Regime Change in Iran: Been There, Done That

By Philip Giraldi
Source

21 22 Regime Change Iran c4cf1

The failed coup attempt in Caracas in early May brings to mind the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British intelligence in Iran in 1953 to overthrow the Mohammad Mossadeq government. It is quite astonishing how that regime-change long-ago operation parallels what is currently taking place in Venezuela and also with regards to Iran yet again.

Mossadeq was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran beginning in 1951, serving in a government in which the Shah with limited authority was the head of state presiding over a parliamentary system. Iran was nominally independent at the time, but it was heavily influenced by the neighboring Soviet Union, which retained control over several Iranian provinces after the Second World War ended, and Great Britain, which exploited the country’s oil resources through the mechanism of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was owned by the British government. When Mossadeq, frustrated by lack of progress in negotiations with the British over sharing of oil revenues, eventually declared that he would nationalize the AIOC, London and Washington conspired to remove him.

The new National Iranian Oil Company was immediately attacked by the British, who used the Royal Navy to block export of oil from Iran’s Abadan refinery. Ships carrying Iranian oil were stopped and boarded with their shipments confiscated as “stolen property” in light of the British government’s former ownership claim on the AIOC.

By mid-1952, Britain’s blockade of Iranian oil exports had badly hurt the Iranian economy, which eventually led to government bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the American CIA, which was initially ambivalent about what the proper role in the Anglo-Iranian conflict might be, joined British agents in supporting groups inside Iran that were hostile to Mossadeq. In the Majlis parliamentary election in the spring of 1952, Mossadeq faced serious opposition funded by the Anglo-Americans, and the election eventually was suspended. By early 1953, pro-communist and pro-Shah mobs supported and coordinated by the U.S. and Britain roamed the streets, sometimes fighting each other. Fearing a communist takeover and also under pressure from London, which was threatening to withdraw from the Korean War as a quid pro quo, President Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed to carry out a joint coup d’état.

Losing popular support due to a sinking economy, as early as August 1952 a struggling Mossadeq began ruling by emergency powers and started to jail opponents, which only aggravated the crisis. A rigged referendum to dissolve parliament and grant Mossadeq authority to govern by decree passed with 99.9% approval but led to accusations that the prime minister was seeking “total and dictatorial power.” The New York Times reported, “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadeq in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.” The move by Mossadeq also led to the first coup attempt, which was organized by the CIA.

On Aug. 15, 1953, Col. Nemathollah Nassiri, the commander of the Shah’s Imperial Guard, delivered to Mossadeq a decree from the Shah dismissing him. Mossadeq, who had been warned of the plot, had Nassiri arrested, and the Shah and his family fled into exile in Italy. The first coup thus ended with a whimper, but it was lessons learned for the second, better organized successful attempt which followed a few days later, Operation Ajax, coordinated by Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA.

Exploiting pro-Shah sentiment in the military, the CIA and the British turned to their stables of recruited army officers while also exploiting agents infiltrated into the communist party Tudeh, which rose to the occasion by launching mass demonstrations, to include looting and arson, which quickly alienated the public and also provided a pretext for Western support of the coup as it could be promoted as “anti-communist.” Efforts were also made to turn influential clerics against Mossadeq. The Iranian people blamed the government for all their woes and rioting soon led to the calling out of the army to restore order. The army did so and then had Mossadeq arrested. He was condemned to death, but his sentence was later commuted to three years in solitary confinement followed by house arrest. He died in 1967.

End of story, but not quite. All the elements currently being used against Venezuela and Iran were there back in 1953 to bring down Mossadeq and also appear in a detailed 2018 Pentagon plandescribing how to bring about a coup in Caracas. Wrecking the countries’ economies through sanctions and exclusion from the global banking network creates a crisis where one need not have existed. Meanwhile, a sustained campaign of vilification by Western political leaders and the media establishes the narrative that the benevolent intention is to block extremism and restore democracy while also eliminating a threat to the United States. And, as a last resort, the threat or actual use of force to stop the export of commodities to further wreck the economy becomes a clearly stated policy option, currently also employing secondary sanctions for anyone who dares to trade with the designated victim. Recently, America’s unilaterally imposed global ban on the export and sale of Iranian oil began. Venezuela’s oil sales are also being blocked and even its electricity grid is being attacked in an attempt to starve the Venezuelan people into rebelling against their government.

But you also have to have spies, secret agents, to get the ball rolling, just as was true in 1953. One assumes that the CIA has been active in recruiting the agents of influence inside Venezuelan political opposition as well as military circles who will bring out increasingly larger mobs as the situation continues to deteriorate. How successful they have been is difficult to determine, but Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido failed the first time around, reportedly because the Venezuelan government was aware of what was happening and the contacts that CIA was relying on to bring out the army were in fact double agents.

