offguardian--2020-06-10--To Understand Iran’s 150-Year Fight, Follow the Trail of Blood and Oil

This past April 17th , a dispute between Iran and the U.S. occurred over the U.S. ’ decision to increase its military presence in Caribbean and Eastern Pacific waters , with the purported reason being a counter-narcotics campaign .
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this past Sunday , that the real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “ intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran ’ s fuel to Venezuela.
” In the same letter , Zarif expressed concern over “ the United States ’ intention to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
” The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $ 45.5million of gasoline and related products , as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela .
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on both nations ’ oil exports .
For the first time since 1962 , Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic , with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $ 5 billion .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. , which accounts for slightly more than 16.5 % of IMF ’ s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions .
Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic , and yet is prohibited from purchasing medicines and supplies because of the banking sanctions .
It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone ’ s “ security ” but rather an attempt to force Iran to finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight to claim its independence from western powers .
However , what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter of Iran ’ s sovereignty ?
Almost out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal , the relationship was jeopardised by a third player .
As identified by John Perkins , in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man , the first ever U.S. coup against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953 .
However , what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation .
In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair , our story starts 150 years ago… It all started in 1872 , with Nasir al-Din Shah having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter , rights to Iran ’ s entire economic estate .
Reuter not only controlled Iran ’ s industry , farming , and rail transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue currency and to set up a national bank , called the Imperial Bank of Persia , which was under direct British control .
In 1901 , Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D ’ Arcy Contract , granting William Knox D ’ Arcy , a millionaire London socialite , the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years .
In May 26th 1908 D ’ Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran , discovering a huge oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up APOC in 1908 , purchasing the rights to the black gold from D ’ Arcy .
Six years later , First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51 % of APOC , effectively nationalizing the company .
This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy .
It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran .
Iran received only 16 % of the royalties on the oil .
Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran , not through colonial occupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
In the midst of carving up the empire ’ s new “ jewels ” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine , the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19 , 1919 was also signed , with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “ advisors ” .
Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran ’ s natural resources through this agreement .
Iran received almost nothing in return , not even oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather had to import it from the Soviet Union !
On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC .
The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce .
A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993 !
Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil .
Despite claiming a neutral stance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler .
The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union , justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several years ’ occupation .
On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son , Mohammad Reza Shah .
Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests .
The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to : In response to this plea , Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration , finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin , Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran .
The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance , and would play a crucial role in Iran ’ s future fight for sovereignty .
The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words , and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR .
As part of Hurley ’ s report to FDR , he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism , “ The imperialism of Germany , Japan , Italy , France… will , we hope , end or be radically revised by this war [ WWII ] .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new life .
.
.
What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion , into its emaciated form , of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [ Iran ] through Lend-Lease.
” Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter : “ The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘ backward countries ’ …the point of all this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States to acquire a ‘ zone of influence , ’ or any other nation for that matter [ in Iran ] .
” Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision .
He was particularly irked by Hurley ’ s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy .
FDR died only a few months later , and with his interment , Hurley ’ s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
Following WWII , nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including in the Middle East , the most notable being Iran .
However , following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran ’ s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “ Supplemental Agreement ” , in May 1949 .
This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil .
In the late 1940s , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh .
Their campaign was centered on the demand to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord , electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis ( parliament ) in 1949 .
Mosaddegh lost no time , and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “ Supplemental Agreement ” .
When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950 , the committee delivered a resounding “ no ” to the British proposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the AIOC , and it was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company ( NIOC ) .
Less than two months later , Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951 .
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community , once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council .
Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh ’ s defense .
Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1914 .
This was anything but a formal victory .
It was to set a precedent in the international community that a country ’ s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain ’ s imperial “ claims ” , which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates .
At the UN Security Council , Mosaddegh responded to Britain ’ s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words : The British were fuming over Mosaddegh ’ s high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s claim to Iran ’ s oil .
Mosaddegh would have to be deposed , however , this could not look like a British retaliation .
During Averell Harrimann ’ s visit to Tehran in July 1951 , in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship , Mosaddegh is reported to have said , As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers , Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952 .
