CANADA China Coronavirus COVID-19 global takeover government is slavery Headline News Hoax Immunity Intelwars Iran leave the system liars North Korea Obey Orwellian measures plandemic politicians are parasites scamdemic SLAVERY submit The Matrix totalitarian control tyranny variants voting is consent wake up

We Are Now Entering Full-Blown Tyranny In The Western World

This article was originally published by Micahel Snyder at The End of the American Dream. 

If we accept what they are doing to us now, they are just going to keep pushing the envelope.  Over the past 12 months, authorities throughout the western world have used the pandemic as an excuse to impose Orwellian measures that we never would have accepted during normal times.

They are promising us that these measures are just “temporary”, but the pandemic has already been with us for a year and there are no signs that it is going away any time soon.  If those governing us are willing to go to such ridiculous extremes during a relatively minor pandemic, what are they going to be willing to do once things start getting really crazy?

Watching the events that have unfolded at a church in Edmonton in recent days has been a breaking point for me emotionally.

Last Wednesday, the RCMP received global attention when it put up a three-layer fence around GraceLife Church in an attempt to keep people out.

I don’t know why they decided that one fence would not be sufficient.  Apparently having Christians gather together is so dangerous that three fences were needed.

Needless to say, this draconian move made a lot of headlines, and on Sunday approximately 400 Christians gathered to protest at the church.  Most of them were just singing hymns or reading the Bible, but when a few of them started tearing down one of the fences, 200 heavily-armed riot police moved in.

I would expect to see this sort of a scene in communist China, North Korea or Iran.

This sort of thing was never supposed to happen in Canada.

Out of 4.4 million people living in Alberta, there have only been 2,013 deaths, and about half of those were among people 80 years of age or older.

If it isn’t safe to go to church, why are hordes of Canadians allowed to circulate through retail establishments every single day of the week?

If churches should be shut down, you would think that Wal-Mart, Costco and Canadian Tire should be shut down too.

But they aren’t shut down.

All over the western world, we are being promised that life will finally go back to “normal” once the pandemic is over, and they are telling us that the vaccines will end the pandemic.

But that isn’t happening.  Cases are on the rise again, and thousands are still getting sick even though they have been “fully vaccinated”.

And now Pfizer and Moderna are publicly admitting that their vaccines only provide about six months of immunity

According to new research from Pfizer and Moderna, it looks like COVID-19 immunity will last at least six months in fully vaccinated people, though studies are ongoing. In a statement released by Pfizer-BioNTech on Thursday, immunity against the coronavirus is confirmed to last at least half a year for people who have been fully vaccinated with the Pfizer shot.

Most people that are getting shots think that they now have some sort of permanent immunity, but that isn’t even close to accurate.

Meanwhile, variants continue to emerge around the globe that the current vaccines won’t be effective against at all.

I know that a lot of you don’t want to hear this, but the pandemic is with us to stay.

And that means that the Orwellian measures that are being put in place are with us to stay too.

Over in the UK, one recent survey found that a majority of the British population is actually in favor of a permanent vaccine passport system

Another disturbing survey has revealed that a majority of British people are willing to accept vaccine passports in order to engage in basic day to day activities, and that they are willing to go along with the digital ID card system PERMANENTLY.

The London Independent poll, conducted by pollster Savanta ComRes, highlighted the findings, with 56 per cent saying that it would be acceptable to have to prove vaccination or negative COVID status in order to enter a shop.

Fewer than a third, 32 per cent, said that this would be unacceptable, according to the survey.

What in the world has happened to the British?

Here in the U.S., researchers are developing an implantable sensor that can tell if you are sick or not.  If you do not know about this yet, I would highly recommend watching this 60 Minutes report.

In Australia, the Orwellian measures that they have instituted during this pandemic have regularly made headlines all over the globe, and now they are considering doing something that is completely insane.

I had a hard time believing this when I first read it.  According to an Australian news source, the government is actually considering requiring people to provide “100 points of identification” before they are allowed to access social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Instagram…

The Morrison Government will consider a radical measure to prevent online bullying and trolling, but experts say the proposal would involve serious risks for social media users.

The government is considering forcing users of social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram — as well as online dating platforms like Tinder — to upload 100 points of identification in order to use them.

The recommendation, which has been raised before, is one of 88 recommendations from a parliamentary committee report looking at family, domestic and sexual violence.

This is the direction that our world is headed.

For a long time we enjoyed an Internet that was relatively free and open, but now that era has ended.

Now tyrants all over the globe are seeing that the Internet can be used as a tool of control, and that should deeply alarm all of us.

Over the past 12 months, the pandemic has been used as justification to advance tyranny by leaps and bounds.

If this is what has happened during a relatively minor pandemic, what is going to take place once a true global emergency comes along?

We should all consider that very carefully, because we are moving into very dark times, and government tyranny is only going to get worse.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter, and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post We Are Now Entering Full-Blown Tyranny In The Western World first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

act against humanity attacks damage done Disaster false flag Headline News Intelwars Iran ISRAEL Mohammad Javad Zarif Natanz nuclear program nuclear site SABOTAGE Saeed Khatibzadeh wake up War

Iran Vows To Respond To Israel’s Alleged Sabotage at Natanz Nuclear Site

Iran is promising to respond to alleged sabotage by Israel of the Natanz nuclear site. Iran’s foreign minister has issued a warning to Israel that an attack on the Natanz atomic site will not stop the country’s nuclear program.

Speaking alongside his Russian counterpart on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Israel had made a “very bad gamble” by sabotaging the Natanz nuclear site.

The underground Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz experienced a power outage on Sunday. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh called the suspected Israeli sabotage “an act against humanity, because the damage done to the plant could have caused a disaster.

The foreign minister contended that Iran’s hand in the renegotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the now-abandoned 2015 pact limiting Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, had been strengthened by Israel’s sabotage. “The Israelis thought the attack will weaken our hand in the Vienna talks, but in contrary, it will strengthen our position,” Zarif said. -RT

Zarif also said that Natanz would continue to be an important nuclear enrichment site for Tehran. “I assure you that in the near future more advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges will be placed in the Natanz facility,” he stated.

Israel has not taken responsibility for the act.

Iran has labeled Israel’s alleged involvement in the attack on the nuclear site as an attempt to provoke Tehran and derail talks in Vienna. Those talks are said to have a goal of bringing Iran and the US back in line with the 2015 pact which President Donald Trump unilaterally left in 2018. If successful, crippling sanctions against Iran would be removed.

If Iran does follow through on its promise to retaliate against Israel for this action against the nuclear site, we could see an escalation that could lead to war.  With the ongoing tensions currently continuing to rise between Ukraine and Russia, global conflict seems inevitable.

Stay prepared and stay aware. Use your discernment and actively employ your critical thinking skills. It’s imperative at this point in history to understand what does and does not resonate with you. Choose morality and life over dogma and political slavery. We can unite to stop these wars, but it’s going to take more people choosing to not kill each other at the commands of their rulers.

The post Iran Vows To Respond To Israel’s Alleged Sabotage at Natanz Nuclear Site first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

America’s Predictable Betrayal of the ‘Iran Nuclear Deal’

April 10, 2021 (Brian Berletic – NEO) – Despite campaign promises made by now US President Joe Biden to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal – Washington’s return to the deal has predictably stalled. 

In February 2021, AP would report in its article, “Biden repudiates Trump on Iran, ready for talks on nuke deal,” that: 

The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, in a sharp repudiation of former President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” that sought to isolate the Islamic Republic.

The US had unilaterally withdrawn from the 2015-2016 deal brokered under the Obama-Biden administration in 2018 under US President Donald Trump. The deal was deemed “defective” and much more stringent conditions were demanded by the US with crushing economic sanctions under a policy of “maximum pressure” imposed until Iran capitulated. 

Despite Biden’s attempts to distinguish his administration from Trump’s, his promise to return to the deal was conditional, requiring Iran to recommit to the deal’s conditions before the US lifts sanctions – and only after additional conditions are discussed – and until then, sanctions and other mechanisms of political pressure will be applied to Tehran. 

In other words – Biden’s policy is exactly the same policy pursued by the Trump administration. 

Desire to Overturn “Trump’s Policy” an Admission it was the Wrong Policy 

Biden’s apparent desire to return to the table with Iran is in itself an admission that the Trump administration’s decision to leave the deal was a mistake. 

The US – as self-proclaimed leader of the international community – would be expected to demonstrate good leadership by not only admitting to its mistakes, but assuming responsibility for them – returning to the Iran Nuclear Deal unconditionally and approaching additional concerns only after the original terms of the deal were back in place – with Iran in full compliance, and US sanctions lifted as promised under the original agreement. 

Iran has every motivation to come in full compliance with the original agreement should sanctions be lifted – as it had in good faith complied before the US withdrawal in 2018. And while Iran has rolled back several of its commitments – it has not taken any steps yet which are not easily reversible. It is a signal from Tehran that it still desires to engage – but not without leverage. 

It was the US – not Iran – who unilaterally withdrew from the deal, breaking its conditions and endangering the deal’s future. Iran would be remiss if it returned to the negotiation table in full compliance to the deal, with no leverage, and sitting across from the US who has so far acted in bad faith at every critical juncture throughout previous negotiations. 