The suffering Iranian and Venezuelan people have yet to rise up in revolt. No matter. It took more than one try to bring down Mossadeq, and National Security Advisor John Bolton has recently warned Iran that its government won’t have any more anniversaries to celebrate if it continues with its “threats.” The Trump administration is also reported to be preparing military options for dealing with Venezuela.

Bolton has even warned the Russians, who are assisting Venezuela’s government: “This is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians ought to be interfering. This is a mistake on their part.”  He is seemingly unaware of the irony, that the Russians might make the same claim about Eurasia and the Iranians regarding the Persian Gulf, where Bolton and his neocon friends in Washington have been the source of nearly continuous conflict.

Advertisements

The CIA Then and Now: Old Wine in New Bottles

Astute News

“And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died”

– Don McLean, “American Pie”

The Nazis had a name for their propaganda and mind-control operations: Weltanschauungskrieg– “world view warfare.” As good students, they had learned many tricks of the trade from their American teachers, including Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, who had honed his propagandistic skills for the United States during World War I and had subsequently started the public relations industry in New York City, an industry whose raison d’ȇtre from the start was to serve the interests of the elites in manipulating the public mind.

In 1941, U.S. Intelligence translated Weltanschauungskriegas “psychological warfare,” a phrase that fails to grasp the full dimensions of the growing power and penetration of U.S. propaganda, then and now. Of course, the American propaganda apparatus…

View original post 2,949 more words

What’s Behind Trump’s Syria Announcement?

By Stephen Lendman
Source

He alone likely knows what others can only speculate about. His announced pullout came after senior regime advisers argued against it.

First, it’s important to note that it’s unclear whether the US role in Syria will change following his troop pullout announcement, or if things will stay the same.

There’s no ambiguity about why US forces are in the country. Washington’s aim throughout the war has been and continues to be for regime change, wanting Syria transformed into a vassal state, Iran isolated ahead of a similar scheme to topple its government.

Washington’s objective remains unchanged whether US forces stay, leave, or are deployed to Iraq or elsewhere regionally, what’s most likely.

That’s what imperialism is all about – in all US war theaters, wanting subservient puppet rule installed serving US interests.

Trump is a longtime businessman, real estate executive, TV personality – a geopolitical know-nothing. His knowledge consists of what’s fed him by handlers, along with rubbish Fox News reports, his favorite TV channel.

Did he act on impulse, announcing his Syria troop pullout and partial Afghan one, or did others influence his decision?

My experience in small business for most of my formal working life suggests no one operates in a vacuum. I discussed everything important with colleagues. Decisions were never made hastily.

Wharton professor Wroe Alderson, the father of modern marketing, taught the principle of postponement, along with his Wharton colleague Reavis Cox.

Effective decision-making requires maximum information. The notion of postponement for marketing efficiency isn’t about putting off for later what should be done now. It’s about time needed to collect enough information to make wise decisions, a haste makes waste notion.

Collective thinking works best, greatly aiding decision-making. By his own admission, pulling out of Syria was on Trump’s mind long before his announcement last week. Here’s what he said:

“Getting out of Syria was no surprise. I’ve been campaigning on it for years, and six months (ago) when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer.”  

“Russia, Iran, Syria & others are the local enemy of ISIS.” Let them carry the load. It’s “(t)ime to come home & rebuild.”

He went off-the-rails, adding: “Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the US leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us.”

He may genuinely believe US forces are combatting ISIS because that’s what his handlers told him. Hard as it is to believe, he may not know that the US created and supports ISIS, al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot, and other regional terrorist groups.

The Pentagon and CIA use them as proxy troops. Washington pretends to be combatting the scourge it actively supports.

As president and commander-in-chief of US forces, Trump may be ignorant about what’s essential for him to know.

Analyst Abdel Bari Atwan suggested his move may have followed “a military rule that says: if you are facing defeat and want to cut your losses, the shortest way out is to declare victory and promptly retreat.”

Strategic military thinking isn’t his forte. It’s the domain of many others in his regime. How they’ve advised him can only be speculated about. He’s likely gotten various views on Syria and other geopolitical issues.

AP’s Matt Lee and Susannah George believe Turkey’s Erdogan influenced his decision, saying he acted “hastily without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State” – the US supports, as I’ve explained many times in my articles.

Trump meets regularly with key regime officials, along with congressional leaders. He’s likely alone only when spending private time with family members.

Although he reportedly argued against a change in regime policy on Syria, Mike Pompeo defended his announcement publicly, saying “(i)t no longer makes sense for there to be 2,000 soldiers stationed there.”

Former State Department official Brett Bruen slammed him, saying he “publicly parrots whatever he thinks the president wants him to say, and foreign leaders have a very tough time putting themselves next to a parrot that is trumpeting ‘America First.’ ”

According to AP’s Lee and George, “Pompeo, Mattis and other members of the national security team prepared a list of talking points for Trump to tell Erdogan to back off.”

Trump “ignored the script…sid(ing) with Erdogan…remain(ing) unmoved by those scrambling to convince him to reverse or at least delay the decision.”