The British were further humiliated and had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
It was at this point that Churchill “ invited ” his lap dog , de facto president Truman , to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran .
In November 1952 , NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record , Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force .
A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated .
The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco , however , JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him .
Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point , and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior .
Refer to my paper on this for further details .
A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division ( NEA ) with British Intelligence .
The key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the American side Kermit Roosevelt ( son of Teddy Roosevelt ) acting as NEA Division Chief .
It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents , which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000 .
The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX .
Appendix B , aka “ London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan ” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USSR 2 ) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since he associates with Tudeh .
The aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies , especially Kashani on the other .
Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him , if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi , leader of the opposition , to arrest him .
Zahedi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after the coup .
Chief of Staff Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time .
When the chief of the Imperial Guards , Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh ’ s house the evening before the planned coup day ( Aug 16th ) to arrest him , Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military .
Zahedi managed to flee .
The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast , crowds flooded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shah .
The Shah left the country quickly .
The CIA informed of the fiasco alerted Kermit Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately .
But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later .
British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th .
The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing : that Zahedi was Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the Shah would return soon .
Military units were dispatched to Mosaddegh ’ s home .
As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks , Mosaddegh managed to escape .
It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities .
After a ten-week period in a military prison , Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason , because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah .
In fact , the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign-led coup .
Mosaddegh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death , later lessened to three years in prison , followed by house arrest .
Mosaddegh ’ s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was : Members of his government were also arrested , as were the leading military who remained loyal to him .
Six hundred of the 6 , 000 of these men were executed .
Even after Mosaddegh had passed away , on March 5th , 1967 , his enemies were fearful of his influence .
Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death , he be buried in the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration , resulting in a blood bath .
Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations , a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house .
This is Part One of a planned three-part series originally published by Strategic Culture

This past April 17th, a dispute between Iran and the U.S. occurred over the U.S.’ decision to increase its military presence in Caribbean and Eastern Pacific waters, with the purported reason being a counter-narcotics campaign.
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this past Sunday, that the real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran’s fuel to Venezuela.”
In the same letter, Zarif expressed concern over “the United States’ intention to consider dangerous, unlawful and provocative measures against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $45.5million of gasoline and related products, as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on both nations’ oil exports.
For the first time since 1962, Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic, with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $5 billion. However, the request is currently being blocked by the U.S., which accounts for slightly more than 16.5% of IMF’s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions.
Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic, and yet is prohibited from purchasing medicines and supplies because of the banking sanctions.
It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone’s “security” but rather an attempt to force Iran to finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete dependence.
Iran has fought a long fight to claim its independence from western powers.
However, what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter of Iran’s sovereignty?
Almost out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal, the relationship was jeopardised by a third player. As identified by John Perkins, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the first ever U.S. coup against a foreign country was the overthrow of Iran’s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953. However, what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation.
In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair, our story starts 150 years ago…
Dieu et mon droit
It all started in 1872, with Nasir al-Din Shah having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter, rights to Iran’s entire economic estate. Reuter not only controlled Iran’s industry, farming, and rail transportation, but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank, called the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was under direct British control.
In 1901, Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D’Arcy Contract, granting William Knox D’Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years.
In May 26th 1908 D’Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran, discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman. Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908, purchasing the rights to the black gold from D’Arcy. Six years later, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51% of APOC, effectively nationalizing the company. This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran.
Iran received only 16% of the royalties on the oil.
Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran, not through colonial occupation, but rather through economic “agreements”. In the midst of carving up the empire’s new “jewels” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine, the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19, 1919 was also signed, with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “advisors”. Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran’s natural resources through this agreement.
Iran received almost nothing in return, not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption, but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union!
On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC. The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce. A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993! Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil.
The American Relationship
Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII, word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler. The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union, justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several years’ occupation. On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son, Mohammad Reza Shah.
Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests. The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to:
be good enough to interest yourself in this incident […] I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression.”
In response to this plea, Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration, finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran.
The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII, despite some resistance, and would play a crucial role in Iran’s future fight for sovereignty. The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words, and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR.