A Deal Meant to Be Broken… 

The disparity between Washington’s words and its actions should come as no surprise however – especially considering that US foreign policy is not the product of the White House or even the Capitol – but rather corporate-funded policy think tanks chaired by special interests who transcend US elections. 

It is worth repeating that a 2009 policy paper produced by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” detailed plans to lure Iran in with a deal related to its nuclear technology, accuse Iran of rejecting it, and thus serving as a pretext for further US aggression up to and including the invasion of Iran by military force. 

The paper explicitly stated that (emphasis added): 

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 

The paper then laid out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran’s betrayal of a “very good deal” as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added): 

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

In 2009 when these words were originally published it might have been difficult to imagine just how literally and overtly the US would attempt to execute this ploy against Tehran. 

Yet in hindsight it is clear that the administration of US President Barack Obama (with Biden as Vice President) disingenuously offered this deal to Iran with full knowledge it would be betrayed in the near future – and was under Trump – with attempts to sabotage the deal further clearly underway by the Biden administration. 

While the Biden administration repeatedly claims it wants to return to the deal, it has created conditions it knows Iran will never accept while simultaneously carrying out a series of provocative military strikes across the Middle East against militias backed by Iran combating dangerous extremism within the borders of Iran’s closest regional allies. 

The 2009 Brookings paper also noted Israel’s role as provocateur – nominating Israel to carry out strikes on Iranian targets in the hopes of provoking an Iranian retaliation the US could use as a pretext for wider war. 

We can see the US and Israel both engaged in attempts to escalate towards just such a scenario. 

While occupants in the White House have changed three times now – a singular, belligerent US policy towards Iran – as laid out by the Brookings Institution’s 2009 paper – has remained unchanged and faithfully pursued for over a decade now. 

The world now teeters upon a dangerous inflection point where the US finds itself out of excuses to delay returning to the deal and the window closing to “credibly” blame Iran for the deal’s failure. The political momentum of Washington’s accusations will fade fast and require expedient provocations to see this policy through to its end – or risk missing an opportune pretext for war and the required international “sympathy” needed to successfully execute it. 

Iran has been and will need to continue avoiding these provocations, demonstrating its commitment to peace and stability in the region and distinguishing itself from the tactics, strategies, and agendas of the US and its regional allies. It must do all of this while also sustaining its economy under the extreme pressure of US sanctions and with the absolute necessity to ultimately address Iran’s national security against obvious threats within and along its borders. 

Another important point to make when describing the negotiation table and the context it sits within – is the fact that US forces illegally occupy nations to the east and west of Iran’s borders as well as one of Iran’s closest regional allies – Syria. 

US expectations that Iran obediently return to the table in full compliance to the original Nuclear Deal – across from the very nation responsible for its near total collapse – and a nation whose military – thousands of miles from its own shores occupies nations on either side of Iran’s borders – are not reasonable. That the Western media – a reflection of Washington’s actual agenda – attempts to portray this otherwise, gives a full sense to just how broad and deep the ill-faith is the US comes to these negotiations with.

Finally – Europe – also involved in the Nuclear Deal – needs to decide between peace, stability, and the economic benefits of working with Iran into the future – or continued capitulation to its Transatlantic partner, a continuously destabilized Middle East, and the prospect of a catastrophic war between the US and its allies against Iran. 

Russia and China will play key roles in stacking the deck in favor of Europe’s siding with the former over the latter – and this stacking has been ongoing. But whether it will be enough to back the US off the warpath once and for all and begin its irreversible withdrawal from hitherto perpetual war and occupation across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia – only time will tell. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.  

Intelwars Iran IT propaganda

West’s Information War Continues

April 8, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson – NEO) – YouTube has recently deleted the latest channel used by Iranian state media’s PressTV. The move follows attacks on the Iranian media outlet by US-based social media giant Facebook earlier this year. 

PressTV’s own take on the deletion in its article, “Google renews attack on YouTube account of Iran’s Press TV,” would note: 

Google has for the seventh time targeted Iranian broadcaster Press TV, blocking the English-language news network’s access to its official YouTube account without any prior notice.

The US tech giant shut YouTube accounts of Press TV late on Tuesday, citing “violations of community guidelines.”

Iranian state media is only the most recent target of US censorship and information warfare, with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter having also recently de-platformed government accounts in Myanmar as well as a concerted effort by these same networks to either de-platform or undermine the credibility of Russian and Chinese state media.  

The use of ambiguous justifications like “violations of community guidelines” which themselves can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, helps demonstrate the political nature of what is clearly a campaign of censorship. 

YouTube and other US-based social media platforms, still dominating the global social media industry, attempt to portray targets of what is clearly politically-motivated censorship as “fake news” or somehow engaged in dangerous “disinformation,” while the accounts of Western-based media organizations actually involved in very real disinformation, often times in promotion of sanctions and warfare having a direct impact on millions of lives, remain online and in good standing. 

Western Monopoly Challenged 

Beyond social media, the UK had recently ousted Chinese state media, CGTN, which was met by Beijing in turn shutting down BBC broadcasts in China. 

More recently, China-based BBC reporter John Sudworth would flee to Taiwan, fearing legal actions for his outrageous, one-sided propaganda regarding Xinjiang.

The BBC’s own article, “BBC China correspondent John Sudworth moves to Taiwan after threats,” deliberately attempts to portray Sudworth as a victim of “threats” rather than a foreign agent involved in political interference under the guise of journalism finally facing legitimate legal actions. 

The BBC article laments: 

The number of international media organisations reporting from China is shrinking. Last year China expelled correspondents for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, among others.

And in September 2020, the last two reporters working in China for Australian media flew home after a five-day diplomatic standoff.

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) of China says foreign journalists are “being caught up in diplomatic rows out of their control”.

In reality, these foreign “journalists” aren’t being “caught up in diplomatic rows,” they are the primary actors helping drive these rows. 

It’s worth mentioning leaked documents revealing the BBC, among others including Reuters, signing secret contracts with the British Foreign Office to carry out influence operations both inside Russia and along Russia’s peripheries in Eastern Europe. 

It is without doubt that the BBC engages in similar activities inside and along China’s borders as well, with Sudworth’s own work clearly aimed at advancing Western foreign policy, not investigating or reporting actual news. 

Years ago, the notion of Western nations fearing alternative media enough to engage in sweeping, transparent censorship against outlets like PressTV or CGTN, or the Western media fleeing or backpedalling in countries they’ve maintained offices in for years, would seem unthinkable. 

The information war waged by Western nations is indeed heating up, but it is not the one-sided exercise of monopoly it used to be. 

Today, alternative media, both state-sponsored and independent, poses a serious challenge to the West’s monopoly over the creation and flow of global information. Only through the West’s control over a relatively new form of media, social media, is the West’s edge maintained. 

For Iranian, Chinese, Russian and the media of many other nations seeking to introduce balance to the global conversation, the West’s hitherto control over social media remains a serious hurdle. 

US-based social media networks have been key to advancing Western foreign policy objectives, and perhaps especially in the realm of promoting and executing so-called “color revolutions.” 

Russia and China’s recent pledge to work closer together to counter Western-sponsored “color revolution” and “disinformation” might benefit from a multipolar alternative to US-based social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. 

While Russia and China both have their own domestic alternatives which have proved an effective measure to protect their own respective information space, the creation of a wider-appealing platform for nations along their peripheries, targeted by Western disinformation, could help give state-sponsored and independent alternative media the space it needs to finally balance out the lopsided advantage the West artificially maintains through censorship across its own networks.

The creation of both sovereign information space within nations and shared space between nations but outside of the control of Western censorship would be infinitely useful. When long-standing media organizations like PressTV struggle to reach audiences for a lack of alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the utility of such space becomes clearer still. 

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

awaken bombing CORRUPTION covid scam falling apart Fear government is slavery Headline News Intelwars Iran Joe Biden Masters Murder murderer official narrative power propaganda ruling class slave class wake up war hawks warmongering WW3

Defense Secretary: U.S. “WILL STRIKE” Iran At “Time & Place Of Our Choosing”

The war rhetoric is continually ramping up. Not only are there talks of committing cyberattacks against Russia, but the United States defense secretary is saying the U.S. will strike Iran at a time and place of their choosing.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin won’t say who was behind a recent rocket attack on an American airbase in Iraq, but his eyes are on Iran, and he says the US will strike again “at a time and place of our own choosing.” Keep your eyes open.  This attack on American bases in Iraq has all the markings of a false flag.

False Flag Potential in the Middle East: Iran, Syria, and Israel

At least 10 missiles rained down on the Ain al-Asad airbase in the Iraqi province of Anbar on Wednesday, killing one US civilian contractor on the coalition base. The attack came after President Joe Biden ordered an airstrike on Iranian-backed militia targets in Syria – which was similarly said to be a response to a previous rocket attack on US targets in Iraq. –RT

The warmongering has increased dramatically in the past few weeks, and the ruling class appears to be setting up the sheep for yet another war.

