3
The British Military- Intelligence- Industrial Complex: MICix
I |
In this section, we will explore the initial establishment and subsequent infiltration of Iranian intelligence by the British Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex (MICix). We will propose the hypothesis that the so called “chain murders of intellectuals” can be traced back to these infiltrations. We will argue that these assassinations have been undergoing for a long time BEFORE the Islamic revolution.
In addition to those intellectuals, a pro-French and pro-American head of the agency was also assassinated, marking the initial phase of three distinct coups within SAVAK. The hypothesis is that these events took place with the support of the British Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex (MICix).
Iranian SAVAK was established shortly after the coup against Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, a pivotal figure in Iranian liberal democracy. The author posits that throughout its history, whenever progressive forces attempted to transform SAVAK into a legitimate intelligence agency, revolts or assassinations thwarted those efforts. It is interesting to note that Islamic Revolution itself happened a short time after former king imprisoned a number of corrupt high-ranking members of SAVAK including its head, Nematollah Nasiri who Shah called “ Nemat the idiot”.
We are aware of the origins of Iranian Intelligence and its establishment, which stemmed from segments of the Iranian military. While the initial agency was established by the United States under Bakhtiar, the primary structure was derived from the army, which had been significantly influenced by British interests for an extended period. The first director of SAVAK, Teimour Bakhtiar, was educated in France and had pro-American inclinations, notably engaging with the progressive elements within U.S. politics. Reports indicate that he had intimate discussions with President Kennedy in French. Bakhtiar was also connected to the former Iranian Queen, Soraya Bakhtiari, and to Shapour Bakhtiar, the last Iranian Prime Minister before the revolution, who was later assassinated in France.
Teymour Bakhtiar was ousted from SAVAK during a coup within Iranian intelligence and was subsequently assassinated by SAVAK forces. Following this act of internal turmoil, Fadaiane Islam (offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood) carried out another assassination of a pro-U.S. Prime Minister who was aligned with progressive ideals. PM Mansour was replaced by Hoveyda, an individual with ties to pro-UK factions. Shortly after this assassination, Nemat Nasiri belonging to the same faction as Hoveyda, ascended to the leadership of SAVAK. Nasiri had previously played a significant role in the coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh. This sequence of events suggests a troubling pattern of interventions by the British Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex (MICix) within Iranian political dynamics.
Testimonies from high-ranking members of SAVAK [X] indicate that, in contrast to the highly educated Teimour Bakhtiar, Nemat Nasiri was perceived as a "lumpen" figure. One source even claims that the Shah referred to him in Persian as “Nemat the idiot”. The author contends that the date of his appointment coincides precisely with the day that Fadaeean (Muslim Brotherhood) assassinated Prime Minister Mansour, suggesting that this event is indicative of a series of internal coups orchestrated by infiltrators from MICix. These actions ultimately culminated in the MICix gaining complete control following the so-called "chain murders of intellectuals" in the aftermath of the revolution. Following his appointment, Nasiri brought in Parviz Sabeti, a member of the pro-UK cult of apartheid, as a major deputy, further promoting a culture of lumpenism within the agency. This shift in leadership and culture within SAVAK reflects a significant departure from the progressive vision initially held by Bakhtiar.
In the subsequent sections, the author will present details regarding an event pertinent to his father's public speech following the assassination of Prime Minister Mansour. This account, offers insights into the historical dynamics of persecution faced by both his father and himself in Iran and in Australia that is new to the author and answers his longtime questions about the reasons for atrocities against him.
In his memoirs [X], Parviz Sabeti refers to an incident involving a leftist woman who alleged that she had been raped by SAVAK members, dismissively asserting that her claim could not be true. His language in describing his reasoning is so undignified and distasteful that we can’t mention it here. Another noteworthy point is the Bahá'í faith's excommunication of members involved in arms deals, reflecting its stance against engagement with militaristic enterprises and the British Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex (MICix). The ongoing victimization of Bahá'í community members by security forces both before and after the revolution further supports the hypothesis of “continuity” in oppressive practices. The systemic targeting of minority groups by the MICix will be examined in forthcoming sections, highlighting broader issues of violence and persecution within the socio-political landscape of Iran before and after Islamic Revolution.
The hypothesis of "continuity" regarding SAVAK's operations before and after the Islamic Revolution is central to understanding the dynamics of MICix repression in Iran. This continuity suggests that despite changes in leadership and ideology, the mechanisms of surveillance, control, and oppression remained largely intact. Following the revolution, many former SAVAK members continued to exert influence within the new regime, thus perpetuating repressive practices against dissidents and minority groups.
Examining this continuity helps to illuminate the persistent patterns of violence and discrimination that have characterized Iran's political landscape.
The notion of continuity first struck the author while reflecting on the repression faced by him and his family both before and after the Islamic Revolution. As the son of a royalist associated with the Shah, it was understandable that they would be targeted following the revolution. However, what remained perplexing were the reasons for the prosecution prior to the revolution. This duality raises critical questions about the internal conflicts within SAVAK and the broader security apparatus during the monarchy. It suggests a complex interplay of betrayal by members of SAVAK that probably were serving interests of foreigners instead of protecting the national interests of iran and security of its citizens. In another chapter of this book, a number of compelling examples will be presented, detailing incidents of physical attacks by the security apparatus against both the author and his father. One significant incident occurred before the revolution. The authors father was invited to inauguration of a major steel production complex by Shah. The British government had examined all in their possession to prevent iran from building it (so that they continue buying the junk produced by the British MIC) and Shah shocked them by asking the Russians to build the complex.
On the journey back from the inauguration, individuals believed to be associated with BRITISH SAVAK offered him a ride. This gesture quickly turned sinister as they violently attacked him, inflicting serious injuries before abandoning him in the middle of the desert. This incident underscores the perilous atmosphere cultivated by SAVAK highlighting the oppressive environment fostered by SAVAK even in the face of royal allegiance.
The second incident, occurring after the revolution, provides a stark illustration of how the new incarnation of SAVAK operated within specific areas, particularly a part of Isfahan that the author refers to as "The British Zone." This region witnessed the continuation of violent practices reminiscent of the past, demonstrating that the cycle of fear and oppression had not only persisted but had evolved under the new regime. And to make it even more interesting, the oppression continued and even intensified when the author immigrated to Wrstern Australia.
The assassinations of two members of the Bakhtiar family, both of whom had ties to France, serve as a significant indicator of the “continuity” of Iranian intelligence practices before and after the revolution. One was killed by Iranian intelligence prior to the revolution, while the other met a similar fate afterward. This pattern suggests that the agency’s operations post-revolution were not a break from the past but rather an extension of its former practices. The author posits that the Iranian revolution of 1979 did not represent a significant transformation, arguing instead that it was merely superficial. In contrast, the 1953 coup is viewed as the pivotal change, marking the takeover of the first and only liberal democracy in Iran's history by the security apparatus.
The competition between France-educated intellectuals and allies of the British military-industrial complex (MIC) within Iran offers a compelling backdrop for further exploration in next sections. The author has assembled a troubling list of intellectuals who were either assassinated—purportedly by Iranian agencies—or died under suspicious circumstances across Iran, France, and Germany. Notably, a significant majority of these individuals were educated in France, while the remainder were trained in the United States. Interestingly, the list reveals a striking absence of individuals educated in the United Kingdom. This discrepancy points to a deeper bifurcation within Iranian intellectual and political circles. While many of those in high-ranking positions in Iranian departments and agencies have proven ties to the UK, the intellectual assassinations predominantly feature those associated with France and the US.
An even more alarming aspect of this situation is that the aforementioned observation holds true for intellectuals who passed away both prior to and following the revolution. A partial list of victims is provided at the conclusion of this section, and I encourage the reader to explore this hypothesis further, as relevant information can be readily found online. Another indication supporting the "continuity" hypothesis mentioned earlier is the involvement of a member named Alikhani, who was implicated in the chain murders of intellectuals following the revolution. He had ties and close relatives associated with SAVAK, which held ministerial positions before the revolution.
This divergence suggests the existence of conflicting ideological factions within Iran, where educational backgrounds played a crucial role in shaping allegiances and enmities. It raises questions about the motivations behind the targeting of certain intellectuals and the influence of foreign education on political ideologies. Such dynamics are essential for understanding the historical and ongoing tensions within Iran and the broader geopolitical landscape in which these assassinations occurred. The clear distinctions between educational influences could further illuminate the intricate relationships between local power structures and foreign interests, delineating a complex tapestry of influence that continues to shape Iran's political narrative.
The assassination of Prime Minister Razmara by the Fadaeean underscores a pivotal moment in Iranian history, marked by political violence and ideological fervor. In parallel, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Sadegh Hedayat, almost at the same time Razmara was assassinated and who is believed to have been a near relative of Razmara, add another layer of intrigue to this narrative. Hedayat was a prominent intellectual and writer, known for his profound influence on Iranian literature. His untimely demise, purportedly by suicide, raises questions about the pressures he faced, especially if he was indeed on a mission to France on behalf of Razmara. Indeed, both Prime Minister Razmara and Sadegh Hedayat can be classified as "Francophone," illustrating the significant cultural and intellectual ties they had to France, which played a transformative role in shaping their thoughts and political identities. For the case of Razmara, this was particularly rare among the Iranian army higher ranks and could be a great risk factor for the British arms industry as well as British oil industry as we will discuss later. In the context of Australia, the difficulties surrounding a submarine deal with France highlight the repercussions of strategic interests, international alliances, and political maneuvering. The hypothesis thatThe British Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) played a crucial role in altering the trajectory of this significant defense contract, which was originally aimed at bolstering Australia's naval capabilities through a partnership with France should be examined. The lessons from Iranian history can thus serve as cautionary tales for Australia. The author considers seriously the hypothesis that a chain of physical, chemical, psychological and economic acts of terrorism targeted at him while living in Western Australia, have been orchestrated by the British MICix. More details about protocols of MICix will be discussed in next chapters.
