Al-sarafiya bridge which, until two days ago, spanned the Tigris in Baghdad, linking Shia and Sunni neighborhoods of the city.

“Suicide bombings” are a daily occurrence in Iraq, and are the major propaganda tool used by the US government and its mainstream media to convince the world that there is still some “freedom and Democracy” work to be done by US troops in Iraq. But what if they are a cover for something else?

Read this excerpt from a news report from July 2006:

Violence may bring partition of Baghdad

UK Telegraph

Iraq’s politicians [i.e. Pentagon and Israeli officials] were reported yesterday to be drawing up provisional plans to divide Baghdad into Sunni and Shia halves after a week of bloodshed that has left the government’s security plan to pacify the capital in tatters.

The proposal would mean an acceptance that the country could not be held together and would mark a dramatic failure for the American policy of fostering national unity.

The Tigris river, which would become the dividing line between the predominately Sunni districts of west Baghdad and the majority Shia in the east.

Now read this report of an event that occurred two days ago:

Suicide bomb collapses Baghdad bridge At least 10 killed

Canadian Press
April 12, 2007

BAGHDAD – A suicide truck bomb exploded on a major bridge in Baghdad early Thursday, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River below, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed.

The al-Sarafiya bridge connected two northern Baghdad neighborhoods – Waziriyah, a mostly Sunni enclave, and Utafiyah, a Shiite area. After more than a year of massacres of Sunni and Shia civilians by US-sponsored death squads working out of the Iraqi interior ministry, both Sunni and Shia civilians have fled neighborhoods where they were originally in the majority or where there was a mix of the two groups.

Before the al-Sarafiya bridge was destroyed, nine spans across the Tigris linked western and eastern Baghdad. Now there are eight. How long will they last?

The Tigris river now serves as a de facto dividing line between the mostly Shiite east and the largely Sunni west of the city, with the bridges the only connection between them. It’s called “counter insurgency strategy” – divide and conquer.

The reports that a “truck suicide bomb” had been detonated on the bridge came from the US military. No independent Iraqi or other source was able to verify this claim. In fact, AP Television News video showed the bridge broken in two places suggesting two blasts.

Other Iraqi eyewitnesses claim that a US attack helicopter fired two missiles at the bridge, but with the mainstream media parroting only the official US military line that it was “suicide truck bomb” these eyewitness reports are never heard.

The fact is, the al-Sarafiya bridge was built by the British in the early part of the 20th century, so since it belonged to the occupation army, it was theirs to blow up.

Suffice to say that, from now on, it would be wise when reading reports about daily bombings in Iraq to replace the words “suicide bomber” with “US military”.

Robert Fisk recently commented on the US military plan for “gated communities” in Baghdad:

Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad – despite President George Bush’s “surge” in troops – US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.

The campaign of “gated communities” – whose genesis was in the Vietnam War – will involve up to 30 of the city’s 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

The system has been used – and has spectacularly failed – in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country’s continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to “win” the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of “gating” areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory – again, with little success.

But the campaign has far wider military ambitions than the pacification of Baghdad. It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades – comprising about 40,000 men – south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful – and potentially aggressive – American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year.

The latest “security” plan, of which The Independent has learnt the details, was concocted by General David Petraeus, the current US commander in Baghdad, during a six-month command and staff course at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Those attending the course – American army generals serving in Iraq and top officers from the US Marine Corps, along with, according to some reports, at least four senior Israeli officers – participated in a series of debates to determine how best to “turn round” the disastrous war in Iraq.

So far, the Baghdad campaign has involved only the creation of a few US positions within several civilian areas of the city but the new project will involve joint American and Iraqi “support bases” in nine of the 30 districts to be “gated” off. From these bases – in fortified buildings – US-Iraqi forces will supposedly clear militias from civilian streets which will then be walled off and the occupants issued with ID cards. Only the occupants will be allowed into these “gated communities” and there will be continuous patrolling by US-Iraqi forces. There are likely to be pass systems, “visitor” registration and restrictions on movement outside the “gated communities”. Civilians may find themselves inside a “controlled population” prison.

The senior generals who constructed the new “security” plan for Baghdad were largely responsible for the seminal – but officially “restricted” – field manual on counter-insurgency produced by the Department of the Army in December of last year, code-numbered FM 3-24. While not specifically advocating the “gated communities” campaign, one of its principles is the unification of civilian and military activities, citing “civil operations and revolutionary development support teams” in South Vietnam, assistance to Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq in 1991 and the “provincial reconstruction teams” in Afghanistan – a project widely condemned for linking military co-operation and humanitarian aid.

FM 3-24 is harsh in its analysis of what counter-insurgency forces must do to eliminate violence in Iraq. “With good intelligence,” it says, “counter-insurgents are like surgeons cutting out cancerous tissue while keeping other vital organs intact.” But another former senior US officer has produced his own pessimistic conclusions about the “gated” neighbourhood project.

“Once the additional troops are in place the insurrectionists will cut the lines of communication from Kuwait to the greatest extent they are able,” he told The Independent. “They will do the same inside Baghdad, forcing more use of helicopters. The helicopters will be vulnerable coming into the patrol bases, and the enemy will destroy as many as they can. The second part of their plan will be to attempt to destroy one of the patrol bases. They will begin that process by utilising their people inside the ‘gated communities’ to help them enter. They will choose bases where the Iraqi troops either will not fight or will actually support them.

“The American reaction will be to use massive firepower, which will destroy the neighbourhood that is being ‘protected’.”

So that’s what is ultimately in store for the Iraqi people – mass murder by the US military when they finally realise that they are not fighting “terrorists” or even an “insurgency”, but the entire Iraqi people who, like occupied peoples throughout history, will never stop resisting illegal and brutal occupation of their land.

The most disturbing fact however, is that the military and civilian architects of this war have always known this.