As part of Hurley’s report to FDR, he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism, “The imperialism of Germany, Japan, Italy, France… will, we hope, end or be radically revised by this war [WWII]. British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life. . . What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion, into its emaciated form, of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [Iran] through Lend-Lease.”
Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter: “The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘backward countries’…the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘zone of influence,’ or any other nation for that matter [in Iran].”
Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision. He was particularly irked by Hurley’s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy.
FDR died only a few months later, and with his interment, Hurley’s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world.
Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including in the Middle East, the most notable being Iran. However, following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran’s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “Supplemental Agreement”, in May 1949. This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil.
Enter Mosaddegh
In the late 1940s, a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh. Their campaign was centered on the demand to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord, electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis (parliament) in 1949.
Mosaddegh lost no time, and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “Supplemental Agreement”. When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950, the committee delivered a resounding “no” to the British proposition.
Less than four months later, the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the AIOC, and it was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Less than two months later, Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951.
The British were left empty handed.
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council. Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh’s defense. Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914.
This was anything but a formal victory. It was to set a precedent in the international community that a country’s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain’s imperial “claims”, which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates.
At the UN Security Council, Mosaddegh responded to Britain’s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words:
My countrymen lack the bare necessities of existence…Our greatest natural asset is oil. This should be the source of work and food for the population of Iran. Its exploitation should properly be our national industry, and the revenue from it should go to improve our conditions of life. As now organized, however, the petroleum industry has contributed practically nothing to the well-being of the people or to the technical progress or industrial development of my country…if we are to tolerate a situation in which the Iranian plays the part of a mere manual worker in the oil fields…and if foreign exploiters continue to appropriate practically all of the income, then our people will remain forever in a state of poverty and misery. These are the reasons that have prompted the Iranian parliament… to vote unanimously in favor of nationalizing the oil industry.
A British coup
The British were fuming over Mosaddegh’s high profile humiliation of the British Empire’s claim to Iran’s oil. Mosaddegh would have to be deposed, however, this could not look like a British retaliation.
During Averell Harrimann’s visit to Tehran in July 1951, in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship, Mosaddegh is reported to have said,
You do not know how crafty they are. You do not know how evil they are. You do not know how they sully everything they touch.”
As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers, Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952. The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them.
It was at this point that Churchill “invited” his lap dog, de facto president Truman, to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran. In November 1952, NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record, Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force. A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated.
The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers, who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, however, JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him. Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point, and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior. Refer to my paper on this for further details.
A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division (NEA) with British Intelligence. The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the American side Kermit Roosevelt (son of Teddy Roosevelt) acting as NEA Division Chief. It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents, which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000. The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX.
Appendix B, aka “London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since he associates with Tudeh.
The aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies, especially Kashani on the other. Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him, if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi, leader of the opposition, to arrest him. Zahedi, as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after the coup.
Chief of Staff Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time. When the chief of the Imperial Guards, Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh’s house the evening before the planned coup day (Aug 16th) to arrest him, Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military. Zahedi managed to flee.
The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast, crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah. The Shah left the country quickly.
The CIA informed of the fiasco alerted Kermit Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately. But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later. British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th. The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing: that Zahedi was Prime Minister, that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon.
Military units were dispatched to Mosaddegh’s home. As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks, Mosaddegh managed to escape. It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities.
After a ten-week period in a military prison, Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason, because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah. In fact, the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign-led coup.
Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death, later lessened to three years in prison, followed by house arrest.
Mosaddegh’s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was:
My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire [the British Empire] on Earth.”
Members of his government were also arrested, as were the leading military who remained loyal to him. Six hundred of the 6, 000 of these men were executed.
Even after Mosaddegh had passed away, on March 5th, 1967, his enemies were fearful of his influence. Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death, he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration, resulting in a blood bath.
Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations, a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house.
This is Part One of a planned three-part series originally published by Strategic Culture


offguardian--2020-06-09--Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates

About 150 years ago , scientists painstakingly constructed a set of principles that can prove whether a particular microbe is the cause of a specific disease or is just a bystander .
Those three principles are known as the Koch postulates .
From all the available information , the novel coronavirus doesn ’ t appear to meet any of these tenets , never mind all three .