What is particularly fascinating is that testimonies from the aforementioned sources suggest that the core structure of SAVAK did not fundamentally change after the revolution in 1979. Fardoost himself confirmed his presence in the country during this transitional period, yet he refrains from either confirming or denying rumors regarding his involvement in training personnel for the "new" intelligence agency.
Sabeti’s account indicates that he exited the country well before the regime's toppling; however, Fardoost later reported encountering him in Tehran much closer to the time of the regime change. This discrepancy leads to a compelling hypothesis: Sabeti, along with other intelligence officials such as Fardoost, may have remained in Iran (or as some evidence suggest may have left but returned shortly after) to assist in the training of new agency members who were taking over.
It's plausible that Sabeti could have left Iran using his own passport and returned shortly thereafter under a different identity, facilitating his re-entry without drawing suspicion. The memoirs of both men reveal a shared background that suggests strong affinities with British intelligence agencies and, to some extent, American conservatives. They harbored significant animosity toward progressive political factions.
A partial list of chain murders and suspicious death of intellectuals (before and after the Islamic revolution):
Ali Shariati;
Mohammad Jafar Pouyandeh (Sorbonne);
Mostafa Chamran;
Majid Sharif (education and living in the US and France);
Teymur Bakhtiar (Please consider the British propaganda regarding his "crimes");
Shapour Bakhtiar;
Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou (Sorbonne);
Sadegh Qotbzadeh;
Sadeq Hedayat; (the suicide theory seems baseless. Connections with Tudeh party as well)
Abdurrahman Boroumand;
Hossein Fatemi (who was executed after the coup in 1953) also was educated in France
Sadegh Sharafkandi (Ph.D. from Paris);
Over several generations, Iranian intellectuals critically analyzed the approach of substituting British influence with that of a foreign government as a means to mitigate their corrupt influence over Iranian matters, albeit with limited success. The author mentioned before an incident involving his father, who faced physical assault following the inauguration of the Isfahan steel factory by Russian officials. In the long term, both the intellectuals and the Shah recognized that the most feasible alternative would be alignment with the United States. As previously noted, there were multiple factors that led the British to adopt a more stringent stance towards pro-Americans than towards Francophones or Russophiles. They specifically exhibited a form of narcissistic rage when individuals from traditional Anglophone families (refer back to story of PM Mansour) realigned their loyalties toward the United States, including members of the Shah's family. The recognition by the British of such dynamics further fuelled their sense of insecurity, contributing to what has been described as a pervasive state of narcissistic rage.
By the release of the second edition, the British MICix had successfully established their presence in Australia by undermining the French submarine agreement with the nation. Consequently, a previously mentioned chapter of Iranian history offers significant insights. We will begin by comparing the American and British business and arms transactions in Iran through a series of three brief narratives, which we will examine more thoroughly later.
1. The British initiated what is now known as BP in Iran, while the United States established Aramco. Ultimately, the Saudis benefited immensely from their dealings with the Americans, receiving substantial gains and acquiring complete ownership of Aramco, whereas the Iranians ended up with nothing. Instead, they suffered from appalling acts of terrorism, as will be explored in the following section.
2. The United States provided F-14 fighters to the Shah, regarded as the most advanced technology available at that time. In contrast, the British sold substandard tanks, failed to fulfill their delivery obligations, and refused to refund the money. Additionally, there were allegations of corrupt practices, including claims that they resold the same tanks to Iraq, a nation that had launched an attack on Iran. This situation mirrored the corrupt dealings the British engaged in with Saudi Arabia.
3.I will discuss a tragic injustice perpetrated against the author by the British MICix infiltrations into Iranian police in their missionary “British Zone” in Isfahan, which serves as a center for their espionage activities, where they operate under the guise of protection provided by their “fanatic” associates. In contrast, Americans conducted their missionary efforts mainly in Tabriz, as exemplified by Howard Conklin Baskerville, who sacrificed himself for freedom of the Iranian people.
The British have never truly been characterized as Europeans in the conventional sense. Unlike other EU nations, which boast a rich heritage in literature, arts, philosophy, architecture, and music, the British have primarily focused on “militarization.” This lack of cultural refinement helps explain the horrific crimes perpetrated by their intelligence agencies and associated organizations, which should not be surprising. I will contend that it is highly probable that infiltrations by the MICix within Hezbollah and Iranian agencies are linked to terrorist acts, including the AMIA bombings.
"Uncle Napoleon" was a character from the old Iranian TV series "Daeejan Napoleon," who believed that any simple event in his life was orchestrated by "The British." This character served to mock those who criticized the influence of British agencies in Iran. Given the historical competition among intellectuals educated in France and the associates of the British MICix, it is unsurprising that the MICix would counter with potent propaganda. The series title seems designed to ridicule the French influence. On an intellectual level, the British had little to offer that could compete; their legacy was largely defined by corrupt arms deals.
"Uncle Napoleon" became a symbol for ridiculing those who spoke about British influence, offering a simplistic and inexpensive argument against serious political analysis. Years ago, I learned from an Iranian movie director how to use this potent propaganda tool. Regardless of how logical and based on historical or scientific facts someone’s discussion was, I would just smile like a philosopher and say, “Uncle Napoleon conspiracy theory!” Surprisingly, this tactic always worked, silencing even the strongest arguments.
Over time, I realized that sometimes the grassroots perspective—the simple explanation that "it IS the work of the British"—can be the most accurate. Interestingly, I later discovered that the director, the so-called "grand architect" who laughed at "Uncle Napoleon conspiracy theories," was actually a British asset. This led me to understand that the very "Uncle Napoleon conspiracy theory" was itself a conspiracy, part of the British protocols.
There's another strategy or protocol of getting people to exaggerate British involvement and spout absurd stories, effectively undermining the genuine concerns about British influence. If you're engaged in a serious conversation about conspiracy theories and start to feel intellectually highbrow, only to notice someone laughing at you, well, now you know why! This tactic serves to dismiss valid discussions and turn them into a joke, making it easier for those with ulterior motives to deflect criticism and maintain their narratives. It highlights the importance of critical thinking and being aware of how ideas can be manipulated for propaganda purposes.
The true conspiracy lies in ridiculing any logical attempt to uncover the underlying causes of political events in a country, especially those outside its borders. It is shortsighted to assume an intellectual stance by dismissing everything as just a "conspiracy theory." By doing so, we overlook the significant roles that international corporations, organized crime syndicates, large religious groups, and other influential entities can play in shaping events.
These groups often possess substantial resources and a vested interest in interfering with political matters. To conduct an accurate analysis of any situation, one must consider their motives, interests, and historical contexts. Simply labeling something a conspiracy theory without critical examination does a disservice to understanding the complexity of global influences in domestic affairs. It’s essential to approach these discussions with nuance and an open mind, recognizing that external factors can have profound effects on internal dynamics.
When someone resorts to the "Uncle Napoleon conspiracy theory" as a form of propaganda, they're not contributing anything meaningful to the discussion or providing any substantive analysis. Instead, it often reveals a desperate attempt to sidestep serious dialogue. The person employing this tactic may appear to be a mere clown, but it's crucial to recognize that they could be fulfilling a role in obscuring more significant issues, such as the involvement of the British Military-Industrial Complex and its implications.
The next time you encounter this behavior, try not to dismiss them simply as foolish. Instead, consider the possibility that they may be part of a broader strategy to downplay or divert attention from troubling realities. Engaging with the underlying motives behind such dismissals can lead to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms at play in political discourse. It's important to challenge these tactics and focus on the complexities that deserve scrutiny.
My deceased father faced conviction for multiple "offenses" following the 1979 revolution in Iran. Beyond his affiliations with the monarchy, his principal "offense" was delivering a compelling speech in support of Prime Minister Mansour after his assassination by the terrorist organization Fadaian Islam. This ostensibly straightforward familial narrative has significantly influenced my comprehension of the political dynamics in both Iran and Australia.
It’s striking how personal narratives intersect with historical moments. My father reflected later on his pivotal speech. His cautious glances, ensuring confidentiality, added weight to his words and implied the significance of that moment: “It was the best lecture I have ever given”. For him, it was not just any speech; it was a testament to bravery during a tumultuous era, where the stakes were incredibly high. His stance against the "terrorists of British MICix" indicated a profound commitment to his beliefs, risking his safety to fight for what he perceived to be the right side of history. His courage and clarity of purpose during such chaotic times reflect a powerful legacy that, upon reflection, highlights the complexities of loyalty, bravery, and moral conviction in the face of overwhelming pressure.
Mansour was a notable progressive and pro-American Prime Minister. As mentioned earlier, his assassination resulted in his replacement by Hoveyda and triggered an internal coup within SAVAK, marked by a leadership change. The Fadaian Islam, led by a young cleric named Safavi and commonly referred to as the Fadaian, was a terrorist group significantly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. A close examination of this group's actions uncovers various "contradictions" in their selection of victims and their proclaimed policies. Recognizing these "contradictions" serves as a vital tool for identifying infiltrations within a group. This principle similarly elucidates the actions of the Tudeh Party, which have at times deviated from their foundational ideas and overall policies.