As the COVID-19 rhetoric and official narrative continues to crumble and more people awaken to the ruling class and who they really are (masters who demand your complete obedience and compliance to their dictates) it appears that a new narrative is forming in recent weeks. That’s one of war.  That would be much more sinister than the COVID-19 scam, as more people would be senselessly murdered following the orders of the state.

It was always likely that once the COVID narrative disintegrates that the masters would attempt another deliberate “plan” to keep the slaves under their control.

The U.S. Is Now An Immoral War Machine: Biden Orders New Strikes On Syria

Since taking office, Biden has only increased exponentially the warmongering and rhetoric, and he’s even attacked Syria. He has all the markings of a violent totalitarian war hawk and has shown no intention of pulling US troops out of Iraq, despite promising a withdrawal more than a decade ago as vice president. While former president Donald Trump oversaw the transfer of a number of US bases to Iraqi authorities and roughly halved the number of troops in Iraq, some 2,500 still remain, with the Iraqi parliament opposed to their presence.

So much for the anti-war left.

The post Defense Secretary: U.S. “WILL STRIKE” Iran At “Time & Place Of Our Choosing” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

airstrikes Intelwars Iran IRAQ Joe Biden SYRIA

US launches airstrikes in Syria against Iranian-backed forces

The United States military has carried out airstrikes in Syria against Iranian-backed forces in the war-torn nation at the authorization of President Joe Biden.

According to the Pentagon, the bombings were in response to recent attacks against American personnel in Iraq.

What are the details?

Fox News reported that the U.S. hit multiple facilities in an Iranian-backed militia stronghold, and that according to a senior official, “the strike was a defensive strategy, intended to halt and deter future rocket attacks by the militia group that recently hit Baghdad and Erbil.”

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told the

“These strikes were authorized in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats to those personnel. Specifically the strikes destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian backed militant groups including Kait’ib Hezbollah and Kait’ib Sayyid al Shuhada. This proportionate military response was conducted together with diplomatic measures, including consultation with coalition partners. The operation sends an unambiguous message; President Biden will act to protect American coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in both Eastern Syria and Iraq.”

Last week, an American servicemember and several American contractors were
killed in a rocket attack in Erbil, within Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region. Then on Monday, two rockets hit hear the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, in the third attack within the past week.

According to
Reuters, U.S. officials said the “decision to strike only in Syria and not in Iraq would give the Iraqi government some breathing room as it carries out its own investigation of a Feb. 15 attack that wounded Americans.”

Following news of the strike, Americans on both sides of the political aisle
criticized Biden on social media for the bombings in Syria over fears of starting another war, with some frustrated that the action took priority over delivering further COVID-19 relief.

Libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) tweeted in response to the airstrikes, ”
@POTUS dragging the US into Syria’s civil war is a huge mistake. I strongly condemn this foolish military adventurism.”

Supporters of former President Donald Trump were also quick to remind followers that he did not launch any new military engagements over the past four years.

Americans are paying particular attention to the strike because it occurred little over a month into the Biden administration, as the nation continues to grapple with whether or not — and how — to end long-term occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The New York Times reported in reaction to Thursday’s bombing of Syria:

The deliberateness of the new administration’s approach has raised questions both in Washington and in Baghdad about where Mr. Biden’s red lines are when it comes to responding to attacks from Iranian-backed militias that target Americans in Iraq.

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

The Greater Danger of Israeli Provocations in Syria

February 19, 2021 (Brian Berletic – NEO) – Continued airstrikes carried out by Israeli warplanes in Syria presents – at face value – an obvious and persistent threat to Syria. In a wider context, the threat runs much deeper and extends to Syria’s allies in Tehran. 

Israel has been an eager participant in the US-led proxy war on Syria beginning in 2011. It has provided safe-haven and support for Western-backed militants along and within its borders. It has also at various junctures carried out airstrikes in Syria in a bid to impede Damascus’ ability to reestablish peace and stability within Syria’s borders. 

And according to US policy papers written before and after the beginning of the 2011 proxy war against Syria – Washington had long ago slated Israel a role in undermining and aiding in the overthrow of the Syrian government – and admittedly as part of a wider strategy to isolate and eventually target Iran. 

The most likely current goal is to continue ratcheting up tensions with Iran – a nation that has committed significant resources and manpower toward the goal of stabilizing Syria and ending the highly destructive conflict. 

As tensions continue to rise across the region, Israel and its backers in Washington will likely seek a pretext for Israel to strike Iran directly – a plan US policymakers had devised as early as 2009 – in the hopes Iran would retaliate and provide a wider pretext still for the US itself to intervene. 

US policymakers had noted that an Israeli-led first strike on Iran would be complicated by its problematic relationship with all the nations its warplanes would need to fly over in order to carry out the attack. 

But recently – efforts have been underway to “repair” those relations, paving the way – or in this case – opening the skies for – the long-planned Israeli strikes. 

Articles like the New York Times’, “Morocco Joins List of Arab Nations to Begin Normalizing Relations With Israel,” would take note of this process and how nations like Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates have all begun this process – and how these first few nations would help make it easier for others – like Saudi Arabia – to follow suit. 

In reality – these nations have all been cooperative in abetting US foreign policy in the region – with animosity created merely for the purpose of managing public perception in each respective nation. 

Folding Israel into Washington’s united front against Iran alongside Arab nations whose public rhetoric depicted Israel as a sworn enemy illustrates just how desperate Washington and its allies have become in their efforts to reassert themselves in the region. 

The Long History of Israel’s Slated Role 

A 1983 document – part of a deluge of recently declassified papers released to the public – signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria” (PDF), states (their emphasis):

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. 

The report also states:

If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. 

In 2009, US corporate-financier funded policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a lengthy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran” (PDF), in which, once again, the use of Israel as an apparently “unilateral aggressor” was discussed in detail.

A US policy paper describing planned Israeli aggression as part of a larger US-driven conspiracy to attack, undermine, and ultimately overthrow the Iranian state reveals there is nothing unilateral at all about Israel’s regional policy or its military operations.

In 2012, the Brookings Institution would publish another paper titled, “”Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” (PDF), which stated:

Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad. 

The report continues by explaining:

Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. 

Once again, the use of Israel as one of several regional provocateurs executing policy as part of a larger US-orchestrated conspiracy is openly discussed.

And it was a 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” that would spell out the strategy of having Israel carry out attacks first, provoking a war the US could wade in later with a broader and more “acceptable” pretext to do so. 

The paper would state specifically: 

…the [Israeli] airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion). 

Thus – in addition to the US itself trying to provoke Iran into a war – or stage a provocation themselves to do so – they have slated Israel a role in attempting to provoke Iran as well. 

The strategy has added complexity to it – providing the US additional “plausible deniability” and making its “retaliation” against Iran appear both more “reluctant” and more “justified.” 

It is clear that a strategy described in the 1980’s, clearly carried out over the decades (and regardless of who occupies the White House) is still very much in play. 

The US is helping open up the skies for this long-anticipated Israeli first strike through this current “normalization” of relations between Israel and nations it may potentially overfly to strike Iran or require assistance from in any resulting war.

Meanwhile, the US continues attempting to appear interested in returning to the “Iran Nuclear Deal” but is making no tangible efforts to actually do so. In fact, the US itself appears to be continuing a build-up for the above mentioned “retaliation” it hopes it or its allies can provoke in the region – and failing that – perhaps convincingly stage. 

It is very much still a dangerous time for Iran as well as for peace and stability in the region. 

Despite the superficial political change in Washington this year, this long-planned policy of aggressive regime change against Iran continues. The clearer the game the US and its allies are playing becomes to international audiences – the more difficult it will be for the US and its allies to continue playing it. 

It is incumbent upon alternative media – both independent and state-run – to raise awareness of this continued aggression and planned aggression against Iran – while nations interested in peace and stability in the region continue working to raise the costs of potential US-Israeli aggression against Iran far above any potential benefit Washington and its allies believe they will receive by continuing to pursue it. 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”. 

Border police illegal immigrants Illegal Immigration immigration Intelwars Iran Southern border Special interest aliens

Border Patrol agents arrest 11 Iranians who entered US from Mexico

U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested 11 Iranian citizens on Monday night after they illegally entered the United States from Mexico. Border Patrol agents arrested the group on a bridge near San Luis, Arizona.

“There were five women, ages 28, 30, 35, 35 and 37, who were arrested,” KPNX reported. “Four men, ages 24, 31, 36 and 43, were taken into custody along with two boys, ages 10 and 2. These people had previously lived in Iran.”

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told KPNX that it was not yet clear as to why the group was attempting to illegally enter the United States. The Iranians have yet to be fully processed and interviewed. The group was arrested and taken to Yuma Station for processing.

“Yuma Sector agents regularly encounter people from all over the world, including Special Interest Countries,” the U.S. Customs and Border Protection statement said. “Agents adjudicate each arrest in accordance with law and policy in order to secure our nation’s borders.”

In the 2021 fiscal year, Yuma Sector agents have apprehended 14 nationals from Iran. In 2020, eight Iranians were arrested by Yuma Sector agents.

The group was from Iran, which is classified as a “special interest country.” Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar defined “special interest countries” as “basically countries designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.”