Like most human endeavours , the Koch postulates were the product of collaboration .
First , Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts , and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The resulting three postulates are : • The pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease .
• The causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite .
• After being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture ( or cloned ) , it can induce the disease anew .
The principles have been altered almost beyond recognition by various researchers over the ensuing 130 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the postulates .
That ’ s why they ’ re still used today by most researchers seeking to robustly prove or disprove the existence of a pathogen and its exclusive relationship with a particular disease .
There ’ s an urgent need for scientists to step up and do this conclusively with the novel coronavirus and COVID-19 .
But , strangely , the fire hose of scientific papers on the virus-disease dyad is only a sickly trickle on this tremendously important aspect of it .
A very straightforward and inexpensive experiment is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first postulate has been met .
Here ’ s how to do it .
Test blood samples from a large number of people for the novel coronavirus using a test that ’ s been proven by several non-conflicted third parties to be accurate – i.e.
, to have very low rates of false positives and false negatives .
Then , if all the people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 are the same ones who tested positive for the novel coronavirus , that would prove the virus causes COVID-19 .
( Note that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a well-defined and finite set of symptoms .
The currently-used and excessively broad diagnostic criteria – such as pneumonia , or the combination of fever and cough – doesn ’ t cut it , because those are present in many other respiratory conditions . )
But such an experiment has never been done , or if it has been done it hasn ’ t been made public .
The real kicker , though , is that the third postulate – isolating and sequencing the virus and then showing it causes the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfilled either .
We ’ ve scoured the internet and found no proof that scientists have done the simple steps required to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 conclusively meets even one – never mind all — of the third postulate ’ s constituent parts .
Those parts are : • sequencing of the isolated DNA , then determining that the identical sequence is not present in any other virus , and next replicating or cloning the DNA to form a new copy of the virus • injecting the new copy of the virus into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually lab animals ) and seeing whether those animals develop the discrete diagnostic symptoms associated with COVID-19 rather than developing the diagnostic symptoms of any other infection or disease .
A few scientists have claimed that some or all of the postulates have been fulfilled .
Their papers have been given laudatory coverage by the media , public-health officials and politicians .
The problem is that each of these papers falls apart on even cursory examination .
For example , in February 2020 Chinese and Dutch researchers published studies purporting to show they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first step in fulfilling the third postulate .
But both teams sourced the virus from animals rather than humans .
( And on top of that , the Dutch study was done 15 years ago on SARS-CoV , not SARS-CoV-2 . )
Another example is a review paper by two Americans published in February 2020 and cinematically titled ‘ Return of the Coronavirus : 2019-nCoV.
’ Two places in the paper suggest the third postulate has been at least partially fulfilled .
The first is in the section titled ‘ Emergence.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strikingly , though , reference 3 that the authors link to at the end of the second sentence is a World Health Organization press release rather than a published study .
The section ’ s next two sentences describe several Chinese research groups ’ virus-sequencing results .
However , these sequencing attempts are shoddy .
For example , one group ’ s paper has many red flags – and indeed , on the web page showing the group ’ s sequence , commenters point to such problems as ‘ sequencing and assembly artifacts.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ replicate or clone the DNA to form a new copy of the virus , as required by the third postulate .
( All subsequent sequencing attempts also have fatal flaws with respect to meeting the postulates . )
Yet the Chinese researchers ’ gene sequences are integral to all of the polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) test kits .
The second place in the review paper that refers to the principles is in the fifth section , ‘ Achieving Koch Postulates.
’ The authors assert that : What ’ s missing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertions .
Meanwhile , public-health officials appear oblivious to this gaping hole in the science .
They imperiously pronounce that they ’ re using the best data available , and act as if evidence-based decision-making is the substrate for the draconian measures they ’ re imposing .
Could it be that they ’ re in fact using decision-based evidence-making ?
Here ’ s an idea : please email your local , state/provincial AND national/federal governments , asking for solid scientific evidence that : • SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness that matches the characteristics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 • the virus has been isolated , reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness .
If you get a response , please share it below .
Amory Devereux is a freelance writer and podcaster with 13 years ’ experience as a language and communications trainer .