Analyzing the power dynamics between Hoveyda and Mansour requires an understanding of a strict British protocol regarding severe punishment for individuals defecting from the British side to the American side. There are several reasons for this approach, though they extend beyond the scope of this discussion. For simplicity of reference, in future we will call it protocol of “Narcissistic Rage”.
Interestingly, the British seem to tolerate—or even encourage—defections toward Russia or China. This is partly due to their confidence that they might have the opportunity to reclaim and utilize the defector later. In contrast, there is much less of such confidence regarding defections to the U.S. which also present much higher risks, as espionage against a key ally like the U.S. could lead to considerable controversy. It’s worth mentioning the previous hypothesis that the British have employed SAVAK members and individuals with ties to Iran to gather intelligence in allied countries, showcasing the complexities of such diplomatic relations and the nuanced approaches to espionage.
The familial connections between Hoveyda and Mansour, along with their shared background in the Novin Party and Anglophile sentiments, create a compelling narrative in understanding their dynamics. Hoveyda's swift transition upon arrival in France, where he was supposed to study, before disappearing to the UK for a while, merits deeper exploration.
Our hypothesis suggests that Mansour may have attempted to sever ties with his roots and shift allegiances toward the American side. This move could have been seen as a betrayal in the eyes of those still loyal to British interests, potentially leading to severe repercussions from the powerful elements within the MICix.
The story of Safavi and his opposition to and action against the government of Dr. Mossadegh who nationalized Iran's oil industry is known to everybody but let's have another look at the profiles of some of his victims after we review parts of his biography: He was the person who introduced a clergy (who later become a very high ranking Ayatollah) to the "Brotherhood" and their ideas and they spent long hours together in discussion and visited him in Qom on a number of occasions during the 1940s.
Safavi traveled to Egypt and met Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Notably, "Banna" translates to "mason" in Arabic, which has sparked various rumors regarding masonic connections within the Brotherhood. In the last chapter, I discussed how among the MIC and specifically the "pirates of the old navy," there exists a practice of using names as a secretive yet powerful means to identify allies—someone referred to as Mason, for instance. Perhaps more intriguing is the fact that Safavi was employed by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company for a period. With this context established, let's explore the profiles of some of the Fadaian's victims.
Razmara was the highest-ranking figure in the Iranian military educated in France. He was married to Sadegh Hedayat's sister and was assassinated by the Fadaian. Meanwhile, Hedayat was in France when he died under suspicious circumstances, particularly after his request for a British visa was denied. This occurred a short time following Razmara's assassination and the nationalization of Iranian oil.
Razmara was negotiating a deal that could have awarded Iran a significant share of what is now BP, with rumors suggesting he was pursuing a 50% stake. Remarkably, the day after Razmara was assassinated, the Iranian parliament passed the nationalization of the oil industry, which ultimately resulted in Iran receiving very little in its dealings with BP—unlike the Saudis who secured substantial control over Aramco. Given that the British were already plotting a coup, it's plausible that eliminating a powerful Francophile like Razmara was part of their strategy.
Abdolhossein Hazhir, another victim of Fadaian, was a prominent figure in Iran's political landscape during a tumultuous period marked by oil nationalization efforts and foreign influence. As Prime Minister, he prioritized addressing the pivotal issue of oil control, especially concerning the British-Iranian Oil Company, which had long dominated Iran's oil resources.
Under Hazhir’s leadership, the Ministry of Finance took a decisive stance by investigating the oil-related disputes and violations committed by the British-Iranian Oil Company. This investigation was spearheaded by oil experts in collaboration with officials such as Nizamuddin Emami and Hossein Pirnia. Their collective efforts culminated in a comprehensive 25-article plan that highlighted various grievances against the oil company, addressing concerns over exploitation and legal violations.
Recognizing the need for expertise in navigating the complex oil industry and legal framework, Hazhir sought the approval of the Iranian parliament to recruit foreign specialists. This included inviting a French expert, aiming to bolster Iran's position and competency in discussions about its oil rights. Hazhir's strategies demonstrated a commitment to reasserting Iran's sovereignty over its natural resources, though his tenure was tragically cut short by assassination.
"Heiat Motalefeh" represented the ongoing legacy of the Fadaeeian. To understand the extent of British influence in the upper echelons of the Iranian government, readers are encouraged to examine the role of members of "Heiat Motalefeh" in the subsequent political landscape of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In a later section, I will present a compelling hypothesis regarding another terrorist organization that perpetrated attacks against several American diplomats and civilians prior to revolution.
It may come as no surprise that the first act of terrorism in Iranian history was also committed by a person who had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This connection highlights a continuum of violence, extending from the first terrorist act in Iran to the attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States, and ultimately to the emergence of ISIS. Throughout this evolution, the MICix-affiliated group has played a significant role. The first act of terrorism in Iran's modern history was executed by Mirza Shirazi, who had close ties with several members of the Babi movement. The target was Naser al-Din Shah, the Iranian monarch. This followed a prior unsuccessful assassination attempt attributed to the Babi movement. Historians have documented undeniable connections between the assassin and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
Any individual with ideological or religious fundamentalist beliefs can serve as an effective instrument for MICix. When a person's moral framework permits the justification of killing or acts of violence, they become susceptible to manipulation and misinformation from MICix, potentially leading them to carry out precisely the unlawful acts that MICix intends.
Interestingly, many terrorist organizations exhibit similar connections. The mechanisms for infiltration and control across these groups are largely consistent. The essential requirement is that the political or religious cult must endorse violence as a legitimate means to achieve their objectives. Secrecy and the insular nature of such "cults" further facilitate this dynamic. Notably, the Baha'i faith, as an evolved form of the Babi faith, has actively sought to excommunicate members who engage in political activism. Examples include Abdolkarim Ayadi, identified as a significant arms dealer linked to the British, and Parviz Sabeti, associated with SAVAK, as discussed previously. Nevertheless, this very clever effort did not protect the Baha'is from the brutal protocols of MICix, which resulted in severe injustices and violations of their basic human rights. This will be explored further in the forthcoming sections on the victimization of minority groups.
Expressing favorable sentiments about two opposing groups that harbor intense animosity toward one another is unlikely to result in the placation of either faction; rather, it may lead to mutual animosity from both parties. We begin with a cautionary note directed at the ardent supporters of the aforementioned groups, indicating that the forthcoming content is likely to provoke significant annoyance among them.
We will examine the conflicts and potential areas of convergence among various factions and nations within the framework of a “conspiracy theory” termed the "Wedge Protocol."
Readers who have been influenced by the media's biased narratives and the fictitious historical accounts propagated by British historians often view the former Iranian king (may he rest in peace) and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh as adversaries. We will critically examine this perception and introduce the concept of a strategy employed by the British military-industrial complex, referred to as "the Wedge protocol."
In other sections of this book, the author references a visit by the former Iranian monarch, whom he designates as the "father of modern Iran," to Australia, where he was hosted by an Australian Prime Minister referred to as the "father of modern Australia." I highly encourage readers to seek out and carefully listen to the recorded discussions from both parties. several crucial insights are summarized below.
In his speech, Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam highlights the accomplishments of the Iranian monarch as valuable lessons for Australia, including the nationalization of the oil industry, which many historians attribute as a significant achievement of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. The first significant lesson from this historical event, which is also supported by The Alam diaries [x], is that the king was equally invested in Iran's national interests regarding the oil industry as his Prime Minister. Ultimately, he was the individual who appointed Mossadegh to that position.
The same diaries recount an instance in which the Shah, after criticizing the Iranian faux leftists, humorously remarked to Alam that "we are the true socialists here." Those acquainted with his "White Revolution" would acknowledge that the redistribution of land from feudal lords to impoverished peasants has not been achieved even in self-proclaimed communist nations. Given that the Australian Prime Minister belongs to the Labor Party, it prompts a more rigorous examination of the concepts of left and right in this context.This is particularly significant, as the use of left and right ideologies serves as one of the most potent tools within the "Wedge protocol" employed by the British Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex (MICix).
The author envisions a vast library of thousands of protocols and scenarios generated by the MICix, structured around two opposing sides, A and B. They only need to substitute A and B with two individuals, two political parties, two branches of a religion, or two parallel security agencies to implement their strategies. Once an activist ventures beyond the preferred "polarized" environment established by the MICix, they become immobilized, as they can no longer rely on the old library of Wedge Protocols. In next sections we discuss a number of occasions that the author believes the Wedge Protocol has been used by the MICix.
By 1953, the British were experiencing an intense state of narcissistic rage as numerous intellectuals and politicians from traditional Anglophone families, including the Shah and Prime Minister Mossadegh, shifted their allegiances toward the Americans. The author reminds readers of harsh punishment for such individuals being a standard British protocol.
The author previously referenced "Nemat the Idiot," the Head of SAVAK, and noted the likelihood of British involvement in leveraging him during a subsequent internal coup within SAVAK. Here, we hypothesize that in 1953, he was employed as a "wedge" to drive a divide between the Shah and Prime Minister Mossadegh. The author also posits that the 1953 coup was not a unified operation between the United States and the United Kingdom, but rather constituted two distinct coups: one orchestrated by the UK and the other by the US.
