse, “were to seize control of Tehran, preferably with the support of the shah but if necessary without it, and to arrest Mossadeq and his ministers.”

The British also operated agents inside the Tudeh Party and were involved in organising “false flag” attacks on mosques and public figures in the party’s name. 

C.I.A. officer Richard Cottam later observed that the British

“saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests.”

Black Propaganda

All this was intended to frighten Iranians into believing that a victory for Mossadeq would be a victory for communism and would mean an increase in Tudeh’s political influence. 

A secret U.S. history of the coup plan, drawn up by C.I.A. officer Donald Wilber in 1954, and published by The New York Times in 2000, relates how C.I.A. agents gave serious attention to alarming the religious leaders in Tehran by issuing black propaganda in the name of the Tudeh Party, threatening these leaders with savage punishment if they opposed Mossadeq.

Threatening phone calls were made to some of them, in the name of the Tudeh, and one of several planned sham bombings of the houses of these leaders was carried out. 

British declassified files show that both the British and U.S. governments considered installing Ayatollah Kashani as a client political leader in Iran following the coup. 

In March 1953 Foreign Office official Alan Rothnie wrote how Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden had discussed with the head of the C.I.A., General Walter Bedell Smith, the possibility of dealing with Kashani as an alternative to Mossadeq. 

Rothnie noted that

“they would be glad to learn whether we have any information which would suggest that the United States and United Kingdom could find a modus vivendi [way of working] with Kashani once he was in power. They feel that Kashani might be bought, but are doubtful, once he was in power, whether he could be held to a reasonable line.”

The British and U.S. consideration of Kashani as a future leader is itself instructive yet the answer that came back both from the U.S. State Department and the British Foreign Office was that Kashani would be a liability: he was seen as far too independent. 

 

‘Complete Political Reactionary’

The Foreign Office stated that Kashani “would be of no use to us, and almost certainly a hindrance, as a successor to Dr Mossadeq, both generally and in an oil settlement.”

It regarded him as even more anti-Western than Mossadeq, describing him as “anti-British” and as nursing a “bitter enmity towards us” after being arrested for helping the Nazis during the war. 

The Foreign Office termed him “a complete political reactionary…totally opposed to political reforms.” “He would conceivably…accept Western money,” it noted, but he would not follow “a reasonable line about an oil settlement.”

“If he came to power it would be impossible to reach a modus vivendi with him…We could not count on Kashani giving Persia that minimum of order and stability which is our basic need,” the Foreign Office concluded.

However, written comments appended to this report show other Foreign Office officials pondering the “the idea of Kashani as a stop gap, or a bridge to some more amenable regime.”

One official questioned whether Britain should work to replace Mossadeq with Kashani “before we can expect something better in order to produce the necessary public revulsion.”

The British view was that if Kashani could not be entrusted with power, his forces could still be used as shock troops to change the regime.

The evidence points to British and U.S. support being provided to this “complete political reactionary” both before and after the report noted above was written, in March 1953. 

 

Go-Ahead

In late June 1953, the U.S. gave the final go-ahead for the coup, setting the date for mid-August. 

The initial coup plan was thwarted when Mossadeq – having been warned of the plot, possibly by the Tudeh Party — arrested some officials plotting with Zahedi and set up roadblocks in Tehran. This caused the Shah to panic and flee abroad where he would stay until the coup restored him as absolute monarch.

In order to trigger a wider uprising, the C.I.A. turned to the clergy and made contact with Kashani via the Rashidian brothers. Footing the bill for this joint Anglo–American operation, the U.S. gave Kashani $10,000 to organise massive demonstrations in central Tehran, together with other ayatollahs who also brought their supporters out onto the streets. 

Amidst these demonstrations, the Shah appointed General Zahidi as prime minister and appealed to the military to come out in support of him. 

Wider protests developed in which anti-Shah activists were beaten up and pro-Shah forces, including elements in the military, seized the radio station, army headquarters and Mossadeq’s home, forcing the latter to surrender to Zahidi.

The C.I.A. also helped to mobilise militants of the Fadayan-e-Islam in these demonstrations; it is not known if Britain also did. 

The Fadayan’s founder and leader, Navab Safavi, is believed to have had associations at the time with Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shia cleric and scholar based at the shrine city of Qom in Iran. According to Iranian officials, Khomeini, then a follower of Kashani, was among the MI6/C.I.A.-sponsored crowd protesting against Mossadeq in 1953. 

Fadayan-e-Islam’s members would act as the foot soldiers of the Islamic revolution of 1979, helping to implement the wholesale introduction of Islamic law in Iran.

 

Thanking Kashani

After Mossadeq’s overthrow, the British received a report from the new Iraqi ambassador in Tehran, telling how the Shah and Zahedi had together visited Kashani, “kissed his hands, and thanked him for his help in restoring the monarchy.” 

The Shah soon assumed all powers and became the “dictator” preferred by the British ambassador. The following year a new consortium was established, controlling the production and export of Iranian oil, in which the U.S. and Britain each secured a 40 percent interest — a sign of the new order, the U.S. having muscled in on a formerly British preserve. 

Kashani, meanwhile, faded from political view after 1953, but he acted as Khomeini’s mentor and the latter was a frequent visitor to Kashani’s home. Kashani’s death in 1961 would mark the start of Khomeini’s long rise to power.

Despite eventual U.S. management of the coup, the British had been the prime movers, and their motives were evident. 

As a former Iranian ambassador to the U.N. until the 1979 Islamic revolution, Fereydoun Hoveyda, claimed years later:

“The British wanted to keep up their empire and the best way to do that was to divide and rule.” 

He added: “The British were playing all sides. They were dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the mullahs in Iran, but at the same time they were dealing with the army and the royal families.”

Hoveyda continued:

“They had financial deals with the mullahs. They would find the most important ones and would help them…The British would bring suitcases of cash and give it to these people. For example, people in the bazaar, the wealthy merchants, would each have their own ayatollah that they would finance. And that’s what the British were doing.”

 

 ‘Made in Britain’

In her memoirs, written in exile in 1980, the Shah’s twin sister, Ashraf Pahlavi, who pressed her brother to assume power in 1953, observed that “many influential clergymen formed alliances with representatives of foreign powers, most often the British, and there was in fact a standing joke in Persia that if you picked up a clergyman’s beard, you would see the words ‘Made in England’ stamped on the other side.” 

Although exaggerating with her ‘Made in England’ claim, Ashraf neatly summed up the British view of the Islamists – that they could be used to counter threats to U.K. interests. 

During the 1951–1953 coup planning period, Kashani was seen by the British as too much of an anti-Western liability to be a strategic ally. But his forces could be used to prepare the way for the installation of pro-Western figures, and be dropped as soon as their tasks for the imperial powers had been performed.

Kashani’s successor, Ayatollah Khomeini, took over the country following the 1979 revolution, presiding over an Islamic theocracy until his death a decade later.

 This is an edited extract from Mark Curtis’ book, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam.

 

Mark Curtis is an author and editor of Declassified U.K., an investigative journalism organisation that covers Britain’s foreign, military and intelligence policies. He tweets at @markcurtis30. Follow Declassified on twitter at @declassifiedUK

 

This article is from Declassified UK.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................