He is the co-host of Liberty & Logos and is currently working on a book detailing his fleeing from England due to fears over the totalitarian nature of the UK Coronavirus Act .
You can listen to an interview he recently gave about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary and was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years .
She is now an independent investigative journalist .
You can read her article on The Seven Steps from Pandemic to Totalitarianism , watch and listen to an interview she gave on the pandemic , and follow her on Twitter .

Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei
About 150 years ago, scientists painstakingly constructed a set of principles that can prove whether a particular microbe is the cause of a specific disease or is just a bystander. Those three principles are known as the Koch postulates.
From all the available information, the novel coronavirus doesn’t appear to meet any of these tenets, never mind all three.
Like most human endeavours, the Koch postulates were the product of collaboration. First, Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts, and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining them until they were published in 1890. The resulting three postulates are:
The pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease. The causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite. After being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture (or cloned), it can induce the disease anew.
The principles have been altered almost beyond recognition by various researchers over the ensuing 130 years. But the changes concomitantly watered down the postulates. That’s why they’re still used today by most researchers seeking to robustly prove or disprove the existence of a pathogen and its exclusive relationship with a particular disease.
There’s an urgent need for scientists to step up and do this conclusively with the novel coronavirus and COVID-19. But, strangely, the fire hose of scientific papers on the virus-disease dyad is only a sickly trickle on this tremendously important aspect of it.
A very straightforward and inexpensive experiment is all that’s needed to prove that the first postulate has been met.
Here’s how to do it. Test blood samples from a large number of people for the novel coronavirus using a test that’s been proven by several non-conflicted third parties to be accurate – i.e., to have very low rates of false positives and false negatives.
Then, if all the people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 are the same ones who tested positive for the novel coronavirus, that would prove the virus causes COVID-19. (Note that COVID-19 would have to be diagnosed based on a well-defined and finite set of symptoms. The currently-used and excessively broad diagnostic criteria – such as pneumonia, or the combination of fever and cough – doesn’t cut it, because those are present in many other respiratory conditions.)
But such an experiment has never been done, or if it has been done it hasn’t been made public.
The real kicker, though, is that the third postulate – isolating and sequencing the virus and then showing it causes the disease in other organisms – has not been fulfilled either.
We’ve scoured the internet and found no proof that scientists have done the simple steps required to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 conclusively meets even one – never mind all — of the third postulate’s constituent parts. Those parts are:
isolation from a human patient’s cells of full-length novel-coronavirus DNA*
sequencing of the isolated DNA, then determining that the identical sequence is not present in any other virus, and next replicating or cloning the DNA to form a new copy of the virus
injecting the new copy of the virus into a statistically significant number of living hosts (usually lab animals) and seeing whether those animals develop the discrete diagnostic symptoms associated with COVID-19 rather than developing the diagnostic symptoms of any other infection or disease.
A few scientists have claimed that some or all of the postulates have been fulfilled. Their papers have been given laudatory coverage by the media, public-health officials and politicians.
The problem is that each of these papers falls apart on even cursory examination.
For example, in February 2020 Chinese and Dutch researchers published studies purporting to show they had isolated the virus, which is the first step in fulfilling the third postulate.
But both teams sourced the virus from animals rather than humans. (And on top of that, the Dutch study was done 15 years ago on SARS-CoV, not SARS-CoV-2.)
Another example is a review paper by two Americans published in February 2020 and cinematically titled ‘Return of the Coronavirus: 2019-nCoV.’ Two places in the paper suggest the third postulate has been at least partially fulfilled.
The first is in the section titled ‘Emergence.’ There, the two authors write:
After extensive speculation about a causative agent [of the Wuhan outbreak], the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a report by the Wall Street Journal and announced identification of a novel CoV on 9th January [2]. The novel CoV (2019-nCoV) was isolated from a single patient and subsequently verified in 16 additional patients [3]. While not yet confirmed to induce the viral pneumonia, 2019-nCoV was quickly predicted as the likely causative agent.
Strikingly, though, reference 3 that the authors link to at the end of the second sentence is a World Health Organization press release rather than a published study.
The section’s next two sentences describe several Chinese research groups’ virus-sequencing results. However, these sequencing attempts are shoddy. For example, one group’s paper has many red flags – and indeed, on the web page showing the group’s sequence, commenters point to such problems as ‘sequencing and assembly artifacts.’ That group also didn’t replicate or clone the DNA to form a new copy of the virus, as required by the third postulate. (All subsequent sequencing attempts also have fatal flaws with respect to meeting the postulates.)
Yet the Chinese researchers’ gene sequences are integral to all of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test kits.
The second place in the review paper that refers to the principles is in the fifth section, ‘Achieving Koch Postulates.’ The authors assert that:
Traditional identification of a microbe as the causative agent of disease requires fulfillment of Koch’s postulates, modified by Rivers for viral diseases [37]. At the present time, the 2019-nCoV has been isolated from patients, detected by specific assays in patients, and cultured in host cells (one available sequence is identified as a passage isolate), starting to fulfill these criteria.
What’s missing is even one reference to back up those assertions.
Meanwhile, public-health officials appear oblivious to this gaping hole in the science. They imperiously pronounce that they’re using the best data available, and act as if evidence-based decision-making is the substrate for the draconian measures they’re imposing.
Could it be that they’re in fact using decision-based evidence-making?
Here’s an idea: please email your local, state/provincial AND national/federal governments, asking for solid scientific evidence that:
SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness that matches the characteristics of all of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 the virus has been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness.
If you get a response, please share it below.
*The virus contains RNA, which it injects into the nuclei of cells. There, the RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase enzymes. ^
Amory Devereux is a freelance writer and podcaster with 13 years’ experience as a language and communications trainer. He is the co-host of Liberty & Logos and is currently working on a book detailing his fleeing from England due to fears over the totalitarian nature of the UK Coronavirus Act. You can listen to an interview he recently gave about this journey and follow him on Twitter.
Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary and was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years. She is now an independent investigative journalist. You can read her article on The Seven Steps from Pandemic to Totalitarianism, watch and listen to an interview she gave on the pandemic, and follow her on Twitter.


offguardian--2020-06-13--8 Simple Steps To End The Lockdown: Say Yes, Not No

8 Simple Steps To End The Lockdown : Say Yes , Not No To those paying attention , the evidence about Covid-19 and the lockdown response is clear .
We ’ ve been sold a pup .
The UK Government itself has confirmed several times that the virus is not serious to the majority of people who catch it .
The lockdown was a panic-driven overreaction .
The facts and figures of what is known about Covid-19 are not really much disputed .
More , it ’ s a question of how those facts translate into ways to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone looking at the facts , figures , and basic science can not possibly agree that the response to the crisis is appropriate to the risk and proportionate in terms of wider implications .
For example , in the UK the infection rate has receded , there ’ s been no evidence of a link between infection rates and social distancing , lockdown , and the wearing of masks It ’ s all been guesswork .
Yet the UK government has just declared it mandatory for the public to wear masks on public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes no sense whatsoever .
Even the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) , from which the government cherry-pick their guidance to reinforce ‘ trust the experts ’ narratives , for months advised that it was not necessary to wear masks .
The WHO curiously U-turned on this in recent days .
So far , most of the public aren ’ t picking up on these anomalies , or at least when they do , it doesn ’ t particularly register with them , perhaps because of the continued media avalanche of misinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are told by the media that social distancing works , they seem to accept it , even if a brief reflection would make them realise there ’ s no evidence that lockdown translates into lower infection rates , particularly when there are so many other factors and unknowns in play .
So , it ’ s not really about going over the facts and figures or science anymore .
It ’ s about merely getting the obvious conclusions , so far largely kept from the public , out there .
Therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of this lockdown mess to begin repairing the terrible damage caused to date ?
Just the other day , Professor Ferguson , whose forecasts were central to the lockdown decision , basically admitted that lockdown made no difference when it came to containing Covid-19 .
Great , so we can go back to normal ?
Unfortunately , this huge admission only made it to the middle pages of a few newspaper publications .
The rest of the media missed the story and continued with their usual brain-dead output .
But , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they acted upon wrong advice and the lockdown was a mistake ?
Well , hold on there .
No one likes to admit they ’ re wrong , particularly when the errors are huge and so stupid beyond belief .