The author refrains from reiterating information readily accessible online and instead refers readers to various sources that assert either the document dismissing Mossadegh is fraudulent or that it was subsequently inscribed on a blank royal letterhead signed by the Shah. The author accepts the aforementioned as factual and hypothesizes that Nasiri was misled and deceived by the British, receiving “subliminal messages” suggesting that his assistance in these fraudulent activities could elevate him to prominent positions, potentially even enabling him to succeed the Prime Minister. The author accepts the aforementioned as factual and hypothesizes that Nasiri was misled and deceived by the British, receiving “subliminal messages” suggesting that his assistance in these fraudulent activities could elevate him to prominent positions, potentially even enabling him to succeed the Prime Minister.
The Shah's departure from the country and lack of direct communications with Mossadegh facilitated in persuading him that Mossadegh sought to depose him, lending credibility to the second letter appointing Zahedi. Notably, Zahedi's and Nasiri’s differing alliances are significant, particularly given Zahedi's ties to a respected nationalist pro-American family( will discuss later years of his son, Ardeshir Zahedi, as a true patriot) . Consequently, the author argues that the initial coup orchestrated by the British and Nasiri was meant as a punitive measure against the Shah, driven by a form of narcissistic rage as previously discussed. In contrast, the subsequent coup just days later was orchestrated by national pro-American factions aimed at reinstating the Shah to power.
In the preceding section, we mentioned Ardeshir Zahedi as a genuine patriot and here encourage readers to seek out one of his last interviews, in which he expresses pride in the new generation of forces in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As a relative of the Shah's family, he held significant roles, including that of ambassador in US as well as foreign minister, prior to the revolution. His candid and courageous remarks demonstrate that he transcends the concept of a "regime," recognizing that Iran's national interests take precedence over any particular form of governance.
Just as the British once perceived Hitler as a savior against the Soviet Union, they had similarly forged alliances with Iranian Islamist-fascists during the final years preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. During this time, the British military-industrial complex (MIC) and their associates in SAVAK—which I refer to by its pre-revolution name—sought a "final solution" to the threat posed by far-left groups. A notable strategy employed by the MIC involves recruiting and training individuals from within these leftist organizations. They understand that only under extreme duress would a rational person willingly accept the rigorous demands of this "training." The author has identified numerous potential recruitment sites for the MIC, including prisons, refugee camps, and processing islands, where an atmosphere of utter terror is cultivated. Within this environment, victims are presented with a singular opportunity for relative relief: to respond to subliminal messages specifically crafted to "train" them. Among these potential locations, prisons housing political prisoners—especially those at risk of execution—are regarded as the most conducive settings for such operations.
Another prevalent protocol of the MIC is the strategic disappearance of individuals from their societies. These individuals often become presumed dead, travel overseas, or otherwise vanish, allowing them to continue their work under new identities. This tactic aligns with the earlier hypothesis regarding SAVAK personnel either remaining or returning to Iran after the revolution.
When we integrate these elements, it becomes clear how this methodology serves as a flawless protocol for training spies. They are indoctrinated through severe training regimens and then discreetly removed from the prison, leading others to believe they have been executed. This deception not only protects the spies but also facilitates the continuation of their operations undetected. However, it's important to acknowledge a tragic reality: many executions did occur. Countless individuals—among them the brightest and most promising children of Iran—were silenced for saying "NO" to oppression and tyranny. Their sacrifices serve as a somber reminder of the grave consequences of such covert operations and the human cost behind state-sanctioned secrecy and manipulation.
In 2022, the author found themselves disheartened, watching how the so-called "free media" of these alleged "liberal democracies" reported on a misguided individual captured by forces seemingly tied, directly or indirectly, to the MIC. This individual—an unfortunate scapegoat—was portrayed as responsible for horrific crimes, effectively diverting attention from British MICix who were truly culpable.
This scenario exemplifies a masterful cover-up operation, where the real architects of oppression can distance themselves from their actions by creating a narrative that shifts blame onto an easily maligned figure. It is a troubling reminder of how media can be manipulated to serve powerful interests, allowing systemic injustices to persist while leaving the actual perpetrators unscathed.
The author also confronts the troubling actions of members of security apparatus corrupted by the British MICix in destruction of graves belonging to the aforementioned political prisoners and minority groups. While some might naively interpret this as a sick form of revenge against deceased opponents, the reality is far more complex.
The deliberate disturbances and concealment of these graves are closely tied to efforts to obscure the truth surrounding these individuals, potentially undermining any DNA tests that could confirm whether the presumed bodies are actually buried there. This tragic act not only disrespects the memory of those who were heroes in their fight for justice but also serves to protect the identities of a select few collaborators—that the author refers them to as "Kapos”.
The term "Kapo" is deliberately used here and highlights a historical reference to individuals in concentration camps who were aligned with the oppressors. This situation indicates that the tactics employed by the British MIC were first conceptualized a long time ago. The readers will be shocked when they are told when, where and how. Ultimately, these grave disturbances represent a chilling erasure of history, ensuring that the narrative remains favorable to those in power while the true heroes remain hidden in obscurity.
The most detrimental action involves intelligence operatives adopting the guise of members within minority groups. In the final chapter, I will discuss various cover protocols and the multilayered disguises utilized by MICix. Scientifically and psychologically, there are numerous reasons explaining the effectiveness of these methods.
The notion that all the egregious acts committed by a "civilized" European nation, specifically the Germans, stemmed solely from unfounded hatred of Jews is an oversimplification. A critical inquiry must be made regarding the source of this animosity toward the Jewish population. The prevailing belief among Germans was that Jews were perceived as betraying Germany. My hypothesis suggests this perception arose because British MICix agents, deemed immoral and irresponsible, were using a Jewish cover or even enlisting Kapos for espionage. Furthermore, I contend that this is not the only instance in which British MICix has exploited and victimised a minority group and the author posits that the same protocols are currently widely being employed to victimise political groups, minority religious, and LGBTQ communities.
The most effective way for individuals of Iranian descent to comprehend this issue is by comparing the German Jewish minority to the Baha'i minority or Freemasons in Iran. Prior to the revolution, numerous conspiracy theories circulated regarding the wealth and influence of Baha'is or Freemasons, akin to those associated with the German Jewish people. The underlying reality, however, is that MICix has infiltrated not only these minority religious groups but also minority political factions, utilizing some among them for espionage activities. While some members may appear to financially benefit from this association, these groups ultimately serve as victims under MICix's manipulation. The author has previously praised the Baha’i community in Iran for the best way of managing this protocol by actively excommunicating the members involved with MICix. Due to the intricate nature of MICix's espionage operations disguised under the banner of these groups, they become targets for government scrutiny or mainstream religious backlash, often paying a significant price. I assert that the animosity exhibited by Fascist Germans toward the Jewish population was largely a result of MICix infiltrating the German Jewish community and exploiting some individuals for espionage.
We previously examined the Wedge protocol utilized by MICix. The author contends that a notably "successful" application of this protocol was the hostility fostered between the Hojatieh and the Baha’i community. Readers are encouraged to research how segments of SAVAK under Sabeti manipulated narratives to frame clergy associated with the Hojatieh for unethical sexual practices. This tactic exemplifies the divide-and-conquer strategy that MICix has employed to create discord among minority groups.
As previously stated, I oppose simplistic conspiracy theories asserting that the British intentionally incite conflicts between minority groups for amusement. Instead, I believe there are compelling motives behind their actions. For instance, on a personal level, when attempting to spy on someone, they might inform or misinform a jealous partner about a potential affair between their partner and the target. By carefully constructing this narrative, they encourage the jealous partner to employ surveillance technology against the target, thus providing MICix with valuable data.
Expanding this concept to a larger scale, I hypothesize that MICix fosters conflicts between competing political and religious groups, prompting them to spy on one another. This results in a pool of information that is often loosely and unprofessionally collected under the supervision of a political or religious leader and is readily available for MICix to exploit. Consequently, information that could take numerous agents to gather can be accumulated by merely a couple of operatives.
Ultimately, I believe that the violence and lives lost in these inter-group conflicts bear the responsibility of MICix—an organization marked by its unethical practices and disregard for human rights and morals.
In a propaganda film about Stalin, the actor portraying him suggested that Fascist Germany erred in outright murdering minority groups. Instead, he advocated for a more insidious approach: subjecting these groups to harsh labor conditions until their deaths in hazardous environments. This perspective can be extended to MICix, which has escalated the level of victimization. They install individuals from these communities in high-ranking positions, which, in reality, are often hollow and fake (remind the readers of “Nemat the idiot”, head of SAVAK). This strategy allows MICix to manipulate and exploit these individuals, compelling them to engage in immoral and illegal activities. Ultimately, these victims find themselves used as scapegoats when things go awry. Author will posit that even some of the members of South African apartheid were being in fact victims of similar protocols themselves.
In Australia, similar tactics could potentially be employed within sensitive organizations, where individuals affiliated with minority religious groups might be manipulated to perpetrate acts of violence or discrimination against others, such as engaging in anti-Muslim sentiment. such a situation would be disastrous and deeply concerning. Fascist or far-right individuals within governmental agencies could hire members of minority groups who have faced significant pressure or trauma in their home countries. These individuals might already be struggling with feelings of anger and resentment, and if manipulated, they could be driven to engage in acts of violence or discrimination against Muslims as a misguided form of revenge. By fostering an environment of division, those in charge of this protocol can manipulate these individuals to enact harm while distancing themselves from the consequences. This strategy not only deepens societal rifts but also allows perpetrators to cloak their actions in a façade of legitimacy, creating a cycle of victimization and scapegoating that benefits those orchestrating the turmoil.