The Department of Homeland Security describes “special interest aliens” as “non-U.S. person who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States or its interests. Often such individuals or groups are employing travel patterns known or evaluated to possibly have a nexus to terrorism.”

The DHS encountered more than 3,000 special interest aliens at the southern Border in 2018.

As TheBlaze reported last month, thousands of migrants from Central America are making their way to the United States. The caravan is traveling to the U.S. southern border because some believe that President Joe Biden will have a more relaxed stance on illegal immigration than former President Donald Trump was.

Migrant rights group Pueblo Sin Fronteras issued a statement on behalf of the people participating in the caravan.

“We recognize the importance of the incoming Government of the United States having shown a strong commitment to migrants and asylum seekers, which presents an opportunity for the governments of Mexico and Central America to develop policies and a migration management that respect and promote the human rights of the population in mobility,” the statement reads. “We will advocate that the Biden government honors its commitments.”

Last week, the Daily Mail reported: “U.S. Border Patrol agents reported a 436 percent increase in migrants apprehended in so-called stash houses near Laredo, Texas since October when compared to the same time last year. The stash houses at the Texas-Mexico border are operated by human trafficking organizations to hide undocumented immigrants.”

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

Iran’s Warning to US-funded Agitators

January 19, 2021 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – CNN would report in its article, “Iran executes dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam,” Iran’s swift and severe punishment for what the American media company suggested was “alleged attempts to overthrow” the Iranian government. 

CNN glosses over Iran’s claims that Zam and his media operation helped incite deadly violence during protests targeting the Iranian government in 2017 and 2018 and instead cites Western government and corporate foundation-funded “rights” groups who condemned the execution. 

Near the end of the article, CNN briefly mentions Fars News Agency which detailed the security operation Iran carried out to capture Zam in France and bring him back to face justice in its article, “Riot Provocateur Rouhollah Zam Executed.” 

Fars News Agency also provided details omitted in the CNN article including mention of Zam’s Telegram group for “Amad News” with which he and those working with him promoted unrest including violence. Fars News Agency also noted Zam’s ties to Western governments who were backing his work. 

And while the Western media portrays Iran’s claims and charges against Zam as somehow embellished or disproportionate in the wake of his execution – the Western media had previously admitted as much about Zam and his activities in Iran themselves. 

In a 2018 Daily Beast article titled, “The App Powering the Uprising in Iran, Where Some Channels Pushed for Violence,” it would admit that Zam ran “Amad News” and that (emphasis added): 

Two channels on the encrypted messaging app Telegram, Amad News and Restart, have become major players in Iranian political discourse in recent weeks. The best-known figure associated with Amad News is Ruhollah Zam, while Restart is run by Mohammad Hosseini. Both channels have been accused of inciting violence.

Then managers of Amad News announced that the person responsible for encouraging violence had been fired.

The Daily Beast even admits that Zam – as well as fellow agitator Hosseini – had both been involved in the US State Department’s Voice of America media platform, admitting (emphasis added): 

In recent months, the Restart group has gained support from the Bayan Media Network, the director of which is Bijan Farhoodi who used to work with the Voice of America (VOA). Also, the program Last Page on VOA TV network, which is hosted by Mehdi Falahati, has frequently invited Ruhollah Zam on its broadcasts. There is no evidence that this proves a systematic connection between them, but what is clear is that Restart and Amad have succeeded in securing powerful platforms for their agendas.  

While the Daily Beast – even in 2018 – tried to downplay the significance of Zam’s media operation inciting violence, undermining the Iranian government, and promoting unrest all while appearing on US government-funded media networks – US policymakers themselves have admitted in detailed policy papers that this would be precisely the plan used by the US government to overthrow the government of Iran. 

US Plans for Iranian Regime Change 

The 2009 Brookings Institution paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” would extensively lay out this plan under chapter 6 titled, “Supporting a Popular Uprising.” 

Under this chapter, Brookings policymakers would explain (emphasis added): 

The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership.

US plans to engineer an uprising are clearly meant to be combined with military and economic pressure – two components at odds with international law and which represent a constant existential threat to Iran’s leadership and population. The deaths of Iranian generals and scientists in recent months highlights how real US regime change efforts are and the life and death struggle Iran finds itself in.

Zam’s Execution in Context: Iran’s Existential Threat

Iran is surrounded by nations – Iraq and Afghanistan – currently occupied by US military forces who have killed tens of thousands in both nations, displaced millions, and have created enduring sociopolitical and economic hardship all along Iran’s borders. The US openly aspires to do likewise within Iran’s borders. 

Zam’s involvement in this plan would clearly implicate him in acts of treason – treason defined by Merriam-Webster as: (noun) the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance – and treason unforgivable considering the outcomes of similar US-backed regime change operations in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Without this context – the Western media deliberately attempts not only to cover up what Zam did to Iran, its government, and its people, but is at the same time attempting to further advance US regime change efforts against Iran by portraying the nation as a brutal regime rather than a government determined to prevent its own people from suffering the same fate as Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently, Libya and Syria. 

For Iran, the message sent by Zam’s execution is clear – those involved in US-backed regime change in Iran – efforts aimed at destroying Iran in the same manner the US has destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria in – will pay the ultimate price and the West’s promises of protection, profits, and fame are not guarantees. 

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”. 


CNN – Iran executes dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam:

Fars News Agency – Riot Provocateur Rouhollah Zam Executed:

Daily Beast – The App Powering the Uprising in Iran, Where Some Channels Pushed for Violence:

Brookings Institution – Which Path to Persia?, Chapter 6: Supporting a Popular Uprising (page 103, PDF):

Intelwars Iran Iran nuclear nuclear warhead Nuclear weapon Uranium metal

Iran set to produce uranium metal, a key material used in nuclear weapons, UN watchdog says

Iran has begun work on an assembly line to produce a key material used in nuclear warheads, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report released to member states on Wednesday.

According to the report, allegedly viewed by the Wall Street Journal, the Islamic republic informed the United Nations watchdog agency that in coming months it was planning to manufacture equipment it will use to produce uranium metal at a site in Isfahan.

The Wall Street Journal story noted that the development was a significant one since uranium metal can be used to construct the core of a nuclear weapon. Here’s more from the story:

Iran hasn’t made uranium metal so far, senior Western officials said. The IAEA said Tehran had given it no timeline for when it would do so. Still, the development brings Iran closer to crossing the line between nuclear operations with a potential civilian use, such as enriching nuclear fuel for power-generating reactors, and nuclear-weapons work, something Tehran has long denied ever carrying out.

Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Kazem Gharib Abadi, said Wednesday on Twitter that Iran would produce uranium metal, saying it would allow the development of a new fuel for the Tehran civilian research reactor. Iran has said it would take four to five months to install the equipment to produce a uranium powder from which uranium metal is made.

The move will likely add to rising tensions between the United States and Iran in the early days of President-elect Joe Biden’s term, as production of uranium metal is strictly prohibited by the Iran nuclear agreement forged in 2015 when Biden was vice president.

President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2018, but Iran is still part of the international agreement that also includes the U.K., France, Germany, China, and Russia. On the campaign trail last year, Biden signaled that he was open to re-entering the nuclear deal.

Iran appears to be testing the boundaries of late perceiving that the incoming Biden administration will be much more lenient.

In December, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani bragged he has “no doubt” the administration under Biden will “bow” to Iran by rejoining the nuclear deal and lifting sanctions reimposed on them by Trump.

Only a few days later, satellite photos obtained by the Associated Press appeared to show new construction underway at Iran’s underground nuclear site at Fordo, another breach of the agreement.

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

Iran Prepares Next Satellite Launch

January 12, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson – NEO) – The Iranian Space Agency (ISA) is preparing the launch of another satellite into orbit, the Zafar 2, which is described by Tehran Times as being capable of “taking color photos and [surveying] oil reserves, mines, forests, and natural lands.” 

This capability can be used for monitoring seasonal environmental changes as well as for creating detailed maps.

Zafar 2 has been developed entirely within Iran by the Iranian University of Science and Industry.  

Zafar 2’s predecessor failed to reach orbit, but Iran has previously, successfully launched satellites to orbit including Omid in 2009, Rasad in 2011 and Navid in 2012.

Iran’s current satellite launch vehicles consist of the Safir and Safir-2 rockets, the latter of which is also referred to as Simorgh. 

These are considered as small-lift orbital launch vehicles or small launch vehicles (SLVs) comparable to Rocket Lab’s Electron, Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology’s Start-1, Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Minotaur I, China’s Long March 6 and Long March 11 as well as Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Epsilon and the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Vega. 

Why this is Important

Iran now belongs to an exclusive club of nations capable of building and launching vehicles and payloads into orbit.  This small club includes Russia, the US, France, Japan, the UK, India, Israel, Ukraine, and North Korea. Many of these nations have previously developed the ability to send payloads into space but are not currently continuing to do so, meaning Iran belongs to a much more exclusive club still. 

Iran has achieved this despite immense economic, political and military pressure from the US and its allies. This pressure manifests itself in the form of intense and enduring economic sanctions, political subversion and even covert and semi-covert military operations. 

Iran’s scientific community and military leadership are regularly targeted with assassinations and Iran’s industrial infrastructure often suffers from “mysterious” accidents including fires and explosions. 

And still Iran is capable of operating a functioning and active space program able to build both launch vehicles and practical satellites for further enhancing Iran’s economic, military and scientific capabilities. 

It is a reflection of a wider Iranian economy that has, because of US sanctions, become increasingly self-sufficient and resilient. 

And while Iran’s space program is sometimes dismissed as merely political posturing or accused of being cover for a clandestine weapons program capable of delivering nuclear warheads at wider ranges, there is an obvious economic benefit for cultivating a space program with capable small-lift orbital launch vehicles. 

It is true that several other rockets in this category were developed from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but it is also true that these missiles were developed into commercial launch vehicles to exploit a growing market need for putting small satellites into orbit. 

The orbital launch market is expanding in all dimensions, including small-lift orbital launch demand. 

Market Watch in a report titled, “Small-lift Launch Vehicle Market : Global Industry brief Analysis by Top Countries Data, Market Size, Future Prospects And Outlook 2021-2024 with Remarkable Growth Rate,” would note: 

The small-lift launch vehicle market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 12% from 53.1 million USD in 2016 to reach 105.3 million USD by 2022 in Asia-Pacific market. The small-lift launch vehicle market is very concerted market; there are only top six players in Asia-Pacific.

With or without continued sanctions, a reliable small-lift orbital launch vehicle developed by Iran could not only allow Iran to build up its own orbital infrastructure aiding the Iranian economy in communications, navigation and imagery, but could also offer other nations without space programs launch services just as ESA, JAXA, Roscosmos and private operators like Rocket Lab do.

It is unlikely that this will happen any time soon, but developing such capabilities takes time and resources, and Iran is investing both toward what will be an eventual reality. 

It is reasonable to assume that Iran’s space program, as it gains experience and develops domestic rocket and satellite technology, will move into heavier payloads both within the small-lift orbital launch category and beyond. Again, this will further enhance Iran’s economy, but also offer potential partners and customers a wider variety of launch services. 

An Iran free of US sanctions, or at least an Iran in a multipolar world where US sanctions increasingly have little impact, is a nation that can convert its nascent space program into both a powerful means of enhancing its existing economic activity, as well as become a potential launch service to create new economic activity.  

As we witness the US fade globally and its ability to impose itself on nations worldwide diminishes, the day where nations can freely deal with Iran may come sooner than later. Not only will this alleviate economic pressure on Iran and make available more resources to develop its domestic space program’s capabilities, but it will allow the Iranian space program to benefit from technology from other nations  as well. 

Iran currently has several unfinished space-related projects and dormant partnerships with other nations both in Europe and across Eurasia, all put in stasis because of US pressure. Were Iran and its potential partners able to move around this pressure, these projects and partnerships, and much more, could move forward once again. 

Iran is a nascent space-faring nation with the potential to join others in the near future, where the Iranian Space Agency is no longer merely demonstrating technology and launching basic payloads into orbit, but able to compete in and benefit commercially from emerging markets amid this new space race. 

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 


AMN News – Iran’s 2nd satellite is ready for launch despite US criticism:
Tehran Times – All-Iranian environmental satellite unveiled:
Market Watch – Small-lift Launch Vehicle Market : Global Industry brief Analysis by Top Countries Data, Market Size, Future Prospects And Outlook 2021-2024 with Remarkable Growth Rate:

Air traffic control Intelwars Iran Qassem soleimani Terrorism Us capitol

Chilling threat promising terrorist attack on US Capitol to avenge death of Iran’s Soleimani made to air traffic controllers

Federal officials are investigating a chilling threat made on air traffic control radio waves two days ago, which promised revenge for the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top terrorism architect who was killed one year ago in an airstrike authorized by President Donald Trump.

Air traffic controllers working airspace over New York heard the threat on Monday, CBS News reported.

“We are flying a plane into the Capitol on Wednesday. Soleimani will be avenged,” the unidentified person said on the aviation frequency.

The threat came on the one-year anniversary of Soleimani’s death, whom Iranian officials have repeatedly vowed to avenge.

More from The Hill:

The possibility of retaliation from Iran to mark the anniversary has been a major concern for the U.S. In the immediate aftermath of the killing, Iran launched an attack on a Baghdad airbase housing U.S. troops, killing none but injuring several.

This week, Iran called on the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) to issue a “red notice” for Trump’s arrest in connection with Soleimani’s killing. The international agency’s general secretariat told NPR it is “strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character” and that it will not act on Iran’s request.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the threat promised an attack Wednesday at the Capitol, the same time and location where chaos is unfolding over Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Is the threat credible?

Fortunately, government officials do not believe the threat was credible, although senior national security officials were briefed about the threat, Fox News reported.

What is more concerning about the incident, officials said, was the fact that someone was able to breach the highly secured communication lines between pilots and air traffic controllers than ensure planes are able to operate safely.

Intelwars Iran Iran nuclear Iran seizes Iran tanker uranium enrichment

Iran seizes oil tanker, ramps up uranium enrichment to near-nuclear weapon levels

Iran has begun enriching uranium at 20% — a technical step away from the 90% level needed to produce a nuclear weapon — at its underground facility at Fordo, officials in the country announced Monday.

What are the details?

The regime had previously been enriching uranium at 4.5%, which is still in violation of its 2015 nuclear agreement, though at a significantly lower level, NBC News reported.

The move is the latest in a series of escalating actions against the West and comes on the same day that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard seized a South Korean oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

The news also comes just days after satellite photos obtained by the Associated Press showed new construction under way at the facility. Under the nuclear pact, Iran is not permitted to enrich uranium at over 3.5% and is not permitted to enrich uranium at all at its Fordo site, which is located deep within a mountain near the holy city of Qom.

In exchange for limiting enrichment, Iran receives sanctions relief from other parties to the deal: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China.

President Donald Trump removed the United States from the agreement in 2018, arguing the regime could not be trusted and was in fact continuing to construct a bomb in spite of the pact’s restrictions.

What else?

Iran has been ramping up its aggressive rhetoric and actions against the U.S. in the waning days of the Trump administration, making some worry that a military conflict may soon commence.

Just last week, top Iranian officials suggested they may attempt to assassinate Trump in retaliation for U.S. forces killing terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike a year ago. Soleimani was the commander of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S.

At the same time, U.S. military leaders said they were bracing for an attack as the anniversary of Soleimani’s death approached.

Anything else?

Officials in Iran apparently feel much better about their prospects with new leadership coming to the White House.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently bragged he has “no doubt” the incoming U.S. administration under Democratic President-elect Joe Biden will “bow” to Iran and rejoin the nuclear deal forged when Biden was vice president.

While on the campaign trail, Biden indicated he would rejoin the deal as a starting point for future negotiations with the terror-sponsoring regime.

Intelwars Iran Iran attack Qassem soleimani Soleimani US Military

US military bracing for Iranian attack as anniversary of Soleimani’s death approaches, officials say

The United States military suspects that an Iranian-linked attack on American personnel and interests in Iraq could be immanent as the one-year anniversary of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani’s death approaches.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the U.S. launched a drone strike on an envoy near the Baghdad airport that killed the renowned Iranian military leader along with Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

What are the details?

Defense officials reportedly expressed their suspicions of a retaliatory attack on Wednesday as two B-52 bombers finished a round-trip, 30-hour mission from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to the Middle East. The mission was part of an effort to demonstrate American military might in the region and deter any action by Iran.

“The United States continues to deploy combat-ready capabilities into the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility to deter any potential adversary, and make clear that we are ready and able to respond to any aggression directed at Americans or our interests,” said Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie, chief of U.S. Central Command, according to the Washington Post.

“We do not seek conflict, but no one should underestimate our ability to defend our forces or to act decisively in response to any attack,” he added.

Another defense official speaking anonymously told the Post that “the threat streams are very real” and that a “fair amount of advanced conventional weaponry” has flowed over the border from Iran into Iraq in recent weeks.

Last week, McKenzie similarly indicated to ABC News that U.S. forces remained “in a period of heightened risk,” but emphasized that the military is “not looking for war with Iran.”

Those comments came as the U.S. Navy acknowledged that it sent a submarine into the Persian Gulf, “a move widely seen as sending a message to Iran,” the outlet reported.

What else?

Soleimani’s death was a major blow to the terror-sponsoring Iranian regime as he was the leader of the elite Quds Force, a special wing of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. For years, he had coordinated attacks on U.S. forces and assets in the Middle East.

Given how high profile a leader he was, a retaliatory attack near the anniversary of his death is certainly a possibility, especially as tensions rise in the region.

Last week, unknown attackers launched more than 20 rockets on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, killing at least one Iraqi civilian, though no Americans were hurt. Iran denied any involvement, but the Post reported that U.S. officials believe the attack was carried out by militias coordinating with the regime.

President Trump responded to the attack with a sober warning for Iran:

Intelwars Iran Iran biden Iran nuclear deal Lift sanctions Rouhani

Iranian president boasts there’s ‘no doubt’ Joe Biden will ‘bow’ to Iran and lift sanctions

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently boasted about his country’s prospects now that a new president has been elected in the United States.

The totalitarian ruler said he has “no doubt” that the incoming U.S. administration under Democratic President-elect Joe Biden will “bow” to Iran and rejoin the nuclear deal forged in 2015 when Biden was vice president.

President Donald Trump removed the U.S. from the deal in 2018 and has since adopted a much tougher stance toward Iran, reimposing crippling sanctions lifted under the deal and conducting an airstrike that killed Iranian terrorist military leader Qassem Soleimani.

“I have no doubt that the heroic national resistance of Iran is going to compel the future U.S. government to bow … and the sanctions will be broken,” Rouhani said Thursday in a televised address introducing several infrastructure projects, according to the Washington Post.

Only a day prior, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also showed some openness to working with Biden if it resulted in the lifting of U.S. sanctions.

“If the sanctions can be lifted in a correct, wise, Iranian-Islamic, and dignified manner, this should be done,” he said during a televised address. “But our main focus should be on neutralizing the sanctions, and the initiative for this is in your hands.

“The lifting of sanctions is in the hands of the enemy, but nullifying them is in our hands,” he added.

The remarks appear to be a signal to the Biden administration that reengagement in the nuclear deal could be in order. The optimism makes sense since Biden indicated on the campaign trail he was willing to restore friendlier diplomatic relations with the country.

“If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations,” Biden wrote in a CNN op-ed in September.

After all, it was under his leadership during the Obama administration that the U.S. agreed to lift the decades-old sanctions against Iran if the country reduced its uranium stockpile and ceased efforts to construct a nuclear weapon. Of course, Iran did not hold up their end of the bargain just as many Americans suspected.

As TheBlaze noted in 2018, Trump routinely criticized the agreement as the “worst deal ever,” “horrible,” “laughable,” and “defective at its core.”

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

Dangerous Provocations Ahead for Iran

December 9, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The recent assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been framed by an almost gleeful Western media as an attempt to ensure incoming US President Joe Biden does not return to the so-called “Iran Nuclear Deal” signed while he was Vice President in 2015. 

The story goes that Biden had hoped to return the US back to a prominent leadership role upon the global stage and that making peace with Iran was among his priorities. 

There was a rush by the Western media to blame the Israeli government – who in turn appears to be in no rush to discount or disprove these accusations. The purpose of this is to make the US appear uninvolved in the recent escalation. The race to shape public opinion and depict the US as helpless amid growing tensions between Israel and Iran is meant to make any possible US involvement in the near future look uninvited, unplanned, and reluctant on Washington’s part.  

However, the goal of undermining and overthrowing the Iranian government has been an obsession for US foreign policy for decades – spanning multiple presidencies including that of Barack Obama’s. 

US policymakers have – since as early as 2009 – specifically laid out plans to use these sort of tactics to move the US and its allies further toward conflict with Iran – and to do so in a way to minimize to make Iran – not the US – look like the aggressor.  

Those holding their breath, waiting for President-elect Joe Biden to reverse the dangerous course US foreign policy is on forget who – for 8 years as Vice President – helped steer it in this direction in the first place. 

While the Obama-Biden administration did indeed sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – or the Iran Nuclear Deal – at the same time the US instigated the still-ongoing proxy war against Syria – Iran’s closest regional ally – and a proxy war designed specifically to remove one of Iran’s key allies from the equation before more directly confronting Iran itself. In many ways the US presence in Iraq and its role in the ongoing Saudi war with Yemen also serve this purpose. 

The “Iran Nuclear Deal” Was Doomed Years Before it was Signed

Despite the Obama-Biden administration’s seemingly enthusiastic desire for peace with Iran, the JCPOA was doomed before it was ever signed.

The peace overtures made by the US government at that time were purely for show – part of a plan devised years before the deal was even publicly discussed and long before it was ever signed. 

The Brookings Institution – funded by the largest Western corporate interests on Earth – in a 2009 paper (PDF) titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” had not only called for the US to disingenuously offer Iran an opportunity to escape from under US sanctions, but admitted that the offer would be deliberately sabotaged by the US and used as a pretext toward further escalation.

The document included statements like this (emphasis added): 

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) 

The Brookings document also proposed: 

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Creating the deal, sabotaging it, and using it as a pretext to pursue military aggression against Iran was always the plan – long before the JCPOA was ever signed. 

The 2009 Brookings document – at over 200 pages long – also laid out the framework one can clearly see the US and its allies followed ever since it was published – including attempts to remove Iran’s allies – Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon from the equation – before more direct action could be taken on Iran itself as well as the use of Israel to carry out aspects of the plan the US could not afford to do politically.  

In one way or another – virtually everything laid out in  the Brookings document has been implemented or at least attempted. 

This most recent escalation was predictable. Recently, articles like ““Biden’s America” Will Continue Pressure on Iran,” noted that peace with Iran was never part of America’s foreign policy – whether it was “Trump’s” America or “Biden’s” America. 

All that was required was a provocation and escalation that would appear to “drag” the US “reluctantly” away from allegedly desired “peace” the Western media had claimed Biden prioritized upon coming to office. 

With the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the dominoes have already begun to fall to that end. Dangerous times lay ahead for Iran and for the Western public who face the possibility of being dragged into another disastrous war – proxy or otherwise – in the Middle East. All that’s left to move this policy forward is a provocation from Iran – a provocation real or staged – the US can cite to involve itself more directly with a compliant Western media eagerly waiting to once again play its role in supporting that involvement.   

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”. 

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

Assassination of Iranian Scientist brings US-Israel Closer to War with Iran

November 29, 2020 (Brian Berletic – LD) – Reports on the death of senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh signals another dangerous turn in Washington’s systematic attempts to undermine and overthrow the current government of Iran.  

The Western media is framing the assassination as a unilateral operation carried out by Israel with the New York Times in an article titled, “Assassination in Iran Could Limit Biden’s Options. Was That the Goal?,” claiming: 

Intelligence officials say there is little doubt that Israel was behind the killing — it had all the hallmarks of a precisely timed operation by Mossad, the country’s spy agency. And the Israelis have done nothing to dispel that view. 

The article also claimed: 

But Mr. Netanyahu also has a second agenda.

“There must be no return to the previous nuclear agreement,” he declared shortly after it became clear that Mr. Biden — who has proposed exactly that — would be the next president.

The New York Times assumes that Biden genuinely wanted to return to the 2015 nuclear agreement – officially known as the The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and insists that it is up to Iran whether or not that possibility still remains. 

The article claims: 

If Iran holds off on significant retaliation, then the bold move to take out the chief of the nuclear program will have paid off, even if the assassination drives the program further underground.

And if the Iranians retaliate, giving Mr. Trump a pretext to launch a return strike before he leaves office in January, Mr. Biden will be inheriting bigger problems than just the wreckage of a five-year-old diplomatic document.

But there is a third option – if the US or Israel – or both – stage an event meant to look like an Iranian retaliation to help ensure the nuclear deal is permanently buried and only a path toward escalation lies ahead for Washington. 

And this third option is the most likely. More than mere speculation – this conclusion is drawn from US policy papers produced by corporate-funded policy think tank – the Brookings Institution. 

Their 2009 paper (PDF) titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” had not only called for the US to disingenuously offer Iran an opportunity to escape from under US sanctions, but admitted that the offer would be deliberately sabotaged by the US and used as a pretext toward further escalation. 

Thus the JCPOA was doomed before it was even signed in 2015 – with US policymakers fully determined to scrap it at the most opportune time and then incrementally ratchet up pressure on Iran.

And while the US posed as “peacemaker” with Iran in 2015 – at the same time it waged proxy war on Iran’s closest ally in the region – Syria – aiming to overthrow the Syrian government and thus further isolating and encircling Iran itself. 

Two quotes in particular from the 2009 Brookings document are revealing in regards to the ill-fated JCPOA and what is most likely to follow this most recent assassination as well as the prospects for Biden’s “desire” to restart the deal after taking office next year. 

First the document claims (emphasis added): 

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) 

Next, the document claims: 

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Creating the deal, sabotaging it, and using it as a pretext to pursue military aggression against Iran was always the plan – long before the JCPOA was ever signed.  

With prospects of the plan being revived already unlikely – and more so with this recent escalation – the only path left and just as Brookings in their 2009 paper planned years ago, is toward wider conflict between the US and Iran. 

Whether this conflict unfolds as American policymakers envisioned over a decade ago or US power in the Middle East evaporates before this plan is fully realized – only time will tell – and depends widely on not only Iran’s patience and skill – but also on that of its allies in Moscow and even Beijing.  

For the US who still clings to the illusion of leading a “rules based international order” – assassinating scientists half-way across the planet either directly or through its Israeli proxies – is only further evidence of just how desperately the world needs to move on with such an order left far behind. 

Brian Berletic is an independent geopolitical analyst based in Bangkok, Thailand and a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook. You can support him and his work at Land Destroyer via Patreon here

Intelwars Iran Mainstream media Media Bias New York Times

NY Times taken to woodshed for claiming Iran’s nuclear program is ‘peaceful’: ‘Is this an Iranian paper?’

The New York Times was summarily blasted on Saturday after the newspaper presented Iran’s nuclear program in a positive light. The Times’ posturing came after the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Islamic country’s top nuclear scientist.

What did the Times say?

The Times claimed that the nuclear ambitions of Iran — a state-sponsor of terrorism, according to the State Department — are for “peaceful purposes.”

“Iranian officials, who have always maintained that their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, not weapons, expressed fury and vowed revenge over the assassination, calling it an act of terrorism and warmongering,” the newspaper tweeted.

What was the response?

In response, the New York Times, the so-called “paper of record,” was accused of disseminating “foreign propaganda garbage.”

  • “Is this an Iranian paper?” conservative commentator Lisa Boothe said.
  • “What was once the self-styled newspaper of record is now just a well-funded left-wing blog, relentlessly hostile to America and Israel, and always ready to propagandize for their enemies,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said.
  • “NYT, once again, ignores U.S. intelligence agencies’ warnings and props up a murderous, gay killing Regime.
    Their tweet should have a warning label of pushing misinformation, @Twitter,” Richard Grenell
  • “The New York Times is pure foreign propaganda garbage,” Republican operative Arthur Schwartz said.
  • “Two weeks ago, the IAEA declared Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was over 12 times the legal limit. Also, you don’t build nuclear facilities deep under mountains with 90 degree entrances meant to defeat cruise missiles when they’re for peaceful purposes,” GOP operative Alex Plitsas said.
  • “Wow. The press has truly become an anti- American propaganda tool. Not even worth using for toilet paper,” another person said.
  • “Lmao. Much like the peaceful protests, this is just peaceful nuclear bomb research,” another person mocked.

Anything else?

Notably, two top officials from the Obama administration were angered by Fakhrizadeh sudden death.

Former CIA Director John Brennan called the operation to kill Fakhrizadeh “criminal” and “highly reckless.”

“This was a criminal act & highly reckless. It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict. Iranian leaders would be wise to wait for the return of responsible American leadership on the global stage & to resist the urge to respond against perceived culprits,” he said.

Brennan added, “I do not know whether a foreign government authorized or carried out the the murder of Fakhrizadeh. Such an act of state-sponsored terrorism would be a flagrant violation of international law & encourage more governments to carry out lethal attacks against foreign officials.”

Meanwhile, Ben Rhodes, a top Obama aide who helped craft the Iran nuclear deal, claimed Fakhrizadeh’s death was meant to undermine Joe Biden’s administration.

“This is an outrageous action aimed at undermining diplomacy between an incoming US administration and Iran. It’s time for this ceaseless escalation to stop,” Rhodes said.

Intelwars Iran John Brennan Logan Act Mohsen fakhrizadeh Politics Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz hits ex-CIA boss John Brennan over ‘bizarre’ support of Iran following killing of nuclear scientist

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former CIA director John Brennan traded barbs regarding the killing of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

“This was a criminal act & highly reckless. It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict,” Brennan wrote on Twitter. “Iranian leaders would be wise to wait for the return of responsible American leadership on the global stage & to resist the urge to respond against perceived culprits.”

“I do not know whether a foreign government authorized or carried out the murder of Fakhrizadeh,” Brenna continued. “Such an act of state-sponsored terrorism would be a flagrant violation of international law & encourage more governments to carry out lethal attacks against foreign officials.”

“These assassinations are far different than strikes against terrorist leaders & operatives of groups like al-Qaida & Islamic State, which are not sovereign states,” he tweeted. “As illegitimate combatants under international law, they can be targeted in order to stop deadly terrorist attacks.”

Cruz reacted by saying, “It’s bizarre to see a former head of the CIA consistently side with Iranian zealots who chant ‘Death to America.’ And reflexively condemn Israel. Does Joe Biden agree?”

Brennan, who was director of the CIA between 2013 and 2017, retorted, “It is typical for you to mischaracterize my comment.”

“Your lawless attitude & simple-minded approach to serious national security matters demonstrate that you are unworthy to represent the good people of Texas,” Brennan said, besmirching the senator.

Cruz then hit back, by pointing out that Brennan voted for Gus Hall, a U.S. Communist Party candidate who only secured 0.07% of the vote in 1976.

“Gosh, I touched a nerve. Facts matter,” Cruz tweeted. “FACT 1: you’ve admitted, in 1976 you voted for the Communist candidate for President because, I guess, Jimmy Carter wasn’t liberal enough for you.”

Then the Texas senator took aim at the Obama administration’s cozy relationship with the Iranian government.

“FACT 2: you gave $150 Bn to Ayatollah Khamenei, knowing it would be used to kill Americans,” Cruz said.

The two then exchanged blows about the Logan Act, which “forbids private citizens from engaging in unauthorized correspondence with foreign governments,” and nobody has been indicted on the legislation since 1852.

@tedcruz is now misrepresenting the Logan Act. Apparently, he is a poor Senator & a bad lawyer,” Brennan wrote. “A private citizen publicly criticizing what could be a state-sponsored assassination of a government official & cautioning against retaliatory killing is called freedom of speech.”

“In contrast, an individual tapped to be National Security Advisor (but not yet one) in an incoming Administration who privately contacts a foreign government official & advises how to conduct relations with the U.S. could be in violation of the Logan Act,” Brennan said.

“My commitment to Israel’s security & my efforts to counter Iran’s malign activities are well documented throughout my 33 years of national security work serving Republican & Democratic Administrations,” Brennan stated, then attacked Cruz. “Aside from his tiresome rhetoric, what has Senator Cruz ever done?”

Cruz fired back, “Ok, let’s apply your proffered standard: Ben Rhodes has publicly stated, ‘foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden, talking about the agenda they’re going to pursue on Jan. 20.’ Does that mean you think Joe Biden should be prosecuted under the Logan Act?”

“The only coherent answer is NO, neither Biden nor Gen. Flynn violated the Logan Act bc it’s unconstitutional—which is why nobody has been convicted of violating it in the history of the US,” Cruz contended. “But you want to use it as a partisan cudgel, a weapon to attack your political opponents.”

Fakhrizadeh, who was considered the top architect of Iran’s nuclear program, was gunned down in a road ambush in broad daylight on Friday. The black sedan the scientist was traveling in was riddled with bullets.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the assassination was “an act of state terror,” there were “serious indications” of Israeli involvement.

On Saturday, Iran’s supreme leader promised to retaliate for the killing of Fakhrizadeh. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanded that Iranian officials make a pledge into “pursuing this crime and punishing its perpetrators and those who commanded it.”

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani vowed that the Islamic republic “will respond in time to the assassination of Martyr Fakhrizadeh.”

“Once again, the evil hands of Global Arrogance and the Zionist mercenaries were stained with the blood of an Iranian son,” Rouhani added.

ASSASSINATION Intelwars Iran Iran nuclear program ISRAEL MIDDLE EAST Mohsen fakhrizadeh

Iran claims top nuclear scientist was assassinated with Israeli involvement

A top Iranian nuclear scientist, believed by the Israeli government to be the mastermind directing Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the early 2000s, was killed in a targeted attack Friday outside of Tehran,
according to multiple reports, citing Iranian state media.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday said the killing of scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was “an act of state terror” that there were “serious indications” of Israeli involvement in his death, though Zarif did not level an outright accusation. According to the Associated Press, Israel did not immediately comment on Fakhrizadeh’s death, but Israel has long been suspected of carrying out targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists decades ago.

Fakhrizadeh was a senior officer with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and a professor of physics at Imam Hussein University in Tehran. He was the former leader of Iran’s Physics Research Center, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Iranian state TV said Fakhrizadeh was ambushed by “armed terrorist elements” and suffered injuries that proved to be fatal. Reports said doctors and paramedics could not save him after he was taken to a hospital.

statement released by Iran’s defense ministry said, “Armed terrorists targeted a vehicle carrying Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, head of the ministry’s research and innovation organization.

“After a clash between the terrorists and his bodyguards, Mr. Fakhrizadeh was severely injured and rushed to hospital. Unfortunately, the medical team’s efforts to save him were unsuccessful and minutes ago he passed away.”

The Fars news agency, which has ties to the IRGC, said the attack occurred in Absard, a small city east of the Iranian capital of Tehran. It said witnesses heard an explosion followed by machine gun fire. A car carrying Fakhrizadeh was the target of the attack, according to the agency.

The Associated Press says no group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Zarif issued a statement on Twitter, calling on the international community and the European Union to condemn the attack and suggesting Israel was responsible.

The commander of the IRGC has also sworn vengeance for the killing.

“Assassination of nuclear scientists is the most obvious violation of the global hegemony to prevent our access to modern sciences,” said Major General Hossein Salami.

Another Iranian official, 2021 Iranian presidential candidate Hossein Dehghan, accused “Zionists” of waging war on Iran.

“In the last days of their gambling ally’s political life, the Zionists seek to intensify and increase pressure on Iran to wage a full-blown war,” Dehghan tweeted, seemingly referring to U.S. President Donald Trump. “We will descend like lightning on the killers of this oppressed martyr and we will make them regret their actions!”

According to BBC Persian reporter Jiyar Gol, Fakharizadeh’s death “is a blow to Iran’s security and intelligence services who were tasked with protecting him.” The BBC reports that “some in Iran even believe the assassination could have been carried out by Iranian security forces working for Israeli and Western intelligence agencies.”

Fakhrizadeh was in charge of Iran’s “Amad” nuclear program, translated “Hope.” Israel and other Western countries have accused the program of developing nuclear weapons while Iran has maintained the program was for peaceful purposes.

More from the Associated Press:

The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran “carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” in a “structured program” through the end of 2003. That was the Amad program, which included work on the carefully timed high explosives needed to detonate a nuclear bomb.

Iran also “conducted computer modeling of a nuclear explosive device” before 2005 and between 2005 and 2009, the IAEA has said. The agency said, however, that those calculations were “incomplete and fragmented.”

IAEA inspectors now monitor Iranian nuclear sites as part of Iran’s now-unraveling nuclear deal with world powers.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said “remember that name” after mentioning Fakhrizadeh in a news conference alleging that Iran had lied about its nuclear weapons program. Netanyahu presented tens of thousands of files of Iranian files acquired by Israeli intelligence from an Iranian nuclear archive.

“A key part of the plan was to form new organizations to continue the work,” Netanyahu alleged. “This is how Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, head of Project Amad, put it. Remember that name, Fakhrizadeh.”

Intelwars Iran MIDDLE EAST MiddleEast

"Biden’s America" Will Continue Pressure on Iran

November 19, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – US President Donald Trump famously took a hardline approach against Iran – withdrawing the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – or the “Nuclear Deal” – and opting instead for a policy of “maximum pressure” against Iran diplomatically and economically. 

But there is a major misconception that the previous administration of former US President Barack Obama and then Vice President Joe Biden – had somehow sought to resolve US-Iranian tensions and offer Iran an opportunity to escape out from under decades of economic sanctions imposed by one US administration after another. 

In fact – the US strategy regarding Iran required by necessity a feigned rapprochement – via the “Nuclear Deal” – followed by a sharp and hostile pivot aimed to make Iran appear unreasonable in the face of attempted peace offered by Washington. 

This two-part strategy was planned during the administration of US President George Bush and executed by the Obama and Trump administrations respectively. 

Far from mere speculation – this strategy was laid out in an extensive 2009 policy paper published by the Brookings Institution – a prominent US-based think tank funded by the largest, most powerful corporate-financier interests in the West. 

The paper titled, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF),” stated explicitly (emphasis added): 

..any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

For the policy to be executed within the current political environment in the United States – it required one administration operating under liberal left cover – and another under a more hardline right-leaning cover.  

The paper having been published in 2009 and the policy laid out in it executed over the course of the following decade illustrates the continuity of agenda in Washington regardless of who is elected into office – and how corporate interests – not the American people or even the rhetoric of their elected representatives – drive US foreign policy.  

And even when the Obama administration extended its feigned “Nuclear Deal” to Iran – it had deliberately engineered proxy war in Syria aimed directly at one of Iran’s closest regional allies. 

Thus – at the same time the US posed officially as seeking peace with Iran – its proxy war funded, armed, and provided military support for militant groups killing both Syrian forces allied to Iran and Iranian forces attempting to aid in the protection and restoration of order in Syria. 

In essence – US war in Syria was defacto war by proxy against Iran. The same could be said of US support for Saudi Arabia and its unrelenting destruction of neighboring Yemen – a war the US provides Saudi Arabia weapons, training, logistics, intelligence, and even its own special forces to aid and abet Saudi forces inside Yemen. 

These conflicts aimed at Iran – and Russia and China in a much wider scope – were engineered beginning under the administration of US President George Bush, executed under the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration. 

Unless the weapon manufacturers, banks, oil companies, and other interests driving US foreign policy particularly in regards to Iran have for some reason changed their motivations and objectives regarding the Middle East – this agenda will continue uninterrupted under a Biden administration. And it’s quite clear the prevailing foreign policy circles in Washington still desire containment and even regime change in Iran. 

For Iran – who surely has “noticed” this pattern of enduring American belligerence from one administration to the next – it will most likely continue operating under the assumption that genuine peace will not be offered to it by Washington and is instead a condition Iran and its own policies must impose upon Washington and its presence in the Middle East and Central Asia regions by leaving the United States no other viable option. 

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.”   

Dni john ratcliffe Elecion 2020 election interference Foreign Policy Intelwars Iran Russia US intelligence

DNI Ratcliffe says Iran sent fake emails to US voters; Democrats are skeptical

At a press conference Wednesday evening, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe announced the U.S. government believes Russia and Iran have acquired voter registration information and are attempting to influence the 2020 U.S. election.

Ratcliffe’s announcement followed reports that voters in Florida and Alaska received intimidating emails threatening them to support President Donald Trump.

“We have identified that two foreign actors, Iran and Russia, have taken specific actions to influence public opinion relating to our elections,” Ratcliffe said at an abruptly scheduled press conference on election security with FBI Director Christopher Wray.

“First, we have confirmed that some voter registration information has been obtained by Iran and separately by Russia. This data can be used by foreign actors to attempt to communicate false information to registered voters that they hope will cause confusion, sow chaos, and undermine your confidence in American democracy,” he continued. “To that end, we have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump. You may have seen some reporting on this in the last 24 hours or you may have even been one of the recipients of those emails.”


BREAKING: DNI John Ratcliffe WARNS that Iran and Russia are seeking to influence election

Ratcliffe also accused Iran of distributing a video with false information about fraudulent ballots.

“Iran is distributing other content to include a video that implies that individuals could cast fraudulent ballots, even from overseas. This video and any claims about such allegedly fraudulent ballots are not true,” he said.

“These actions are desperate attempts by desperate adversaries. Even if the adversaries pursue further attempts to intimidate or attempt to undermine voter confidence, know that our election systems are resilient, and you can be confident your votes are secure. Although we have not seen the same actions from Russia, we are aware that they have obtained some voter information, just as they did in 2016. Rest assured that we are prepared for the possibility of actions by those hostile to democracy.”

FBI Director Wray said the Bureau is taking the lead in investigating criminal activity threatening the election and assured Americans that they should be “confident” that their votes are counted.

“We’re not going to tolerate foreign interference in our elections or any criminal activity that threatens the sanctity of your vote or undermines public confidence in the outcome of the election,” he said.

The press conference was held after voters in some states alerted election officials to efforts to intimidate them into supporting President Trump.

On Tuesday, election officials in Florida and Alaska contacted law enforcement after registered Democratic voters reported receiving threatening emails telling them to “Vote for Trump or else!” CNN reported that the emails appeared to be sent from addresses associated with the “alt-right” group the “Proud Boys.” The chairman of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, denied that his group sent the emails when contacted by CNN and said they were working with the FBI to identify who was impersonating them.

“We have spoken to the FBI and are working with them. I hope whoever did this is arrested for voter intimidation and for maliciously impersonating our group,” Tarrio said.

CNN obtained one of the emails and reached out to John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, to have it analyzed. According to Scott-Railton, the email was sent using foreign internet infrastructure.

“This isn’t someone with a fake email account sending messages. This is an operation. The questions will be: how big was it, how many were targeted, and how well were tracks covered,” he said.

“It appears that the operators likely leveraged multiple insecure servers that they probably didn’t own in different countries, including Saudi Arabia, to send messages.”

Democrats have received Ratcliffe’s conclusions with skepticism, accusing the former GOP congressman of trying to downplay evidence of Russian interference in the election on behalf of President Trump.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Russia, not Iran, was he real threat.

“Everything that we’ve seen here in the public domain does not justify the statements that we heard yesterday,” Pelosi said, according to Reuters.

“Russia is the villain here. From what we’ve seen in the public domain, Iran is a bad actor, but in no way equivalent,” she added.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, accused the Trump administration of “trying to bury” evidence of election interference by Russia.

“All year, the Trump administration has been desperately trying to bury information about Russian interference and overhype efforts by Iran and China. The truth is simple – only Russia has both the capability and intent to significantly disrupt our election,” he said in a statement. “If Director Ratcliffe is serious when he says we will not allow foreign interference in our elections, then this administration would actually do something to deter the Kremlin rather than withhold information about Russian interference and create false equivalences with other nation’s efforts.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told MSNBC Wednesday that the threatening emails “appear to be an effort to suppress the Democratic vote, or an effort to inflame the Democratic vote, or simply to sow chaos.”

He disputed Ratcliffe’s characterization of Iran’s efforts as damaging to Trump, claiming that the Iranian video spreading misinformation about fraudulent ballots sounded like a “Trump talking point.”

“It’s hard to see how that could be hurtful to the president,” Schiff said. “We don’t know if this is just Ratcliffe’s spin, or whether it is the assessment of the analysts.”

banksters Intelwars Iran MI6 Videos

Coup 53, Palantir Public, Market Manipulation – New World Next Week

This week on the New World Next Week: MI6 involvement in Iran coup finally confirmed; Palantir goes public as police state ramps up; and JPMorgan found guilty of market manipulation.

banksters Intelwars Interviews Iran MI6

Interview 1580 – New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

This week on the New World Next Week: MI6 involvement in Iran coup finally confirmed; Palantir goes public as police state ramps up; and JPMorgan found guilty of market manipulation.