That ’ s never going to happen voluntarily , at least without some encouragement or a sweetener .
Perhaps , however , there ’ s a chance .
The proposal below is simple and quick .
It gets us out of lockdown without too much recrimination .
And the idea may have further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give them a sense of ultimate power ( we know they love that ) .
Hopefully it will mean that we can all move forward – back to the old normal .
SYNN ( Say Yes , Not No ) First , for background , I used to work for a company which was customer-facing and focused on customer service with a unique passion and pragmatism .
The motto was something like “ the customer is right , even when they are wrong ” .
As a complaints manager , there were sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , began a new initiative .
It was called SYNN ( Say Yes , Not No ) , where we were encouraged to be even more flexible to resolve difficulties and complaints .
The complaint managers were issued with SYNN cards to carry around to remind them .
These cards gave us the authority and final say to resolve any difficulty or complaint in the way that we decided .
Not even the managing director could overrule us ( unless we were offering his chauffeur-driven car as compensation to a customer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt we were generally good at resolving complaints , but these cards were great because there often was an issue that we knew would take time to resolve .
So , if we couldn ’ t initially resolve the matter , we could say , what the hell , and give the customer what they wanted .
I thought this was a great initiative even if it meant in some cases that we were encouraging the wrong behaviour or sometimes went against a principle .
SYNN was our licence to be powerful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoiding drawn-out confrontations and moving on quickly .
The idea is to arrange for members of the UK government to be issued smart-looking SYNN cards .
Then Boris Johnson and government ministers armed with these cards should do a live TV press conference where the following questions would be put to them : • Were the initial projections of infection and mortality for Covid-19 hopelessly wrong ?
• Therefore , was the blanket lockdown unnecessary given any limited adverse impact the virus would have had without it ?
• Do you agree that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elderly , and vulnerable to care homes , while locking up low risk groups and the healthy , was wrong ?
• Is it true that the “ trust the science ” narrative throughout was not based on science but on faulty models and guesswork ?
• Do you agree that rather than act on fear and panic , it would have been wise to implement specific but limited measures , based broadly on the Sweden model ?
• Do you agree , as some scientists have said ( and quite frankly is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures should have been directed towards “ close and prolonged contact ” and “ at risk groups ” rather than for shoppers , walking in parks , and blanket social distancing — and this was an assessment which should have been carried out at the outset ?
• Do you agree that the whole thing has been a complete fiasco from start to finish and you and the media have instilled unnecessary fear and panic to the public and utterly dumbed down any sensible discussion — and have not focused on the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportionate ?
• Finally , can we now lift lockdown , as well as apply and keep under review some limited and targeted precautions ( vulnerable groups , close contact risks ) in agreement with a panel of real experts ?
Well , that ’ s sorted then .
The government can pretend that it was just a small mistake like Swine Flu , BSE ( Mad Cow Disease ) , Bird Flu , Iraq , and Libya .
The British people are awfully decent and understanding and will just be grateful to @ @ @ @ @ @

8 Simple Steps To End The Lockdown: Say Yes, Not No
Kevin Smith & Lesley Buckley
To those paying attention, the evidence about Covid-19 and the lockdown response is clear. We’ve been sold a pup.
The UK Government itself has confirmed several times that the virus is not serious to the majority of people who catch it. The lockdown was a panic-driven overreaction.
The facts and figures of what is known about Covid-19 are not really much disputed. More, it’s a question of how those facts translate into ways to deal with the threat. My contention is that anyone looking at the facts, figures, and basic science cannot possibly agree that the response to the crisis is appropriate to the risk and proportionate in terms of wider implications.
For example, in the UK the infection rate has receded, there’s been no evidence of a link between infection rates and social distancing, lockdown, and the wearing of masks It’s all been guesswork.
Yet the UK government has just declared it mandatory for the public to wear masks on public transport from 15 June 2020. That makes no sense whatsoever. Even the World Health Organisation (WHO), from which the government cherry-pick their guidance to reinforce ‘trust the experts’ narratives, for months advised that it was not necessary to wear masks. The WHO curiously U-turned on this in recent days.