Such a scenario would demonstrate how sensitive organizations can be infiltrated and exploited, and how the manipulation of social tensions could lead to grave moral and ethical consequences within communities. The parallels drawn here serve as a stark reminder of the potential for history to repeat itself when vulnerability and division are exploited for ulterior motives.
For a long time, the author has sought to understand the roots of the crimes committed against him, delving into the infrastructure of governmental agencies that may be implicated in this systemic abuse. What has emerged as particularly intriguing is the possibility that these institutions have been utilized to disseminate narratives blaming various minority groups, including Jews, Baha'is, and others, for these crimes.
This form of scapegoating not only deflects attention from those truly responsible but also fosters an environment of mistrust and hostility toward minority communities. By perpetuating such narratives, government agencies and affiliated organizations can manipulate public perception, leading to increased discrimination and violence against these groups.
Understanding the mechanisms behind this manipulation is essential in combating the harmful effects of such narratives and in fostering an inclusive society where all individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, can live without fear of persecution or blame. The investigation into these injustices serves as a crucial step toward addressing the larger systemic issues at play and seeking justice for those affected.
Several countries have in their recent history experienced severe economic hardships or alarming inflation that is challenging to account for; notably, many of these nations have either recently engaged in conflict with the British or have historically triumphed over them—an occurrence that is quite rare. We will later analyze Afghanistan as a case illustrating "narcissistic rage." Additionally, let us propose a new hypothesis concerning Argentina: The AMIA bombing was orchestrated by the British military-industrial complex as retaliation for the Falklands War, but in reality, it represented a multifaceted operation with various objectives. The author identifies a specific British diplomat who operated between Iran and Argentina, likely serving as the primary organizer of British infiltrations into allegedly "Iran-affiliated" terrorist organizations who orchestrated the AMIA bombings. Unsurprisingly, the author refrains from disclosing the diplomat's name.
Before proceeding, I recommend conducting your own research on those who dispute Iran's involvement, focusing on the evident factors of motivation, capability, and historical context. Investigate the collaboration between Iran and Argentina, as engaging in such detrimental actions would be contrary to Iran's national interests. Furthermore, compare the capabilities of Iranians in South America during that period with any historical precedents of similar activities in the region.
Secondly, it is essential to recognize that even if we accept the narrative of connections to Hezbollah and Iran, it remains crucial to investigate the affiliations of these individuals to determine whether they received only local support in Iran or possess more intricate networks. We have elucidated how the British specifically utilize Iranians for covert operations.
Before addressing the diplomat I believe should be questioned regarding the AMIA and possessing relevant knowledge, let us consider another protocol presented in more details later. There exists a third party with a longstanding history of corrupting politicians in both Iran and Argentina. This entity employs intricate strategies to exert pressure on powerful politicians—who are not easily corrupted—by threatening to frame them for crimes that would render them international fugitives, thus jeopardizing their political futures if they refuse to cooperate. I term this strategy the "mahout protocol," which serves to control high-profile individuals, and it will be examined in detail, particularly in the context of how the British suffered another episode of the narcissistic rage when President Rafsanjani attempted to engage in arms deals with the United States and Israel and the British badly wanted to punish him by getting their “guys” to expose the deal.
From a criminological perspective, in addition to above “mahout protocol" aimed at Iranians as well as the “wedge protocol” between Iran and Israel, there exists another motivation for this third party in selecting Argentina as a venue for their framing strategy against Iranians. This choice is informed by a prior conflict with Argentina, in which they incurred significant losses, including the deaths of several individuals associated with the British Navy. We will explore the corrupting influence of the British old navy in both Australia and Iran in greater depth. The timing of the AMIA bombing is intricately linked to these tensions with Argentina.
For the sake of discussion, let us assign the fictional name "David Runaway" to the individual of interest. He served as a British diplomat in Iran, likely affiliated with the British intelligence service, from 1977 to 1980. Notably, he worked in the Malvinas islands in Argentina (referred to as the Falkland Islands by the British) from 1984 to 1986, shortly after the conflict between the UK and Argentina over these islands.
In a manner similar to the framing and coercion tactics employed against Iranian politicians, it is reasonable to surmise that the British may have targeted certain Argentine patriots whom they viewed with animosity and wished to punish or "frame." To add further intrigue, David returned to Tehran from 1990 to 1993. Around this period, two significant terrorist attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina occurred in 1992 and 1994. Even more compelling is that David initiated another assignment in Buenos Aires in 1993, coinciding with the escalating tensions and subsequent events surrounding the AMIA bombing.
He has held positions in Canada and Turkey related to other similar matters not discussed here. His appointment in Iran in 1990 coincides with a significant operation by MICix, aimed at executing the final phase of a series of coups within Iranian intelligence. This operation culminated in a chain of murders targeting intellectuals and resulted in a total takeover of the agency.
During a trip to a European country known for its pro-Israeli and anti-fascist policies, the author attempted to connect with individuals at the Argentine embassy. Despite numerous complaints to Australian authorities regarding horrific crimes against him, his communications went unanswered, indicating a lack of genuine freedom. When approaching the Argentine diplomatic mission, the author noted a flurry of "diplomatic" cars departing, leading to suspicion that British officials had falsely labeled him as a security threat. On a day designated for public access to the embassy, the doors were locked, and no one was present. The sudden decision by Argentina to ban Hezbollah several days later raises important questions about the influence and communication tactics of the British security apparatus. This swift action suggests that there may have been misleading or alarmist information conveyed to the Argentine government, another example of “wedge protocols”.
I also reached out to the Israeli embassy in Canberra to draw attention to this hypothesis. I anticipated a significant shift in the rhetoric of Israel and its Australian lobby; however, I was taken aback by the lack of response. This experience reaffirmed my concerns that the infiltration of MICix within Israel is likely more severe than that of Iranian intelligence and Hezbollah. I refer to these individuals as Kapos and assert that they do not represent true "pro-Israel lobbies." The involvement of the British diplomat is so evident that even a high school student could readily assess the facts available online. If individuals continue to rely on mainstream media narratives and cast blame on certain members of Hezbollah—who are, in reality, manipulated by MICix—they are undermining both the Jewish community and the national interests of Israel. It is my firm belief that the Israeli government should refrain from appointing diplomats from English-speaking countries. While I hesitate to generalize, there is a strong likelihood that many of them may fall into the category of "Kapos." I hold deep respect for the nationalistic sentiments among Israeli citizens and advocate for their vigilance in safeguarding Israel against right-wing politicians and extremist evangelicals who profess to support the nation, yet serve the interests of warmongers and MICix. These individuals pose the foremost and most significant threat to Israel's existence.
In 2019, names of individuals purportedly overseeing ground operations were finally disclosed. Prior to this, the only names released were those of high-ranking Iranian officials, who appeared to be framed by MICix to ensure compliance, despite lacking any evidence connecting them to the alleged conspiracy. For reasons I will not elaborate on here, I am convinced that all the identified on-ground operatives have ties to the British MICix and have effectively infiltrated Iranian agencies and Hezbollah. A noteworthy case involves an attaché at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires, who was assigned to Argentina shortly after the Malvinas war in 1983. I suspect that the aforementioned British diplomat, residing in Tehran, played a role in corrupting him and facilitating his transfer to Buenos Aires. The unfortunate individual was preoccupied with pursuing "subliminal messages," oblivious to the fact that he was being manipulated in a trivial game of "metadata," a tactic that was later utilized in the Hariri terrorism case as well.
Individuals interested in the history of Lebanese Hezbollah should start by exploring the life of Imam Musa Al-Sadr. The author has highlighted the scarcity of progressive clergy among Iranians, making Imam Musa Al-Sadr a significant exception and a favorite of the author's father. The ties between him and various American and French entities bolster earlier discussions regarding the more progressive factions within the Iranian government with pro-US and pro-French leanings. In light of previous remarks concerning the series of suspicious murders of Iranian intellectuals, Imam Al-Sadr's name (along with Chamran) should be included among those pro-US and pro-French intellectuals who faced tragic fates.
Recently, the author discovered a previously overlooked section of Alam's memoir, where the former Iranian king provides a strikingly insightful analysis of the coup that installed Qaddafi. In this excerpt, written the day after the coup, the king posits [X] that the British were the sole actors behind this takeover, implying a deliberate and singular influence shaping the outcome. The author posits that in both Libya and Syria, much like in Iran as previously discussed, the British established their own branches of the security apparatus. These branches operated independently and were entirely unresponsive to the heads of state. The relevance to the story of Musa Al-Sadr lies in the fact that he vanished in Libya, with Qaddafi publicly claiming to know nothing about that matter as well as regarding Pan Am flight accident, while officially confessing Libyan agents were involved in the latter. The author proposes that both the assassination of CIA personnel in Benghazi and the Pan Am flight accident may be linked to rogue members and offshoots of the previously mentioned British-influenced security apparatus operating in Libya. This connection suggests a deeper involvement of these factions in orchestrating such significant incidents within the geopolitical landscape of the region.
Possibly, certain elements within the “complex” possessed information regarding this matter, which they chose to withhold as it aligned with their long-term financial interests, including oil interests in Libya and Egypt.
Two progressive figures who engaged with Shia in Lebanon, Chamran and Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, belonged to a faction known as the "Syrian mafia" within Khomeini's court. There was notable tension between this group and the Libya-friendly faction led by Mohammad Montazeri. Interestingly, this situation recalls Mehdi Hashemi, a relative of Montazeri, whose actions were discussed before in relation to the British MIC's attempts to punish President Rafsanjani for his outreach to the US and Israel. It's important to note that both Lebanon and Syria were part of the French mandate, which shaped their political landscapes and relationships. In contrast, Libya served as a focal point and a fault line in the Franco-British struggle for African colonies, highlighting distinct colonial influences and rivalries in the region. This historical context is essential for understanding the geopolitical dynamics at play in these countries.
The author contends that, similar to the "coups" within Iranian agencies aimed at replacing progressive elements with loyalists of the British MIC, a comparable operation was initiated by the MIC in Lebanon to infiltrate Shia society. This operation allegedly led to the elimination of Al-Sadr and the elevation of several agents to high-ranking positions within Hezbollah. The author argues that these elements are responsible for most acts of terrorism attributed to Hezbollah.
To further underscore the influence of pro-British elements over pro-US and pro-French factions, the author notes that one of the most horrific terrorist acts in Lebanon targeted US and French personnel, while failing to recall any attacks against British interests in the country.
After emergence of ISIS the author made several predictions that contradicted those of nearly all analysts in the field, many of which have since proven accurate. At that time, he forecasted that ISIS would not overthrow Assad. More recently, just a day after HTS began its hostilities, he predicted that President Assad would indeed depart. If there is confusion regarding the origins of ISIS, it is essential to consider the geopolitical landscape of the pre-ISIS era and examine the map, which illustrates the alarming expansion of Iran's zone of influence toward Israel's borders. And then there is the proposed Qatari Gas pipe line. I will present arguments suggesting that one of the fundamental existential philosophies of both groups relates to the establishment of a buffer zone with various purposes.
It appears that the media mafia of "Transformers" lacks a fundamental understanding of how false flag operations or "misleading operations" can be orchestrated by a security apparatus compromised by the Military-Industrial Complex. Such operations can effectively frame the Syrian military for actions probably it didn’t commit. In the context of Iran, the author plans to discuss in next section the intricate operations carried out by British SAVAK and corrupt police officials, aiming to incite confrontations between the IRGC and the Iranian populace—often resulting in tragic losses of innocent lives. This manipulation illustrates the dark tactics employed to serve specific agendas amidst complex political landscapes.
Historically, an English agent played a pivotal role in helping Arabia break away from the Ottoman "Khalifate." Interestingly, the "Khalifah" of the new Islamic state was named Abu Bakr, a detail that might raise unease in Saudi Arabia about the intentions of foreign powers. The actions of British agents have often prioritized their interests over the well-being of local populations, whether by fracturing nations or promoting unifications for strategic gains.
At present, British supporters of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood are promoting the enticing vision of reviving the Ottoman Khalifat, seeking to exploit this aspiration for financial gain tied to a new gas pipeline. The same way that Lawrence of Arabia's endeavors weren't fueled by a genuine love for the Arab people, but rather by geopolitical motives. The situation regarding pro-Israeli lobbies is similarly complex. The advocacy for the "protection of Israel" through establishment of above orthotopic buffer zone while installing a fundamentalist government with Muslim Brotherhood connections should raise questions about the true motivations. Furthermore, some fundamentalist Evangelical prophecies seem less concerned with the welfare of innocent Israelis who suffer in ongoing conflicts and more focused on the expectation of perpetual warfare between Israelis and Arabs.
The monarchists, Israel and IRGC: Is there a link between IRGC and terrorism?
The author will answer above question with a clear YES or No at the end of this section. We will examine the conflicts and potential areas of convergence among above various factions within the framework of the “conspiracy theory” we previously termed as the "Wedge Protocol."
Following the terrorist attacks by Hamas on October 7th, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) undertook actions in Gaza that significantly damaged both Israel's and the IDF's reputations, creating challenges that will be hard to overcome and making it difficult for all pro-Israelis to defend those actions. This conflict bears resemblance to past operations against the Iranian Royal Army and the Syrian military to create confrontations with the populace. The author argues that a compromised security apparatus, influenced by the Military-Industrial Complex, plays a crucial role in shaping these tragic circumstances. It is likely that the Israeli populace will hold politicians accountable for the fallout, rather than directing their ire at the military.The author hypothesizes that within the IRGC, certain elements recognized that Hamas, as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, was potentially orchestrating a conflict aimed at provoking a war between Israel and Iran. This strategic understanding could have influenced the IRGC's response, prompting a more cautious approach to avoid being drawn into an escalating conflict. The first day following the attacks, even the Iranian leader distanced himself from Hamas's actions, an unprecedented move that presented a unique opportunity for Israel. This moment could have marked a turning point; had Israel opted for a more measured response instead of escalating violence, it might have led to a significant weakening or even the potential end of Hamas.
During the subsequent cycle of violence between the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), both parties exhibited a surprising degree of restraint, engaging in actions that could be described as "civilized." This remarkable behavior suggested an awareness of the broader implications of their actions and a desire to avoid further escalation.
As mentioned before in the story of Musa al-Sadr, the author has long concluded that the British Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) had embedded moles at the highest levels of Hezbollah. This infiltration could have posed significant risks to Iran's national interests. The author posits that the IRGC may have discovered these infiltrations, leading to a growing awareness of the detrimental impact on both Hezbollah and Hamas.
Using the definition provided years ago by Benjamin Netanyahu, who characterizes a terrorist organization as one that “deliberately” and “systematically” targets civilians, one could argue that the IRGC has acted differently. In contrast to this definition of terrorism, the IRGC has, in a “deliberate” and “systematic” manner, AVOIDED targeting innocent Israelis. This distinction suggests a tactical approach that aimed to minimize civilian casualties and maintain a level of restraint, contrasting with the actions of groups like Hamas that openly pursue civilian targets.
Ardeshir Zahedi, son-in-law and former foreign minister of the last Shah of Iran demonstrated remarkable courage in his later years by expressing pride in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In his interview, Zahedi highlighted a perspective that transcended both regimes, illustrating that patriotism can exist independently of political affiliations. By acknowledging the dedication and capabilities of the IRGC, he suggested that one could appreciate the strength of the national forces while remaining critical of the regime itself. This duality reflects a nuanced understanding of national identity, loyalty, and the complexities of Iran's political landscape.
Indeed, it is intriguing that Ardeshir Zahedi is the son of General Zahedi, a man previously hypothesized by the author to have played a significant role in the “second coup," which aimed to reinstate the former Shah after he was initially toppled by a British-backed coup. This lineage suggests a familial legacy deeply intertwined with Iran's political history and a consistent theme of patriotism. Ardeshir's pride in the IRGC may be seen as an extension of this legacy, signifying a continuation of a commitment to Iranian identity and interests that transcends the fluctuations of political regimes. The phrase "patriotism runs in the blood" aptly encapsulates the idea that values of loyalty and national pride can be inherited, shaping perspectives and actions across generations in the face of complex political dynamics.
The historical account of the Iranian monarchy, particularly regarding the imprisonment of British SAVAK members, including its head whom the monarch referred to as "Nemat the idiot," points to significant tensions between the Shah's regime and foreign intelligence influences. Following this imprisonment, the British SAVAK reportedly initiated operations aimed at creating civil unrest, most notably the tragic arson of Cinema Rex, which resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians.
The author's hypothesis suggests that one of the primary objectives of British SAVAK was to provoke confrontations with the Iranian military. This strategy likely stemmed from an understanding that the true loyalists to the Shah were within the army, and by instigating conflict, they could undermine the military's credibility. This manipulation could have been aimed at destabilizing the government and fostering an environment conducive to regime change.
similar to the situation with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the Iranian army found itself ensnared in a complex web of political manipulation and conflict. The author's argument that the Iranian army fell into the trap set by British SAVAK underscores the difficulties military institutions face when external forces exploit domestic tensions. As instability increased and confrontations were instigated, the Iranian military struggled to maintain its loyalty to the Shah amid rising public unrest and orchestrated provocations.
The parallel between above historical SAVAK operations and contemporary actions by Iranian intelligence agencies (refer back to the hypothesis of continuity of SAVAK after revolution) is indeed compelling. Just as British SAVAK sought to create tensions between the Iranian army and the populace to undermine loyalty, today's Iranian intelligence operations may aim to foster confrontations between the populace and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is often viewed as a key patriotic force.
This dynamic creates a complicated environment where the IRGC's role as a protector of the regime is juxtaposed with its perception as a defender of national interests. By instigating dissent among the public and fueling discontent, these contemporary operations might seek to erode the IRGC's credibility and provoke a divide between the military and civilian sectors.
The author's hypothesis suggests a troubling pattern in recent uprisings in Iran, where actions taken by the police and security forces have led to escalations of violence, often resulting in the IRGC being held responsible for the ensuing casualties. This pattern of events points to a strategic manipulation of blame, where the actions of law enforcement are designed to provoke a backlash that ultimately undermines the IRGC's reputation and its role as a protective entity.
Incidents such as deaths in custody or violent crackdowns on protesters can serve to incite public outrage, creating an environment ripe for unrest. When these events occur, the public's anger may be directed towards the IRGC, even if they were not directly responsible. This diversion of blame strategically shifts the narrative and public sentiment, complicating the relationship between the military and civilians.
