Ahmadinejad Gives US TV Interview

Open wrote:

Not to mention the 1978 coup to take out the shah...

3/10/06
What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran
By Ernst Schroeder


My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.



I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.



"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.



Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.





The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.



During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:



In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.



London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.



As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.



British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.





Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,



I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]



With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.



Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.



Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.



There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.



Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]



The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.



Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

I thought it was interesting.....he really takes control of the interview...the barf bags are not necessary I watched it last night with someone who usually disagrees with me and he found that he was engaging and seemed truthful and passionate.....so wanted to add that in that I watched it with a person on the other side of the fence....but the thing is how many people will take him seriously....we live in a world where we know no actual foreign diplomacy...just cheap threats and weapons as back-up....

Infinity_Now wrote:

"Hatred vis-à-vis the president is increasing every day..."

haha, sly...

I like this statement, I like it a lot.

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

He defiently believes in the Holocaust he said that...I think he beleives that the #'s are exagerrated to fit an agenda I guess whatever he has his beliefs right....he leads into the point why does Germany not have to give up land since they were the scene of the crime...he asks why the area of Palestine...as he says they did nothing to deserve their lose of land....his point of view take it for it is....which is somewhat of a good question...I dont know why to tell you the truth.....

For me its hard to come to your conclusions as we live in a brutaly biased culture when in comes to Iran...you have to admit that....however I do not think he is all roses and sunshine, ultimately we all have an agenda...but he stresses foreign diplomacy....how about the mentioning of a nuclear energy agreement that happened to be signed by our nation....as he says maybe it is time for Iran/USA to end 26 years of no diplomacy but he says the US must stop its evil agenda...like I said countries and governments need to work together......

Okay lets say he is the devil (to me he is not a good guy but he isn't the devil...just as I apply the sentiment to Bush as well) I think it is important to learn about your enemies.... their is more to learn from someone than through threats and violence...maybe listening and learning would help us all better....after watching the interview I hold nothing more against him than I already did.....you think after the actions of Iraq and Lebanon the West would finally realize you will not destroy terrorism through bombs....you have to agree with the concept of increased violence only breeds violence...like I said the viscous circle of hate and violence...peace cannot exist within that cycle...the terrorist threats of today is not equivalent to Nazi Germany in the 30's therefore it must be handeled completely different...problem is people resort to the easy option violence and BOTH sides are ultimately guilty of that....

You must work with those in the countries that strive for deomocary and listen to them on what needs to be done to bring them in...countries need to start working together with less individual efforts and I think we can pull some peace out of that area of the world.....concessions for both sides....

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Make you go to bed better at night knowing two extremes (which are both bad) are heading for a full on collsion?

I agree 1000% with your last statement.....

The insulting also is just as unproductive as threats....diplomacy is required and as I say concessions made....for example lets say this....

The US (or the west) would supply Iran with nuclear technology (stricly energy purposes) if Iran was to oblige to strictest of government/UN inspections...and to allow permenant inspectors in their countries (comprised of a multitude of nations) to work hand-in-hand with their government in rolling out a nuclear energy program (ie. training personel, as we do not need another Chernobyl, start-up of equipment, help with maintenace, etc.)....meaning that inspections would be permanent...for example Canada could sell them Candu reactors and supply a permenent team of speacilists to help with the program...that way there is always someone involved with the everyday operations of the program...the Iranian government would have to co-operative and they would also be involved everyday....

IF his ambition is nuclear energy he would have no problems to this and IF the West is to really believe there arguement it would be okay for Iran to have nuclear power IF they chose not to pursue nukes they should also be alright with supplying the technology and everyday manpower for these purposes....

Therefore Iran gets its power and the Western nations get their assurance nothing secretive is going on as they essentially "run" the nuclear program from within...I dunno not the greatest idea but just a starting point at where diplomacy can get you....better than where we are right now.....