So far, most of the public aren’t picking up on these anomalies, or at least when they do, it doesn’t particularly register with them, perhaps because of the continued media avalanche of misinformation, distraction, and scaremongering.
If people are told by the media that social distancing works, they seem to accept it, even if a brief reflection would make them realise there’s no evidence that lockdown translates into lower infection rates, particularly when there are so many other factors and unknowns in play.
So, it’s not really about going over the facts and figures or science anymore. It’s about merely getting the obvious conclusions, so far largely kept from the public, out there.
Therefore, how do we achieve this and get out of this lockdown mess to begin repairing the terrible damage caused to date?
Just the other day, Professor Ferguson, whose forecasts were central to the lockdown decision, basically admitted that lockdown made no difference when it came to containing Covid-19.
Great, so we can go back to normal?
Unfortunately, this huge admission only made it to the middle pages of a few newspaper publications. The rest of the media missed the story and continued with their usual brain-dead output.
But, perhaps we can get the government to admit they acted upon wrong advice and the lockdown was a mistake?
Well, hold on there. No one likes to admit they’re wrong, particularly when the errors are huge and so stupid beyond belief. That’s never going to happen voluntarily, at least without some encouragement or a sweetener.
Perhaps, however, there’s a chance. The proposal below is simple and quick. It gets us out of lockdown without too much recrimination. And the idea may have further appeal to the government because it will give them a sense of ultimate power (we know they love that). Hopefully it will mean that we can all move forward – back to the old normal.
SYNN (Say Yes, Not No)
First, for background, I used to work for a company which was customer-facing and focused on customer service with a unique passion and pragmatism. The motto was something like “the customer is right, even when they are wrong”. As a complaints manager, there were sometimes difficult cases to resolve.
The company, however, began a new initiative. It was called SYNN (Say Yes, Not No), where we were encouraged to be even more flexible to resolve difficulties and complaints.
The complaint managers were issued with SYNN cards to carry around to remind them. These cards gave us the authority and final say to resolve any difficulty or complaint in the way that we decided. Not even the managing director could overrule us (unless we were offering his chauffeur-driven car as compensation to a customer).
Before this initiative, I felt we were generally good at resolving complaints, but these cards were great because there often was an issue that we knew would take time to resolve. So, if we couldn’t initially resolve the matter, we could say, what the hell, and give the customer what they wanted.
I thought this was a great initiative even if it meant in some cases that we were encouraging the wrong behaviour or sometimes went against a principle.
SYNN was our licence to be powerful and pragmatic, and it was great for avoiding drawn-out confrontations and moving on quickly.
The Proposal
The idea is to arrange for members of the UK government to be issued smart-looking SYNN cards.
Then Boris Johnson and government ministers armed with these cards should do a live TV press conference where the following questions would be put to them:
Were the initial projections of infection and mortality for Covid-19 hopelessly wrong? Therefore, was the blanket lockdown unnecessary given any limited adverse impact the virus would have had without it? Do you agree that the policy of moving the sick, elderly, and vulnerable to care homes, while locking up low risk groups and the healthy, was wrong? Is it true that the “trust the science” narrative throughout was not based on science but on faulty models and guesswork? Do you agree that rather than act on fear and panic, it would have been wise to implement specific but limited measures, based broadly on the Sweden model? Do you agree, as some scientists have said (and quite frankly is common sense), that any such measures should have been directed towards “close and prolonged contact” and “at risk groups” rather than for shoppers, walking in parks, and blanket social distancing — and this was an assessment which should have been carried out at the outset? Do you agree that the whole thing has been a complete fiasco from start to finish and you and the media have instilled unnecessary fear and panic to the public and utterly dumbed down any sensible discussion — and have not focused on the real question – i.e is lockdown necessary and proportionate? Finally, can we now lift lockdown, as well as apply and keep under review some limited and targeted precautions (vulnerable groups, close contact risks) in agreement with a panel of real experts?
Yes?
Well, that’s sorted then. The government can pretend that it was just a small mistake like Swine Flu, BSE (Mad Cow Disease), Bird Flu, Iraq, and Libya.
The British people are awfully decent and understanding and will just be grateful to move on with their lives.
Everyone a happy bunny.
Originally published by One World Press