Additionally, the hypothesis raises questions about the motivations behind such actions by the police and security apparatus. It points to a possible intention to weaken the IRGC's authority and create divisions within the fabric of Iranian society. Ultimately, this manipulation not only affects public perception but could also jeopardize national security as dissent and unrest become increasingly intertwined with internal power struggles.
The author posits that a specific SAVAK cell has been operating out of Western Australia, deploying agents from MICix into Iran with the objective of manipulating young girls to assume the role of activists. These individuals are then subjected to exploitation, including sexual abuse and even murder, with the intent of implicating Iranian forces in these heinous acts. This modus operandi bears a striking resemblance to the actions of SAVAK during the 1970 revolution. The disturbing remarks made by Mr. Sabeti regarding the sexual assault of prisoners by these agents serve to underscore the extent to which individuals harboring animosity towards Iran and its populace are capable of engaging in egregious and immoral acts. Regrettably, it appears that these terrorist cells enjoy local support in Western Australia. The aforementioned hypothesis is grounded in a protocol referred to as the “game of names,” which will be examined in detail in the concluding chapter.
The Persian term "veghahat," as defined before, aptly captures the essence of biased or misleading media coverage, particularly regarding these uprisings. A common tactic where extensive focus is placed on the actions or crimes of one individual, Mr. Faramarz, while ultimately directing blame and punishment towards an unrelated individual, Mr. Ali, without a clear logical connection.
This method of reporting distorts the narrative and misleads the audience, creating an unjust portrayal of events and individuals involved. It exemplifies how media mafia and particularly a British one manipulates public perception by emphasizing certain aspects of a situation while downplaying or ignoring others that are critical for a comprehensive understanding.
Such biased coverage can exacerbate tensions and misinform the public, leading to further unrest and polarization within society. It's indeed disheartening to recognize that the new generation may not fully grasp the historical context and the tactics used by this particular media outlet in shaping public opinion and influencing political outcomes. The protocols employed are exact copy of those by the British media to undermine the father of modern Iran. This suggests a pattern of manipulation that is not new but rather a recurring theme in the country's security apparatus’ history.
Thus, it is appropriate to address the initial inquiry. Prior to doing so, however, it is pertinent to reiterate that the IRGC and IDF have been engaged in combat against ISIS and Hamas. The author has provided a rationale for the affiliation of both these organizations with the Muslim Brotherhood and, consequently, with the British Military-Industrial Complex.
For years, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. This context introduces the concept of the “Cyrus Accords,” proposed by Prince Reza Pahlavi, alongside the author's hypothesis regarding the potential establishment of a future Middle Eastern Union.
Therefore, the response to the inquiry about a connection between the IRGC and terrorism is unequivocally “YES”: The IRGC is arguably the most effective terrorist elimination force of the 21st century, with the IDF as its only rival. However, this does not condone the horrific actions in which both organizations may have engaged, which the author contends were deliberate and unethical operations orchestrated by the British Military-Industrial Complex to set them up.
The current youth in Iran, contending with a shallow comprehension of the extensive pool of knowledge available to them, reproach the generation that engaged in the Islamic Revolution for mirroring the very mistakes they are now making. The most significant of these errors is their reliance on the media's propaganda machine, which targets the most devoted groups committed to the national interest of Iran. In the previous section, we examined how the MICix infiltrations within the police and security apparatus orchestrated violent confrontations with the Royal Army. A similar scenario is currently unfolding, substituting the Royal Army with the IRGC.
In this section, we propose a non-violent solution to the issues facing Iran and the broader Middle East, which involves dismantling the divisions instigated by the British MICix among various nationalist groups.
It is important to note that the rhetoric employed by the Iranian regime against Prince Reza Pahlavi differs significantly from that used against the MKO. This distinction is justified when considering the patriotism demonstrated by the Prince, who, while in exile, suggested joining the Iranian Air Force to defend the nation against Iraqi aggression, contrasting sharply with the actions of the MKO's leader, who was publicly supportive of Saddam Hussein.
For members of the Iranian regime who oppose regime change but uphold the importance of national interests, it is crucial to maintain the highest respect for Prince Reza Pahlavi. This respect is essential, as potential threats to Iran's existence could necessitate a unification of nationalists to safeguard the country's integrity. I would like to remind readers of Ardeshir Zahedi's remarks, which emphasized placing Iran's national interests above the specific type of government. Additionally, it is important to reflect on previous discussions suggesting that the regime change of 1979 was, in fact, not a genuine transformation but rather a superficial alteration. It's not merely a coincidence that most Iranians have largely rejected various opposition groups and alternatives. Those who genuinely respect national interests tend to align either with the IRGC or with the Monarchist movement.
Regarding the triangle involved in the "Cyrus Accords," there have been notable breakthroughs facilitated by the U.S. between the Arab-Israeli factions and by China between the Arab-Iranian sides. Perhaps Russia could be the appropriate choice to undertake the most challenging task: bridging the divide between Iran and Israel.
The author previously expressed suspicion regarding pragmatic forces within the IRGC who are loyal to Iran's interests and may become aware of the infiltration of MICIX agents within the so-called "Iranian proxies," which may actually be British MIC proxies disguised as Iranian affiliates.
As noted earlier, the more pragmatic factions within both the IDF and the IRGC have shown restraint in their retaliatory attacks. It is important to remind the readers that in authors belief IDF and IRGC are the most effective counter-terrorism forces of the century, Interestingly, both engaged in combat against various branches of MICix terrorist organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
This section seeks to critically reassess dominant historical narratives surrounding the causes and conduct of World War II, positing that British conservative elites bear significant responsibility for the ensuing global catastrophe and its estimated 70 million casualties. While this claim may initially seem provocative, it reflects a broader historiographical need to scrutinize narratives shaped by victorious powers and to read history with a more discerning lens.
The colonial powers of the "Old Order" were increasingly challenged by emergent global actors—most notably the Soviet Union and the United States—who positioned themselves as ideological opponents of colonialism and imperial dominance. The British were inclined to eliminate the leaders of this new order; however, true to their patterns in modern history, they were not motivated by moral considerations, assuming they had any. Instead, their focus was on dismantling two systems that posed a potential risk to the long-term interests of colonial Europe. Historically, the most entrenched imperialist and proto-fascist regimes were arguably centered in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, whose maritime empires not only dominated global trade but also operated as some of the most expansive and systematized narcotics cartels in history. As George Orwell compellingly depicted in 1984, the British establishment has long demonstrated a proclivity for historical revisionism. In this context, their attempt to covertly support the development of a fascist regime—only to later present themselves as its chief opponents—can be interpreted as a strategic erasure of centuries of colonial violence, exploitation, and systemic atrocities from mainstream historical discourse. Hitler's regime represented a staunch far-right presence in this geopolitical landscape.
The prevailing portrayal of Nazi Germany as a uniquely formidable military power shall be interrogated. Contrary to this depiction, the author emphasizes that the Third Reich fought only two major wars—against the Soviet Union and the United States—and lost both. Many of its earlier advances across Europe were facilitated not solely by military might, but with tacit or active support from elements within Europe's colonial powers , particularly Britain and its ideological allies or parts of the europe the author refers to as the "fascist zone of Europe". These powers often viewed fascism as a bulwark against socialist ideologies, reflecting a deeper geopolitical alignment rooted in "leftophobia," or fear and loathing of leftist ideologies. what the author refers to as the "fascist zone of Europe" European colonial powers or the "old world."
The argument advances that British conservatives did not primarily oppose Nazism for moral reasons, but because Hitler ultimately failed to deliver on shared goals: the destruction of the Soviet Union and the containment of American influence. The author encourages further exploration of early communications between Hitler’s regime and British elites, including the ideological overlaps in racial hierarchies and imperial ambitions, with particular reference to how Britain initially figured into Hitler’s conception of a pan-Nordic "master race." There is a notable geographic overlap between their published maps of where the "master race" lived with several historical and sociopolitical maps that warrants critical attention. These include: the map of European countries that did not actively oppose Nazi Germany; the map of predominantly Protestant regions; areas historically associated with powerful naval empires that operated as the largest drug-trafficking cartels under colonial protection; and the locations of major banking centers that played a pivotal role in financing war efforts. This convergence is unlikely to be coincidental and suggests deeper structural alignments between ideological, economic, and geopolitical forces within what may be termed the "Old Order" of Europe.
It is further noted that segments of the British aristocracy, including members of the royal family, expressed overt sympathy for fascism in the years preceding the war. Historical evidence suggests that far-right Protestant fundamentalist ideologues held considerable sway within Britain’s military-industrial complex and financial institutions. The notion that Britain was purely an adversary of Nazism shall be challenged by the early geopolitical dynamics of the war, particularly the initial reluctance to confront Hitler’s aggression and the conceptual alignment between British imperial interests and fascist ideologies. The author refers back to the earlier sections of this chapter, where Huntington’s theory on the role of religion in shaping geopolitical alliances was discussed. In that context, it is important to recall that the United Kingdom served as the birthplace of Protestantism, while Germany emerged as its philosophical heartland. If one were to identify the two principal centers of Protestant thought and influence globally, they would undoubtedly be the UK and Germany.