“ ‘The talking points were very firm,’ ” said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the US and Turkey work together to address security concerns.’’

“Everybody said push back and try to offer (Erdogan) something that’s a small win, possibly holding territory on the border, something like that.”

“Trump capitulated by pledging to withdraw…offering no specifics on how it would be done…” Efforts by Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo to dissuade him failed, according to AP’s sources.

“Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong,” Trump tweeted.

Whatever unfolds in the new year, Washington’s imperial agenda remains unchanged – in Syria, Afghanistan, and everywhere else.

10 Most Deadly CIA-backed Coups In Latin America

Rebel Voice

They are the eternal bad guys, at least for most of the planet, and for a very good reason. The CIA have been involved in causing more hardship and war across the planet in the last 70 years than any other single organisation.

But the shady Federal corporation acts at the behest of the Establishment/Surplass of the USA. Extremely rich and powerful people who live in opulent mansions make recommendations and issue instructions to the politicians and apparatchiks of the Federal regime. It is these play-makers who ultimately control the actions of the CIA.

The reasons are power and, of course, profit. The old adage is always, Follow themoney. It will be found that whenever a CIA-led coup is instigated anywhere in the world, there will be the issue of financial gain at the back of it. It may not always be immediately evident, but rest assured…

View original post 199 more words

CIA’s Latest Greatest Failure

or-41695.jpg

Government agencies that are skilled at invading nearly everyone’s privacy worldwide are sometimes totally inept at keeping their own internal communications secure. The problem is particularly acute for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which must maintain secure contact with thousands of foreign agents scattered all over the world. By secure contact one means being able to provide specific targeting to the agents and received in return detailed information that responds to what is being sought without any third party being able to intercept or interpret what is being shared.

Communicating is the most vulnerable element in any foreign agent operation, particularly as counter-intelligence services commit major resources to cracking the systems used to link an agent in the field with his case officer or handler, who might be in the same country under diplomatic cover but just as easily might be in another nearby country or halfway around the world.

Various media reports have lately been detailing a catastrophic communications security failure by CIA that took place between 2007 and 2013. In simple terms, what took place was this: the Agency developed a method of covertly communicating with its agents through the internet that involved sites which enabled two way communications that were believed to be both secure and efficient. It presumably operated like social media sites where you have to log in, provide a password and then are able to send and receive messages. It almost certainly had some level of encryption built into it and there may have been several layers of passwords and/or questions that the user had to answer to gain access.

Once developed, the system, which was originally intended only for occasional low-level use, was then deployed to handle nearly all the CIA’s agent communications worldwide, including a number of key countries targeted by Washington, to include Iran and China. Each country had a separate site and the sites themselves were set up under innocuous business or social cover arrangements which presumably would have made them of no interest to prowling counterintelligence services.

What exactly went wrong is not completely clear, but the mechanism was discovered by Iranian counterintelligence, possibly employing information provided by a double agent. The Iranians determined what kind of indicators and components the CIA site had and then went on a Google search to find other similar sites. They then watched their site as well as the others, noting both their activity and their idiosyncrasies, and were presumably were able to penetrate the site directed against them. At some point, they passed what they had learned on to the Chinese and possibly others.

The Chinese expanded on the Iranian work by breaking through the firewall in their country’s site and getting into the entire system. It was possible to identify all the CIA agents in China. More than two dozen were arrested, tortured and killed and a like number were found and executed in Iran, though some were warned by CIA and were able to escape. Agents in other countries were also exfiltrated as a security measure because it was not known to what extent the information on the system had been compromised and shared. The damage is still being assessed, but one thing that is known is that the United States knew little or nothing about what was going on in China and Iran at a critical time when negotiations over nuclear programs and North Korea were taking place.

The internet communications system was used so extensively because it was easy to use. When it eventually crashed, fully 70% of CIA communications with agents were potentially compromised. Ironically, a CIA contractor had, in 2008, warned that the internet system had major flaws that could be exploited. He was fired for his pains.

Secret communications to protect spies are as old as the Greeks and Romans, who used codes and substitution ciphers. The leap into internet communications by the CIA demonstrated that no system is infallible. The CIA got lazy and did not do its homework when setting up communications plans with agents. The reality is that running agents in a hostile foreign country is more an art than a science. You communicate with a spy in a way that fits in with his lifestyle so as not to arouse suspicion. He or she might be able to take phone calls, or receive letters with invisible writing. They might have the privacy to do burst communications from a computer to a satellite. Or they might prefer to use the old-fashioned methods — to include chalk marks signaling dead drops, brush passes and encrypted communications using one-time pads. CIA, which lost many of its skilled spies post 9/11 after it went crazy over electronics, drones and paramilitary operations, will now have to relearn Basic Espionage 101. It will not be easy and will take years to do if it is even possible. Some might argue, perhaps, that the world would be a better and safer place if it is not done at all.

By Philip Giraldi
Source

 

%d bloggers like this: