Chronicle Update: The Truth About the Iranian Hostage Crisis

Contrary to our previously published essay on the Iranian Revolution of 1979, it was not the result of "blowback" against the CIA's Shah, but rather another CIA coup to replace a wayward son who got too big for his britches.

This new information surprised even us, as we had long considered the Islamic revolution a virulent rejection of Westernism and the domineering cruel Americans. It seemed to us that Islam was the perfect vehicle for expressing native objections to US control of Iran.

 

While the revolution no doubt contained true believers in such a philosophy, the revolutionaries led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini itself used religion as an instrument for its more basal lusts for power rather than principled basis for governing, something which ingratiated itself to the CIA.

 

We have discovered that the Shah had angered the Americans, more specifically the Ziocons, Rockefellers, and Bush Crime Syndicate by his growing independence of these groups' wishes, his assertion of strength as a regional power, and his closer relations with the USSR.

 

However, even those sins were trumped by the greatest evil one can commit against Western oil barons, which is the temerity to not renew oil concessions extracted from the 1953 revolution which brought the Shah to power. The concessions were set to expire in 1979 and the Shah was not inclined to renew them.

 

It seems that somewhere along the way, the Shah decided that governance in the interest of the Iranian people, rather than in the obeisance to Washington and the Rothschilds, was the legacy he wished to leave his country.

 

One other factor riling the ire of the Rothschild dynasty, which owns and rules Israel, was that the Shah sought support from foreign powers for the development of its nuclear energy, a quest which has fueled the sanctions of today by the US at Israel's orders.

 

David Rockefeller had appointed Jimmy Carter president whom the former ordered to accept the Shah into the United States however briefly. This provided the catalyst for the Iranian students to storm the American embassy to take hostages which it held for over 400 days, resulting in the demise of the Carter presidency. Thus what David gave, he took away, and deliberately so.

 

When Carter visited Iran in December 1977, he assured the world that "Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world." One week following his departure riots erupted in Iran, presaging the Shah's downfall the following year.

 

As George Bush later explained, this was coded language for the CIA to begin to dismantle the Shah's government.

 

During this time, American generals and CIA, including one General Huyser, were compromising the Shah's military which they bribed or coerced into abandoning or denying the Shah's orders. With 40,000 "advisors" in Iran, it is easy to see how the CIA was the country's real kingmaker. For all practical purposes, the Iranian military was a vassal of the CIA.

 

The Ayatollah was America's handpicked successor to the Shah. While this statement may shock Americans raised on propaganda, lies, and deceit, it is the truth. Khomeini and many of his lieutenants were either on the CIA payroll or were in bed with them. Granted that in some cases it was merely a marriage of convenience, but the bottom line is that each party used the other, and the Ayatollah, among other things was a megalomaniac who used religion as a control structure, a situation very amenable to CIA modus operandi.

 

It is also true that among the revolutionaries there were true believers, but this does not undermine the tilt which Khomeini had toward the CIA.

 

Thus the CIA removed an increasingly non-compliant vassal who dared to take back his country's oil, and in the mean time installed a brutal repressive religious freak who made life miserable for Iranians using the CIA's Shock Doctrine.

 

The Khomeini regime's compliance with the Ziocons explains why no hostage suffered great harm, although the idea that many of them were probably CIA also explains their safeties. The CIA sponsorship of Khomeini also explains the October Surprise which George Bush engineered in 1980 to further destroy Carter whom he and Rockefeller played like a cheap fiddle - both coming and going.

 

We urge those interested in exploring the subject more carefully to read our Reference as it is quite enlightening.

Reference
Iran and the Revolution: An Exposure of the American Plans, islamicweb.com, nd, accessed 10/17/2014

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

How David Rockefeller Selected Jimmy Carter for President

To most Americans, the idea that a powerful plutocrat could anoint a president seems rather preposterous, but as Gary Allen reported in his book Jimmy Carter / Jimmy Carter, that is precisely how Carter ascended to the presidency.

 

In the wake of Watergate, the Rockefeller cabal needed a suitable Democrat replacement since their polling indicated that a Republican’s chance of election were not much better than a snowball’s survival in hell.

 

Their poll results indicated that a “progressive” southern Democrat sported the best chance of winning the election, no doubt due to the growing electoral significance of the South, but also in recognition of the nation’s increasing rightward tilt – at least rhetorically so.

 

In 1973 David Rockefeller invited Florida governor Reubin Askew and Georgia governor Jimmy Carter to his Tarrytown, New York estate for dinner to discuss the proposition of either one of them running for president.

 

Prior to this point, the Rockefeller controlled media began juicing Carter’s political engines by doing favorable puff pieces for Carter extolling his New South credentials in order to make him more palatable to traditional coastal liberals and moderate Midwesterners.

 

Allen states that Rockefeller chose Carter over Askew because the Georgia governor showed much more ruthless ambition than his southern neighbor. In order to make Carter more pliable, they maneuvered him into deceiving his banker and friend Bert Lance to shovel bank depositor funds into Carter’s peanut business which was subsequently deposited back into the bank to serve as the basis for campaign matching funds.

 

This illegal campaign fraud would later envelop Lance when he outlived his usefulness, resulting in his resignation as OMB Director in Carter's first year. Lance was also implicated in other bank fraud in connection with BCCI in the late 1980s.

Once elected, Carter honored Rockefeller’s wish to fill his cabinet with Council on Foreign Relations and Tri Lateral Commission alumni in pursuit of his Grand Design for merging the USSR and USA into a single political union.

In the end the rightward tilt left threw Carter off his perch with the Iran Hostage Crisis fiasco which happened to be instigated by none other than David Rockefeller.

Reference

An Interview with Gary Allen by John Rees, The Review of the News, February 27, 1980, http://www.whale.to/b/allen1.html

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.