The strategic timing of British intervention in the war—particularly the support for the Soviets and the manipulation of American entry—is presented as evidence of a broader, more opportunistic approach to conflict. Britain, having initially appeared to align with Hitler's aims, pivoted only once it became clear that his regime would not succeed in subduing Russia and that his campaign had faltered. If we consider the perspective of British historians, it would seem logical that after conquering France, Hitler’s next target should have been the UK, rather than Russia. However, he struggled to achieve significant success against the Soviet Union and failed to fulfill the grand expectations placed upon him by the colonials of the old order. Even before the results of the new campaign against the Russians were clear, the British guessed the outcome and began aiding the Soviets and conducting covert operations to manipulate the Americans and draw them into the conflict. Hitler, who had perceived the British as part of the "perfect race," found himself betrayed by their duplicity. It was only after realizing the extent of this betrayal that he intensified his attacks on Britain, but by then, it was too late to change the course of the war.
Additionally, the mystery surrounding Hitler’s death shall be reanalyzed. The official account of suicide is juxtaposed with declassified British plans to assassinate Hitler before Soviet forces could reach him. The author posits that Hitler, disillusioned and betrayed by his perceived allies in Britain, may have been eliminated to prevent the exposure of clandestine relationships that would implicate influential British figures in collaboration with fascism. Parallels are drawn with the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Heinrich Himmler and the extrajudicial killing of Muammar Gaddafi, suggesting a pattern of covert interventions to manage inconvenient political figures.
We should also critically engage with the roots of Hitler’s antisemitism. Rather than attributing it solely to prevailing prejudices, it is argued that personal motivations—possibly influenced or intensified by external manipulation—played a role. British conservative circles, known for their strategic infiltration of political movements through secret societies or “Slavemasonry,” may have played a part in exacerbating Hitler’s personal vendettas for broader geopolitical ends.
In a particularly controversial assertion, we reevaluate the historical motivations behind British support for Zionism, suggesting that figures such as Lord Balfour may not have been driven by humanitarian concern for Jews but rather by a long-term strategy to displace European Jewry into a region where they could be exposed to existential threats, thus absolving Europe of future accountability. The creation of Israel, under this interpretation, was not intended as a refuge but as a geopolitical trap—one that, against the odds, the Israeli people have resisted through resilience and determination.
We also should address contemporary implications of these historical mechanisms, particularly in Australia, where elements within conservative political structures maintain secret affiliations with networks rooted in this same ideological lineage. Allegations regarding right wing figures highlight the continued relevance of investigating historical fascist sympathies and their covert influence on modern institutions. Ultimately, we should call for a reevaluation of liberal democratic values in light of persistent undemocratic and fascistic undercurrents within political and intelligence networks, advocating for transparency, accountability, and a break from historical revisionism that masks imperial crimes behind a veneer of moral righteousness.
During my adolescence, I found myself questioning many aspects of the mainstream historical narrative—stories that, to me, appeared illogical or overly simplistic, often shaped by the victors of war. Among these was the curious case of Adolf Hitler's alleged suicide and the mysterious disappearance of his body. From a psychological standpoint, it seemed incongruous that a figure who had compelled millions to sacrifice their lives for his ideology would choose to end his own life without resistance. One would expect such a character to perish in combat, perhaps with a poison capsule under his tongue, rather than through quiet suicide.
More intriguingly, one must consider who might have had the greatest interest in preventing Hitler from falling into Soviet hands. A captured Hitler could potentially have revealed sensitive information regarding covert communications with far-right elements in Britain and the tacit approval he had allegedly received in the early stages of his aggression. A betrayed and disillusioned Hitler, standing trial, would have had ample motivation to disclose such connections.
The decision to cremate his body immediately raises further suspicion. One plausible interpretation is that the destruction of the body conveniently eliminated the possibility of forensic analysis that might have contradicted the official suicide narrative. A comparable case can be seen in the questionable circumstances surrounding Heinrich Himmler’s supposed suicide.
While this line of thinking may appear conspiratorial at first glance, there is evidence that lends it some credibility. Recently declassified British documents reveal that plans were indeed formulated for a specialized unit to infiltrate deep into German territory with the objective of reaching Hitler before the Soviets—ostensibly to assassinate him. Official accounts dismiss this as merely a contingency that was never enacted. Yet, if we allow ourselves to entertain the notion that this plan was executed, it provides a more coherent explanation for the absence of Hitler’s remains and the unresolved questions surrounding his death.
According to this hypothetical scenario, communication lines assured Hitler that he would be rescued from Soviet capture. When the British unit arrived, rather than extracting him, they may have eliminated him to prevent any potentially damaging revelations. The parallels between this episode and the controversial killing of Muammar Gaddafi—who also posed a potential risk to Western interests—are worth noting and will be further explored in later sections.
A compelling question arises when considering the origins of Adolf Hitler’s virulent antisemitism: was it merely a product of prevailing ideological currents, or was it, for him, deeply personal? While numerous historical analyses have identified broader social, political, and cultural factors underpinning Nazi antisemitism, the present author suggests that, in Hitler’s case, a profoundly personal animus played a decisive role. History has shown that personal vendettas often supersede rational policy-making, overriding national interests, democratic principles, and strategic logic. No amount of external influence—whether ideological or financial—can rival the force of a deeply internalized hatred.
It is within this psychological and geopolitical context that one must examine the role of British conservative elites. Masters of covert influence and manipulation, these elites—through what the author terms a “Slavemasonic” network—have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to construct and direct the energies of authoritarian leaders toward destructive ends. In this view, Hitler was not merely a rogue ideologue but a manufactured agent, whose hatred was cultivated to serve broader imperial objectives.
Contrary to the official narrative, figures such as Lord Balfour were not genuinely motivated by concern for the Jewish people. Rather, Balfour’s declaration can be seen as part of a long-term geopolitical maneuver—one that ultimately sought to displace European Jews not in protection, but in pursuit of an unspoken “final solution.” When Hitler failed to deliver on two critical tasks—eliminating the Soviet threat and resolving the so-called "Jewish question"—British strategists pursued an alternative plan.
This plan involved the establishment of a Jewish state, not as a sanctuary, but as a geopolitical trap—what the author provocatively refers to as a “new Auschwitz.” The aim was to relocate European Jews into a volatile region dominated by hostile regimes, where, it was presumed, they would be extinguished by Islamist forces—a proxy mechanism for a fascist “final solution” that Hitler had failed to achieve. This cynical strategy served multiple interests: neutralizing a politically active, progressive Jewish diaspora; creating a permanent flashpoint in the Middle East; and opening the door to massive arms sales by Britain’s military-industrial complex in exchange for access to Arab oil.
And yet, history did not unfold according to this design. The Israeli state, rather than succumbing to destruction, prevailed—thanks largely to the resilience and determination of its people. Far from becoming a site of passive victimhood, Israel emerged as a sovereign power, capable of defending itself and even challenging the very European actors who once plotted its demise.
An intriguing methodological reversal emerges when, rather than using history solely to understand the present, one instead interprets historical events through the lens of contemporary geopolitical dynamics. For many years, I was puzzled by the seemingly paradoxical support extended by segments of the British establishment—particularly financial and political elites—to high-ranking clergy and political actors within the Islamic Republic of Iran. This incongruity was especially difficult to reconcile when viewed through a conventional understanding of their so called “pro-Israel” positions. The only historical parallel that resonated with this contradiction was the previously discussed "conspiracy theory" suggesting that certain British-aligned collaborators (calling themselves "pro Israel" but colloquially referred to as Kapos) had, for strategic or financial reasons, covertly supported Hitler during the lead-up to World War II.
While I once considered such theories implausible, contemporary developments have prompted a reassessment. Even if not historically accurate in every detail, these frameworks offer an explanatory model for present-day phenomena—most notably, the contradictions surrounding British and Western involvement in the Arab Spring and in Iranian politics. The question arises: how can individuals with Jewish backgrounds participate in or support revolutionary movements that ultimately empower Islamist factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood, whose rise poses existential threats to the state of Israel?
From a critical Zionist standpoint, this apparent cognitive dissonance supports a more nuanced interpretation of the term Kapo—not as a slur, but as a descriptor of a certain elite class whose primary allegiance lies with global capital and strategic dominance, rather than with the Jewish people or the state of Israel. These actors, embedded in powerful British business and intelligence networks, appear indifferent to Israel's long-term security. Their facilitation of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East—under the guise of democratization or economic liberalization—has, in effect, contributed to the empowerment of ideologically hostile regimes and militias.
Thus, the term Kapo in this context is not about betrayal in the classical sense, but about a form of elite detachment—where ideological commitments are subordinated to imperial pragmatism. In doing so, these figures unwittingly or indifferently pave the way for the realization of apocalyptic narratives espoused by extremist factions—what some among the Brotherhood refer to as "Armageddon." It is a development that genuine supporters of Israel must view with grave concern.
It is important to challenge a common misconception: what can be referred to as “right-wing Zionism” did not originate in Israel, nor does it reflect the historical or ideological foundations of the Israeli state. Rather, its ideological roots can be traced back to the United Kingdom, as mentioned in previous sections, where imperial and strategic interests shaped a version of Zionism that prioritized Western geopolitical agendas over the welfare of Jewish communities. To this day, many ordinary Israelis remain the primary victims of this betrayal—caught between external manipulation and internal disillusionment.
This distinction reveals a crucial evaluative framework: when individuals on the political left describe themselves as “pro-Israel,” it frequently reflects a principled commitment to human rights, peace, and a secure future for the Jewish people. In contrast, when right-wing politicians adopt the same label, it often masks an allegiance not to Israel itself, but to the interests of powerful Western business lobbies and defense industries—interests that have, at times, sacrificed Jewish lives in the pursuit of profit and strategic dominance.
No comments:
Post a Comment