By now, anyone with two neurons still firing, has understood that “terrorist attacks” have long term benefits for the Israeli, British and American governments. It’s not just the fact of a “terror attack” however that can be and is used to scare the public into accepting ever more authoritarianism from their leaders, but also the memory of “terror attacks”.

How often have members of the US, UK and Israeli governments reminded us of 9/11, the London bombings or any of the so-called “Palestinian suicide bombings” when attempting to justify their war-mongering? Indeed the rationale for the continuation of the “war on terror” is based entirely on the purported existence of “world wide Islamic terrorism”. The reality however is that if Islamic terrorism were ever to be widely and publicly exposed for the fiction that it is, the game would be up and the “leaders of the free world” in Washington, Tel Aviv and London exposed for the psychopathic monsters that they are.

Before “Worldwide Islamic terrorism”, what was there?

A desire, a plan, an agenda; that’s what.

In Washington, the Ziocons stated it explicitly in a, by now well-known ‘thinktank’ document entitled: Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, in which the architects of illegal war called for American power to be “projected around the world”.

In Israel too there was a need, a desire, an agenda, but there was also fear. Fear that peace might soon break out and Zionist leaders would be forced to the negotiating table with the Palestinians, a table at which they would be forced to provide evidence for their claim that they truly desired peace, and give back the land stolen from the Palestinians. In 1993, there was the Oslo accords. In 2000 there was the Camp David Peace initiative. Both were setting a scene that would see the Zionist dream of domination of all of Palestine and the greater Middle East destroyed.

In both cases then, the need was for an enemy. An enemy so great, so pervasive, so “evil”, that an endless war could be launched and endless brutality against innocent people justified in the process of destroying this “evil”.

Yet no such enemy existed. What to do? For the psychopathic mind, the answer was clear: create one, give it a name and ideology and, over the course of the following 6 years, perpetrate inhuman attacks against innocent people around the world and blame it all on “Worldwide Islamic Terrorism”.

Today, the Israeli internal security service “Shin Bet” announced that in late March, they arrested 19 members of a Hamas “cell” that were planning a major “suicide bombing” over Easter week. A day or two previously (the specific timing is not given) we are told that a “Palestinian suicide bomber” drove his car (or truck, there are conflicting reports) into the outskirts of Tel Aviv, and then for some unknown reason, decided to abandon his mission and return to the West Bank town of Qalqilya from whence he allegedly came. Once there, he parked his car (or truck) behind a house and sometime later the bomb exploded injuring no one. Israeli internal intelligence, Shin Bet, say that the car (or truck) was carrying 100 kilos of explosives. Palestinian police who were on the scene after the explosion state categorically that the car (and it was a car, not a truck) contained no more than 2 pounds of explosives. Hamas, not in the habit of denying anything for which they are truly responsible and often being accused of attacks for which they are not, denied that they had anything to do with the incident.

The point of this latest piece of Israeli government propaganda seems to be to instill suspicion and hatred for Israeli Arabs living in Israel in the minds of Israeli Jews. The would be “suicide bomber”, you see, was allegedly the holder of an Israeli ID and was able, we are told, to pass freely across the border into Israel. This fact has been heavily played up in news reports to the extent that it appears to be the main point, with the standard demonisation of Hamas (and indirectly their coalition partners, the Palestinian Authority) coming a close second.

From the Zionist point of view you see, Palestinians can never be allowed to present themselves as an honorable people with a justified grievance against Israel, and they and their political leaders must be continually demonised as “terrorists”.

The stench of Deputy Israeli PM Avigdor Lieberman (along with the Shin Bet) is all over this latest episode of Zionist duplicity. It was Lieberman, after all, who suggested that Arab Israelis be forced to swear an oath of allegiance to Israel or have their citizenship revoked, adding that 90 percent of Israel’s one million Arabs would “have to find a new Arab entity” in which to live beyond Israel’s borders. “They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost”, he said. It was Lieberman who stated that Palestinians should be given the ultimatum that: “at 8am we’ll bomb all the commercial centers…at noon we’ll bomb their gas stations…at two we’ll bomb their banks….” It was Lieberman who called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel (most of them innocent of any crime) to be drowned in the Dead Sea, while kindly offering to provide the buses to take them there.

In November 2006, Lieberman called for the execution of any Arab Members of Knesset who meet with representatives of the Palestinian government, saying:

“World War II ended with the Nuremberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in the Knesset.”

And this guy is slated to be the next Israeli PM (unless the equally racist Benjamin Netanyahu is chosen instead).

As for the Shin Bet; according to Uri Avnery, its chief recently declared that the “Israeli Arabs”, a fifth of Israel’s population, constitute a danger to the state and requested permission for the General Security Service to act against anyone who aims at changing the official designation of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” – even if they use nothing but completely legal means. Could it possibly be a coincidence then that this attempted “Passover bombing” presents Israeli Arabs as aiding and abetting terrorism?

The fundamental problem here appears to be the fact that the Zionist regime in Israel had recently received some bad press resulting from its flippant rejection of any chance of talks with the newly formed (March 19th) coalition Palestinian government (Hamas and the PA), and its rejection of the March 27th revived Saudi peace plan.

In relation to Palestinian Coalition, Olmert stated:

“We can’t have contact with members of a government that justifies resistance, or in other words, terror” – the right of any occupied people to resistance as laid down by the Geneva convention being the same as “terrorism” in the Zionist lexicon.

Olmert also rejected talks with Hamas on the basis that they “do not recognise Israel’s right to exist. In doing so, Olmert ignored the fact that the coalition platform of Hamas and the PA implicitly recognizes Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on lands that Israel stole in 1967, in contrast with Hamas’ past calls to eliminate Israel altogether. Indeed, there is no moral or conscience-based reason for Palestinians to “recognise Israel’s right to exist”, since Israel as it is today, is defined by its occupation and brutalisation of Palestinian land and its people. Who, in all conscience, could sanction such inhumanity by recognising its right to exist? Such inhumanity has no place in a just and peaceful world. Stop the persecution of Palestinians and the world will recognise Israel’s right to exist. But the Zionist regime will never do so, because Israel does not want peace.

As regards the revived Saudi peace plan. 14 Arab states, including the PA-lead Palestinian coalition, offered normalisation of relations (i.e. peace) with Israel in return for the return to the pre-1967 war borders and the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to lands they inhabited before the state of Israel was formed.

Flexibility was inherent in the Saudi peace plan and it was designed as a starting point for negotiations. Yet the Zionist regime rejected outright any possibility of the right of Palestinians to return to the lands from which they were cleansed, be it in 1948 or 1967. From this it was clearly understood that Israel not only rejects the right of return but also any idea that it would give back land stolen from Palestinians since the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, and with this any idea of the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Again, in short, Israel does not want peace.

Of particular note is the fact that this latest “suicide bombing” propaganda, coming as it does immediately after an Israeli PM rejected a peace offer from Arab states, almost exactly mirrors the original Saudi Peace summit offer of Easter week 2002. On that occasion, the print was hardly dry before a “Palestinian suicide bomber” allegedly detonated his explosives in the Park Hotel in Netanya on March 27th 2002, killing 20 old people, almost exactly 5 years ago. Like so many other alleged “Palestinian suicide bombings”, the details of that attack are open to interpretation. All that is really known is that a man walked into the Park hotel with a suitcase and the suitcase exploded. It literally could have been anyone, even someone unaware of the fate that awaited him.

How convenient it was then, with the then Israeli government of Ariel Sharon under pressure to accept the Saudi peace plan or face losing the ‘moral’ high ground, that the Palestinians, yet again, appeared to shoot themselves in the foot and present the Zionists with a way to not only reject the peace plan, but to pitch the Palestinians as the enemy of peace.

The Park Hotel attack in 2002 is remembered as the “Passover Suicide bombing”. Today, several Israeli news sources carry a variation of the headline: “Passover massacre foiled“.

You see how this works.

March 27th 2002: Pan-Arab Peace Plan offered to Israel. Immediately thereafter: “Passover Suicide bombing”

March 27th 2007: Pan Arab Peace Plan offered to Israel
Immediately thereafter: “Passover Suicide bombing narrowly averted”.

There is a definite ominous air around recent events in the Middle East and in particular the pressure on Israel over the Hamas/PA coalition government and the resurrected Saudi peace plan. History seems to be repeating itself. The Zionists do not take ‘peace pressure’ very well. It disturbs them greatly. As already noted, during the Clinton years, significant efforts had been made to bring the plight of the Palestinian people and the need for a just solution to the Middle East conflict to the attention of the international community. While Israel had successfully scuppered the Camp David peace talks by making demands that they knew the Palestinian people, and therefore Arafat, could not accept, Israel was finding itself increasingly isolated and increasingly pressured to make the concessions that peace required.

Then 9/11 ‘happened’, and all bets were off.

Salvation from a “Passover massacre” has strong religious overtones for Jewish people, evoking as it does, the fictitious original “Passover” when Yahweh passed over the houses of the chosen Israelites in his rampage and murder of the first born of lesser peoples (or so the story goes). To be spared the fate of others, Israelites were instructed to smear the lintels of their doors with the blood of the “Passover sacrifice”.

While few Israelis continue with this tradition today, perhaps there are those who privately believe, as the Israeli media seems to be suggesting, that this Passover, ‘Yahweh’ once again spared them from the carnage that he has been wreaking for the past 60 years on the ‘lesser’ peoples of the Middle East. After all, enough Palestinian and Arab blood has been spilled by the American and Israeli governments to anoint the door of every Israeli household – but will it suffice to spare the Israeli Jews from the results of the warmongering of their leaders?

The truth of the matter is that history does not repeat itself – history is deliberately repeated, because human beings have still not awoken to the truth of the world that surrounds them, and who, or what, controls it. History is repeated because what worked once, will work again. History is repeated because the psychopaths that were in power, 10, 50, 100, 200 years ago, are still there today. And history will continue to be repeated, until they are removed.


©Martin Rowson

Release of Iranian Diplomat exposes US and British origin of Iraqi death squads and “sectarian” bombings

The 15 British Marines (who were in fact spying on Iran) were barely off the plane yesterday morning before Blair, Smeagol-like, turned on the Iranians and, with no evidence whatsoever, accused them of being responsible for the – timely from Blair’s point of view – deaths of 4 British soldiers in Iraq.

As disingenuous as ever, Blair squeaked:

“It’s far too early [to point to any Iranian involvement in that particular attack], but the general picture, as I have said before, is there are elements at least of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming terrorism in Iraq.”

Blair’s “general picture” of Iraq and who is responsible for the daily carnage there is surreal indeed and like all surrealist works, diverges greatly from actual reality. The fact is, there is not one shred of objective unbiased evidence that Iran is involved in any way with attacks on US or any other illegal forces in occupied Iraq, and before anyone suggests it, US intelligence reports have long since ceased to be anything but the deranged imaginings of the Ziocons, so don’t even go there.

Along with his contemptible attack on the Iranians, Blair insisted that there had been “no deals” done to secure the release of the 15 British spies, a statement which, you will be unsurprised to learn, is also a barefaced lie and a clear attempt to save his pompous English ass from ending up on the already overflowing scrapheap of British political history and thereby joining the long list of sorry excuses for human beings that define it.

Two days ago, Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary of the Iranian embassy in Iraq, who was abducted from his car in Baghdad in early February, just happened to walk out of captivity and into the Iranian embassy earlier this week at the height of the “hostage crisis”. Coincidence? Why, of course it is!

At the time of his abduction by men wearing Iraqi army uniforms, US military spokesman in Baghdad, US army Lt Col Christopher Garver stated: “we’ve checked with our units and it was not a [multinational forces – Iraq] unit that participated in that event”. Yet Sharafi walks free in Baghdad in the Middle of the negotiations over the 15 British spies.

You ‘do the logic’, and then realise that lying is standard operation procedure for government officials. For more on the death squads in Iraq and who is behind them, see this SOTT editorial.

Then today, Blair set the damage control spin machine into overdrive with a “news conference” for the 15 released British spies, complete with that heart-warming symbol of centuries of brutality – the Union Jack flag.

At the top of the sheet given to the sailors by the Ministry of Defence the words “READ THIS” in big bold letters was written.

And like the trained monkeys that they are, the Marines had no choice but to comply. Here’s what they said:

“On arrival at a small Iranian naval base we were blindfolded, stripped of all our kit and led to a room where I (Lieutenant Carman) declared myself as the officer in charge and was introduced to their local commander.

Two hours later, we were moved to a second location and throughout the night were subjected to random interrogation.

The following morning, we were flown to Tehran and transported to a prison – where the atmosphere changed completely.

We were blindfolded, our hands were bound, we were forced up against the wall. Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure.

Later, we were stripped and dressed in pyjamas. The next few nights were spent in stone cells approximately 8ft by 6ft, sleeping on piles of blankets.

All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options.

If we admitted we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn’t, we faced up to seven years in prison.

None of the guards spoke English, we were blindfolded at all times and kept in isolation from each other.

Watch the video where Lt. Felix Carman reads from a prepared script at this link.

Does anyone know what 12 days solitary confinement in a stone cell with blindfolds, bound hands, little or no sleep, regular interrogation and “constant psychological and emotional pressure” looks like?

Put it this way, regardless of how staged these pictures were or were not, it doesn’t leave you looking like this:

Day 5

Day 7

Day 11

Day 12

A number of people have pointed out the fact that in the photos of the “hostages” in Iran, some were smiling and waving while others were not. This is due to the fact that there were a mix of Marines and Sailors among the 15, and it was, more or less, all of the sailors that were smiling and waving, while the marines were stern faced. This fact reflects the difference in training and job profile between the Sailors and Marines and how aware each group was of the reality of what they were doing in the Persian Gulf.

Basically, the Marines know that their job is to attack and undermine the Iranians. To the Marines, the Iranians are the enemy, which is reflected in their demeanour.

From the sailors POV, they are there to “help” with stopping smugglers, which could also be of benefit to the Iranians. So to the Sailors then, the Iranians were not necessarily the enemy, which is reflected in their demeanour.

The official story that they were just doing their job of searching for “smugglers” is of course, laughable. Such activities are undertaken in countries where normal conditions prevail, NOT in a country like Iraq, which is as war torn as any. “Searching for smugglers” is no one’s priority in Iraq, but serves the MOD well as a cover story because it appears to the British public that “their boys” are carrying out innocent, heck! even helpful activities in Iraq, and darn those Iraqis for not being grateful!

So to be convincing, they searched the odd boat that was unloading cars or whatever, and the gormless sailors were there to make it look convincing, and indeed the sailors themselves, dupes that they are, actually believed that this was the extent of what they were involved in, if only as a cover.

The Marines were there to do the real job – spying on Iraq, planning/setting up infiltrations into Iran – keeping in contact with British assassination (SAS) teams already in Iran – passing details to US teams in Iran and to the US government etc.

In short, they are very clearly engaged in hostile acts towards Iran, and if the tables had been turned, and Iranians had been caught in America doing the same thing, they would now be being tortured in Guantanamo. No doubt WHATSOEVER.

The main point at this stage however is that the spin machine has gone into action in an attempt to undo the Iranian “coup de media”. For example, the Scotsman reports:

The Iranian soldiers had changed out of military uniforms and were now dressed all in black, their faces masked. For the 14 male hostages, the worst moment of their ordeal had arrived. The belief that they were being taken to the British Embassy in Tehran for imminent release had evaporated. Instead, at a detention centre, blindfolded and with their hands secured with plastic cuffs, they were all made to face a brick wall.

Then guns were cocked and a British captive cried out: “Lads, lads. I think we are going to be executed.” At that point, one of the hostages vomited: at least one of the others thought someone had just had their throat cut, and that it was blood hitting the floor.

Hmmmm…. now why would any of the British hostages automatically associate the sound of vomit hitting the floor with someone’s throat being cut? Are British children reared to instinctively know and associate these sounds with one another? Of course, I forget! They were in “Arablandia”, where people cut each other’s throats as a matter of course and on a daily basis.

The poster boy for the gormlessness of the Sailors has to be Sailor Arthur Batchelor. From my brief analysis of the ‘cut of his gib’, I have decided that this poor misguided child would have cracked if an Iranian Republican Guard has so much as looked at him in the wrong way, and his bright and sunny disposition therefore constitutes reasonable evidence that it is unlikely that there was any mal-treatment.

Indeed, it is exactly Batchelor’s likely naivety that we can rely on to get the closest approximation to the truth of what conditions were really like. He stated:

“Iranian behaviour was humane, we were fed, watered 3 times a day”

which is far cry from “constant psychological pressure”, blindfolds, handcuffs, stone cells, “gun-cocking” etc. as reported by his superiors who were given the job of spreading lies and disinformation once they arrived home.

On a lighter note; I had to chuckle at the fact that Batchelor was so short and hobbit-like that there wasn’t a suit in all of Iran to be found to fit him.

Smiling British Marines leave Tehran on their way back home. US and British Prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay meet a different fate.

It doesn’t get much better than this folks. With a smile, handshakes and a lesson in family values, a member of the “axis of evil” and alleged 21st century “Hitler” today destroyed years of hard work and scurrilous propaganda by the American, Israeli and British governments.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Wednesday that the country had “pardoned” and would release the 15 British sailors and marines who have been held there for nearly two weeks.

Speaking at a news conference in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said that the captives would be taken to Tehran airport immediately after he finished his remarks. “They are free after this meeting, and can go back to their families,” he said.

He also criticized Britain for its involvement in the war in Iraq. “We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors and being arrested in Iran,” the president said.

Other countries “must recognize that Iran will protect its right and its land and as it did in the past it will in the future,” Ahmadinejad said. “We are sorry that the British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran. We are sorry of this event.”

Ahmadinejad said that the captured Britons had all confessed to trespassing in Iranian waters and that Iran had “every right” to put them on trial, but had decided not to. “I want to give them as a present to the British people, to see that they are free,” he said.

Afterward, he greeted the captives one by one and shook their hands.

The Iranian president said the decision to release the captured sailors and marines was not part of a swap for Iranian prisoners held by the United States in Iraq.

“We approached the subject on a humanitarian basis,” he said. “It was a unilateral decision on our end.”

He also said the British government sent a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry that “said that this will not happen again.” But he said that the decision to release the naval personnel “was not related to that letter. When we think of Islamic kindness, we are not expecting anything in return.”

Ahmadinejad was shown on live television greeting the British sailors, who were wearing suit jackets. The president said the release was being made on the occasion of the “birthday of the great Prophet of Islam,” in the words of the translator.

Ahmadinejad wished them success.

“Thank you very much,” said one.

“We are very grateful for your forgiveness” said another. “We would like to thank yourself and the Iranian people.”

Another said: “I am fine thank you,” to the president. “Your people have been very kind to us and I appreciate that very much.”

The Iranian President criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.

“Why is it that the most difficult missions, naval inspections, be given to a mother, who is carrying out a mission thousands of miles away from her child?” he said.

“How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don’t they respect family values in the West?” he asked of the British government.

>Noises…strange and frightening noises are leaking out of the state of Israel.

Dr. Arieh Eldad, member of the Israeli opposition ‘National Union Party’ and member of the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs committee for the past four years, has stated that Israel will be “at war” by the summer.

“We have no choice. We will have to do it”, he claims. Of course, he’s not lying when he says that they have no choice. Just like a cat cannot not eat the mouse that it has trapped under its paw, psychopaths – people without a conscience – simply cannot act in a way that is contrary to their nature. That’s not to say that they will not have some weak and implausible excuse that will be trumped up and shoved down the necks of the masses by the mainstream media. Dr Eldad explains:

that Israel is facing a new strategic threat, caused in part by its own failure to deal a crushing blow to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the impression of weakness last summer’s failed war created in the minds of Israel’s enemies.

“Hezbollah is becoming stronger every day,” he said. “They are rebuilding their ammunition stores, their medium and long missiles. They are going back to their bunkers in the south of Lebanon.

Israel has no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war to destroy Hezbollah as an effective fighting force”

So Israel will go to war to correct an “impression”. Of course, last summer taught us that when Israel “goes to war” it generally bombs the homes of innocent civilians, murdering thousands. But hey, let’s get real, an “impression” is at stake here.

Other than that, there is the audacity of Hizb’allah in attempting to make itself into an effective fighting force. I mean, how dare they! And right beside Israel too! NO Arab nation is allowed to act as a counter-balance to Israel and the US in the Middle East because that might mean equality justice and, Yahweh forbid, an end to 60 years of brutal Israeli and American oppression and murder of the Arab peoples of the Middle East.

But what exactly will that trumped up excuse that will initiate the next round of Israeli slaughter of the innocents be?

Chief of Israeli military, Major General Gabi Ashkenazi, spells it out:

The Israeli military will soon launch a huge offensive in the Gaza Strip to crush Palestinian resistance groups, mainly Hamas, chief of staff Major General Gabi Ashkenazi said.

“The strengthening process of the terror organizations in the Gaza Strip will have to be confronted,” Ashkenazi told the parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee.

Reacting to Ashkenazi’s threats, Palestinian resistance groups said they are ready to defend Gaza, which Israel evacuated in 2005, in the face of Israeli occupation forces.

We need to realise that we are dealing with very sick people here. They have serious mental health issues. By rights, they should be in an insane asylum, but they are in fact in positions of power, with their fingers on the “button”, if you know what I mean, and with the Israelis being the only ones with any “button” to push, that should give every one of us cause for serious concern. Dr Eldad again:

“If Israel is left alone and the point of no return [in Iran’s nuclear weapons program] arrives, then Israel will have to do the job. But most probably we will not be able to do it with conventional warheads. And this is something the world should know.”

You think he’s joking? You think there is anyone around to stop the “f**king crazies” in Tel Aviv and the Pentagon?

Then again, Eldad and Ashkenazi did have the decency to warn the world before they ignite the fuse that may well destroy us all. So I suppose we should really thank Yahweh for small graces… eh?


Up until the 23rd March 2007, it seemed unlikely that the ‘creative destructionists’ (1) and ‘reality-makers’ in the Pentagon and Tel Aviv would get to “liberate” Iran in the way they have liberated 26 million Iraqis (1 million of them from their bodies).

The past 3 years of subtle and not-so-subtle slander and demonisation of the Iranian president and people by the American, British and Israeli governments and their media had been largely ineffective in further provoking the anti-Islamic ire of Joe six-pack. After all, with the US invasion of Iraq either a war crime or a quagmire (depending on your political perspective and depth of conscience) Bush’s political capital account was seriously overdrawn, rendering the idea of extending the Middle East madness into an attack on Iran nothing but a Zionist pipe dream.

Or so it seemed.

Political capital and its raw material – human emotion – is, you see, much like crude oil, self-replenishing, all you need to know is where to look and where to ‘drill’, and the flow can be re-established in an instant.

In yet another amazing coincidence of the type to which most people have become immune since September 11th 2001, 15 British marines were captured by Iranian soldiers in the Persian Gulf, just one day before the UN security council was to meet to decide whether to impose further immoral sanctions on 80 million Iranians (2) Of course, the timing of the capture of the British marines could have been a coincidence and the direct result – a slam dunk on the sanctions vote – just a piece of uncanny bad luck for Ahmadinejad.

Likewise, the fact that the US government somehow ‘bungled‘ the Iranian President’s visa application, preventing him from presenting his case to the Security Council on the same day, could also have been mere chance. After all, we need only remember how John Ashcroft was warned by an unknown confidant not to fly on commercial planes just a few days before 9/11 or that a Lieutenant Colonel in the Israeli army gave Israel’s most recent suicide bomber a lift to his destination, to understand that strange coincidences are the norm rather than the exception in the world of the Zionist-Neocon War of Terror.

That the capture of the British marines was to be transformed into a causus belli was evident right form the get go with the purportedly moderate BBC News taking a page from Necon Rupert Murdoch’s Fox and Sky news song sheet and running day-long ‘crisis specials’ on the event, complete with ad-nauseum repetitions of the ‘details’. For example, the following (verbatim) is an example of one of the repeated “clarifications” by BBC newscasters in response to comments by an alleged “expert”:

Reporter: “so you’re saying that they were definitely captured in Iraqi waters”


Reporter: “again, let me just be clear on this, you’re saying that this could seriously effect tomorrow’s UN Security council vote”.

If you have been watching the news or reading the papers over the past week, you should already be aware that someone is protesting a little too much, and it ain’t the Iranians.

Since the arrest of the 15 useful idiots, the Western public has been subjected to a week-long barrage of simplistic anti-Iranian propaganda that has sought to capitalise on the event and pitch the Iranian government as the aggressor. As you might expect, however, there is far more to this story than is being told in the mainstream press.

First of all, consider the strange fact that just hours before she was arrested, the only female among the Marines, leading Seaman Specialist Faye Turney, gave an exclusive interview to the UK Independent in which she spoke of her “devotion to her job and three-year-old daughter, Molly, and the guilt of leaving her behind at home in Plymouth to be cared for by her husband Adam, a Petty Officer in the Royal Navy.”

It was also leading Seaman Specialist Turney who was chosen by the Iranian government to speak when she and some of her colleagues appeared on Iranian television a few days later, and it was Turney who penned two probably scripted ‘confession’ letters to her parents where she apologizes to the Iranian people for trespassing on Iranian territory and calls on the British to leave Iraq. All in all it was emotional stuff, or rather it was meant to jerk the emotional chains of the great British (and Western) public if we allow ourselves to be guided by recent headlines from the UK’s largest (and Rupert Murdoch-owned) daily, the Sun:

It should be noted that the above headline: “who do you think you are kidding Mr Ahmadinejad” is not as innocuous as it might at first seem, but rather is evidence of the very insidious yet subtle propaganda methods used by the mainstream media to undermine the critical thinking abilities of the average UK citizen. Virtually every Brit will recognise (most likely unconsciously) the headline as a play on the theme tune from the wildly popular British sitcom Dad’s Army (1968 -1977) which portrayed the British home guard during WWII as a bunch of bumbling idiots. The chorus from the theme tune was: “Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler”. The replacement of ‘Hitler’ with ‘Ahmadinejad’ of course being the slur of choice of American, British and Israeli Zionists.

That their opinions are being directly manufactured by such subtle propaganda and disinformation is unfortunately lost on her Majesty’s loyal subjects, most of whom remain blissfully unaware that what is now being called a “hostage crisis” is part of a deliberate policy by Western government officials to manipulate them and make them willing accomplices in an upcoming attack on their fellow human beings in Iran. Likewise, a recent US poll claims that almost 60 percent of Americans believe that Iran is “helping the Shiites in Iraq by providing weapons to them.” The fact that every one of those polled would have serious problems telling the difference between a Shiite and a Shish kebab is of course not the point – the point is that they, and those who read about the poll, now believe, know, that Iran = bad.

The warmongers in the British, American and Israeli governments (and those behind them) realise that there can be no war with Iran without public backing, if only temporarily (as was the case with the invasion of Iraq) and with the fabricated Downing street dossier and WMD lies still relatively fresh in our minds, most members of the public are ill-disposed to being fooled twice. Blair and his cronies understand very well however that, in the absence of a direct threat to their lives, a certain blood-lust can be conjured up among the masses by somehow involving them personally in the conflict.

Because the public of any nation does, and always will, strongly identify with their troops (they generally view them as ordinary people just like themselves) any high-profile ‘crisis’ that involves military personnel, particularly in the case where they are ‘humiliated’ in some way, invariably has the immediate effect of repressing logical and rational thought and replacing it with thinking of a distinctly emotional flavor. Hence the current “hostage crisis” and a proliferation of headlines such as this form the Scotsman this week:

But how exactly did this “crisis” come about? As I have already mentioned, it is rather suspicious that it occurred one day before the UN Security Council was due to vote on further sanctions on Iran, and what are the odds that Seaman Specialist, Faye Turney would have given a personal and heartfelt interview only hours before her arrest?

We know that the basics of the story are that the Iranians claim that the British Marines strayed into Iranian waters and were, reasonably enough from the Iranian point of view, arrested. The British government, on the other hand, without directly stating it, has suggested that the Iranian military captured the British Marines in Iraqi waters where, we are told, they were engaged in their normal, almost ‘humanitarian’ daily routine of searching boats in the Persian Gulf in an attempt to stop “smugglers”. The truth of what the British sailors were actually doing that day is however rather different.

The crew of HMS Cornwall (including the 15 arrested Marines), had been part of a massive military operation codenamed “Operation Troy“, instigated three years ago after “suicide bombers” in three dhows attacked the Al Basra and Khawr Al Amaya oil terminals, killing three Americans. A three-kilometre exclusion zone was thrown up around each of the terminals – which pump out 90 per cent of Iraq’s crude oil. From this, it becomes obvious that, like the rest of the British and American military in Iraq, the arrested Marines were in the role of corporate mercenaries, hired to ensure that Iraq’s oil remains flowing in the hands of government-associated Western oil companies.

Context, as they say, is everything.

But what of British government claims that the Marines were 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters? So far, the British Navy has produced a map with the locations of the Marines inflatable boat, HMS Cornwall, and the demarcations of Iraqi and Iranian waters.

The British Ministry of Defence has also produced a series of numbers, apparently GPS co-ordinates, which apparently place the Marines’ boat in Iraqi waters at the time of their arrest. A British Navy Commodore however, was quoted by the UK Independent as saying that the Marines were just half a mile inside Iraqi waters.

For their part, the Iranians have presented two different sets of coordinates that placed the Marines in both Iraqi and Iranian waters and yesterday, an Iranian officer appeared on Iranian television to say that a captured British GPS device showed five violations of Iranian waters.

With both the British and Iranians making contradictory and confusing claims, we suspect that the exact details of where the Marines were are largely irrelevant. Indeed, such nitpicking would seem pointless in light of the fact that it appears that there is no definitive agreement on the precise boundaries of Iraqi and Iranian waters. The Shatt al-Arab waterway was divided in half by the Iranian and Iraqi governments in 1978, and up until recent years the median line was marked simply with buoys. The demarcation of the waterway has however suffered in recent years with the boundaries of the waterways described as “very complicated”.

According to British Admiral Alan West a commission would usually meet every two or three years to agree exactly where the median line should be:

“The commission is meant to sit regularly to discuss and arbitrate exactly where the median line down the Shatt al-Arab goes because it does move with the seasons and each year it moves in shifts because it’s quite a flow of water.”

“The commission would consist of representatives, principally of Iran and Iraq, sitting around a table and deciding where the line would be. There are other people involved to mediate.”

The commission had not met for a few years because of the war, he added.

Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King’s College London, questioned whether the dispute would be eased if the Royal Navy released co-ordinates of where the sailors were seized:

“Releasing the co-ordinates wouldn’t necessarily help us as there is no formally agreed boundary”

“It isn’t clear the incident happened off the water of Shatt al-Arab. We are talking about territorial waters beyond.”

“Iran and Iraq have never agreed a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab.”

Of course, if there is “no legal definition of the boundary between Iraq and Iran’s territorial waters”, then we have to wonder where the British DOD got the map that appears to show those exact demarcations? Was it just a matter of DOD officials drawing a line on a map to suit British claims? I am also still waiting for someone to explain to me how, if the Marines were in Iraqi waters when arrested by the Iranians, why were the Iranians allowed to pass unchallenged into Iraqi waters?

Whatever the case, the main point here is that the “Iran crisis” has begun. Blair and his cabinet cronies now have a drum to beat, and it seems they mean to beat it as loudly as possible. Already Blair has waxed indignant about the “parading” of the British Marines on Iranian television, heck, he even became somewhat “disgusted” over it:

“I just think it’s completely wrong, a disgrace actually, when people are used in that way, that’s contrary to all international laws and conventions, and is not going to make any difference to us.

[…] “I really don’t know why the Iranian regime does this [show captives on TV],” because it just arouses disgust, he told reporters Friday.

“We need all 15 released because they were doing their job under a United Nations mandate. There is no justification whatsoever for taking them in that way.”

In an example of the ignorance, arrogance and paramoralistic thinking that is rife among British establishment figures, Labour party member and MP for Shrewsbury Daniel Kawczynski opined thusly on the “crisis”:

“Obviously I have been raising this issue in the Commons. I feel extremely angry the Iranians have paraded them on television. It totally contravenes international protocol. We would not do that in a million years in our country.”

Of course, I forget, this is Britain, Western ‘Democracy’, a paragon of virtue. I admit it, Blair and the British MP are correct, British or American soldiers and politicians would never sanction the “parading” of captured foreign nationals on television…such acts are disgusting. Piling prisoners naked into pyramids with bags over their heads on the other hand, is totally kosher, especially when it’s in the prisoners own country.

Compare and contrast:

‘Parading’ and feeding = “disgusting”
Naked prisoner pyramid with head bags = “liberation”

Of course Blair, being a man without a conscience, has no problem with the inherent hypocrisy in such statements. For Blair, the arrest and good treatment of 15 British personnel by Iran is a “disgrace”, while the abduction, torture and long-term imprisonment of innocent people by the CIA and British intelligence is good old British fair play. It is for this reason that Blair, confronted with the opportunity to resolve the issue, chose to respond to the Iranian offer to release Leading Seaman Faye Turney, by marching off to the UN in an attempt to steamroll a resolution “deploring” the Iranian action. As it turned out, Russia, China, Indonesia and Qatar objected to the use of the word, preferring “grave concern” and rejecting the inclusion of a statement that the Royal Navy team was “illegally arrested outside Iranian waters”. Apparently the days when all bowed to British “pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war” are long gone.

As for the Bush government and media; given that the US military in Iraq is still holding the five Iranian diplomats abducted in Iraq last month with no consular access, no charges brought against them and no information about where they are being kept and under what conditions, you might think that they would want to keep a low profile on this one, and in any normal world you would be right, but not in this one, not in the good old US of A! The US media is instead joyously profiting from the “hostage crisis” to ramp up the Iran war rhetoric for the US population, and the US government has enthusiastically backed the British government position, even as Bush and Co continue to imprison hundreds of innocent people in Guantanamo bay and issuing condemnations to other countries for arresting political opponents. So just in case you are still wondering, the answer is ‘yes’ this is an astonishing double standard and one that has been the hallmark of the Fascist Blair-Bush-Israel triumvirate.

But wait! I forget…those innocent inmates in Guantanamo, the unfortunates who are “rendered” by the CIA, the 10,000 Palestinian men, women and children in Israeli jails and the Iranian diplomats all have two things in common: they are Muslims and therefore are “terrorists”, while the British troops who share the blame for 1 million dead Iraqis are “liberators”. We must not forget that important point.

From the Iranian point of view, there are two fronts on which the “hostage crisis” must be managed.

On one level, there is international opinion and the need to project a moderate stance in an effort to offset three years of Western media slander that has sought to pitch Ahmadinejad as a new “Hitler”.

On another level there is Iranian public opinion and public opinion in the Arab world.

At present, Iran is militarily encircled by US and British forces, with no justification. American troops are based in almost every country bordering Iran – Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan (not to mention 121 other countries around the world). Added to that is the fact that, last month, most of the developed world voted at the UN to sanction Iran for its non-existent (in terms of being a threat) nuclear programme. Meanwhile, the Israeli Mossad has been murdering Iranian scientists, rescuing their long-term spies from the Iranian government, and calling for Ahmadinejad to be assassinated (simply because he took a leaf out of Bush’s book and called for regime change in Israel). And all of it against a nation that has never attacked or threatened another country for several hundred years.

Understandably, all of this makes for a certain amount of siege mentality among the Iranian ruling class, not to mention frustration and annoyance among the Iranian people.

The fact is, the Iranian people have serious and justified historical grievances against the Americans, British and Israelis to which Ahmadinejad must cater. For example, 6 months after the 2003 illegal US invasion of Iraq, the Iranian people were mourning a 50 year-old US and British intervention in their country, one that had terrible and lasting consequences:

Iranians mourned this week the consequences of Anglo-American regime change as they marked the 50th anniversary of a CIA coup that toppled their democratically elected prime minister.

Organized by the CIA and the British SIS [MI6] to secure Iran’s oil resources [sound familiar?] from a possible Soviet takeover and secure Iran’s oil resources, the coup marked America’s first intervention in the Middle East. Its aftershocks are still being felt.

The end of Iran’s first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who relied on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy.

“If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah’s brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics,” says Mr. Yazdi, who served briefly as foreign minister in the first cabinet after the fall of the Shah. “What we have now is a result of the coup.”

Kind of puts a different spin on Israeli, American and British denunciations of Iranian “extremists” and the need to prevent them from acquiring a single nuke, does it not?

The current “hostage crisis” therefore must be handled carefully by Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei. With the aforementioned history and most Iranians understandably suspicious of any British government, its intelligence agencies and military, there is little scope for the Iranian government to simply release the British troops and kowtow to pompous British demands, particularly in the case that the British Marines did indeed trespass into Iranian waters. The Iranian government has asked for a simple apology from the British to appease public opinion (and possibly the Iranian military command which has a significant say in Iranian domestic and foreign affairs). At the same time however, the British government would rather “refuse to negotiate” in an effort to incite British public opinion in preparation for a Zionist-inspired attack on Iran.

Sounds a little like ‘end game’ to me.

In all of this, there is one group that has been conspicuous by its silence – Israel. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Zionists, even more so than the Bush government, have a vested interest in the escalation of this particular “crisis”. More than that, Israel has something of a track record in setting one group against another and profiting from the resulting conflict. Consider the following extract from ex-Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky’s book The Other Side of Deception, and see if you notice anything that stands out in relation to the events surrounding the capture of the 15 Marines last week:

Shimon activated Operation Trojan in February this year. I’d still been in the Mossad when that order was given, and because of my naval background and acquaintance with most of the commanders in the Navy, I participated in the planning for the operation as liaison with the Navy.

A Trojan was a a special communication device that could be planted by naval commandos deep inside enemy territory. The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit of the Mossad and intended ot be received by American and British listening stations. Originating from an IDF navy ship out at sea, the prerecorded digital transmissions could be picked up by the Trojan. The device would then rebroadcast the transmission on another frequency, one used for official business in the enemy country, at which point the transmission would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain.

The listeners would have no doubt that they had intercepted a genuine communication, hence the name Trojan, reminiscent of the mythical Trojan horse. Further, the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad. The only catch was that the Trojan itself would have to be located as close as possible to the normal origin of such transmissions, because of the sophisticated methods of triangulations the Americans and others would use to verify the source. […]

[Once the Trojan was in place and transmitting], by the end of March the Americans were already intercepting messages broadcast by the Trojan, which was only activated during heavy communication traffic hours. Using the Trojan the Mossad tried to make it appear that a long series of terrorist orders were being transmitted to various Libyan embassies around the world. As the Mossad had hoped, the transmissions were deciphered by the Americans and construed as ample proof that they Libyans were active sponsors of terrorism. What’s more, the Americans pointed out, Mossad reports confirmed it.

Heads of the Mossad were counting on the American promise to retaliate with vengeance against any country that could be proven to support terrorism. The Trojan gave the Americans the proof they needed. The Mossad also plugged into the equation [Libyan leader] Qadhfai’s lunatic image and momentous declarations, which were really only meant for internal consumption.

Operation Trojan was one of the Mossad’s greatest successes. It brought about the air strike on Libya that President reagan had promised – a strike that had three important consequences:

First, it derailed a deal for the release of the American hostages in Lebanon, thus preserving the Hizb’allah as the number one enemy in the eyes of the West.

Second, it sent a message to the entire Arab world, telling them exactly where the United States stood regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Third, it boosted the Mossad’s image of itself, since it was they who, by ingenious sleight of hand, had prodded the United States to “do what was right”.

I have to admit that I did wonder how it was possible that the British, with all of their modern satellite positioning equipment and 4 years experience patrolling the Shatt al_Arab waterway, could have made the mistake of trespassing into Iranian waters, unless their GPS tranmissions somehow gave them wrong information.

Likewise, I was perplexed as to why the Iranians should have made the serious move of arresting 15 British Marines without having a very good reason to do so – for example, if they picked up a transmission that a British commando team were planning to infiltrate Iranian territory.

I can’t say if this manufactured crisis is but the opening gambit or as good as it’s gonna get in terms of the Israeli/American/British case for war on the Iranian people, what is clear however is that an attack on Iran will happen, within the next few months, and that it will have serious repercussions for every man woman and child on the planet.

You have been warned. It’s time, yet again, to wake up.

Stay tuned for updates.


1. In The War Against the Terror Masters, Neocon Michael Ledeen stated:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

2. Note that I say that the sanctions will be imposed on the Iranian people, not the Iranian government directly. In case you are unaware of the fact, let me make it clear: the source of power of every modern government is the people. The best way to attack a government therefore is to attack the people from which it derives its power.