The REAL reason why the US invaded Iraq!

Finding the REAL reasons for just about anything that has happened in
the past 50-70 years is far harder than one would think.

Sawtul, I seem to remember, was thoroughly caught up by the Illuminati
agenda and frequently mentions various secret societies supposedly
responsible for this or that inexplicable historical anomaly. Besides these
immediately obvious secret societies and their converging agendas, there
is a far more menacing and frightening elite group directly responsible
for practically every political and social event since the discovery of oil in
Texas.

Coming to conclusions such as the delusional secret alliance between the
US-Iran-Shia, is actually the SIMPLE answer to what is a complex trail of
clues left by members of the Bilderberg organisation and the Trilateral
Commission.

Here's an extract from an interesting paper available at Globalresearch.ca:
Imperial Playground: The Story of Iran in Recent History

by Andrew G. Marshal

     In the 70s, the Shah of Iran, which was at the time a secular [non-
religious] nation, was stepping up the process of industrializing the
country of Iran. At this time, Europe, especially at the behest of Germany
and France, was pursuing greater cooperation and integration, and in
doing so, created the European Monetary System (EMS), under which the
nine European Community member states made the decision to have their
central banks work together to align their currencies to one another. This
would allow for greater competition between the Anglo-American
dominated �petrodollar monetary system� and the rising European
Community, which was still feeling the effects of the OPEC oil shock. Part
of the agreement between Germany and France was to develop an
agreement with OPEC countries in the Middle East to exchange high-
technology and equipment for a stable-priced oil supply. The Anglo-
Americans saw this as a threat to their hegemony over the oil market, and
so, �Carter had unsuccessfully sought to persuade the Schmidt [German]
government, under the Carter administration�s new Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act, to abandon export of virtually all nuclear technology to
the developing sector, [underdeveloped countries, i.e. Iran] on the false
argument that peaceful nuclear plant technology threatened to proliferate
nuclear weapons, an argument which uniquely stood to enhance the
strategic position of the Anglo-American petroleum-based financial
establishment.� This effort to persuade Germany was to no avail, so the
Anglo-Americans had to pursue a more drastic policy change.

      This policy formed when, �In November 1978, President Carter named
the Bilderberg group�s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral
Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the
National Security Council�s Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington
drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic
opposition of Ayatollah Khomeni. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of
the lead �case officers� in the new CIA-led coup against the man their
covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.� This is further
corroborated by author and journalist, Webster Tarpley in his book,
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, in which he stated, �Carter
and Brzezinski had deliberately toppled the Shah of Iran, and deliberately
installed [Ayatollah] Khomeni in power. This was an integral part of
Brzezinski�s �arc of crisis� geopolitical lunacy, another made-in-London
artifact which called for the US to support the rise of Khomeni, and his
personal brand of fanaticism, a militant heresy within Islam. U.S. arms
deliveries were made to Iran during the time of the Shah; during the
short-lived Shahpour Bakhtiar government at the end of the Shah�s reign;
and continuously after the advent of Khomeni.� The Defense and Foreign
Affairs Daily reported in their March 2004 edition that, �In 1978 while the
West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
from the throne, [Ayatollah] Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would
listen not to allow �Ayatollah� Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih
(Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah
Shariatmadari noted: �We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a
brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run
a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been
achieved at such great cost and effort�.� This was exactly the point of
putting them in power, as it would destabilize an industrializing country,
and as William Engdahl further pointed out, �Their scheme was based on
a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as
presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on
assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis� scheme,
which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria,
endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeni, in
order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal
and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage
autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites,
Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread
in what he termed an �Arc of Crisis,� which would spill over into the
Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.�

      Bernard Lewis� concept was also discussed in a 1979 article in Foreign
Affairs, the highly influential seasonal journal of international relations
put forward by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the pre-eminent
policy think tank in the United States, whose leadership and many
members also share membership with the Trilateral Commission and
Bilderberg Group. The article stated, �The �arc of crisis� has been defined
as an area stretching from the Indian subcontinent in the east to the Horn
of Africa in the west. The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its
strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free
World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about
three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the
locus [central point] of one of the most intractable conflicts of the
twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism. Moreover,
national, economic and territorial conflicts are aggravated by the
intrusion of religious passions in an area which was the birthplace of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and by the exposure, in the twentieth
century, to two competing appeals of secular modernization: Western and
communist,� and further stated, �Against the background of these basic
facts, postwar American policy in the Middle East has focused on three
major challenges: security of the area as against Soviet threats to its
integrity and independence, fair and peaceful resolution of the Arab-
Israeli conflict, and safe access to its oil.�

- - - - -

William Engdahl continued in his examination of the 1979 revolution/
coup in Iran, of which he said, �The coup against the Shah, like that
against Mossadeq in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence,
with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public �credit� for getting
rid of the �corrupt� Shah, while the British characteristically remained in
the background. During 1978, negotiations were under way between the
Shah�s government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year oil
extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a
British �offer� which demanded exclusive rights to Iran�s future oil output,
while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on
British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the
verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953,
with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.�
The strategy was to have �religious discontent against the Shah [which]
could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and US
intelligence,� and so �As Iran�s domestic economic troubles grew [as a
result of the British refusing to buy Iranian oil in a strategy of economic
pressure], American �security� advisers to the Shah�s Savak secret police
implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner
calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time,
the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of �human
rights� under the Shah,� and the strategy even entailed using the BBC
(British Broadcasting Corporation), which �gave the Ayatollah Khomeni a
full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British
government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah�s
government an equal chance to reply.� Further, �during the Christmas
season of 1979, one Captain Sivash Setoudeh, an Iranian naval officer and
the former Iranian military attach� before the breaking of diplomatic
relations between the United States and Iran [in 1979], was arranging
arms deliveries to [Ayatollah] Khomeni out of a premises of the US Office
of Naval Research in Arlington, Virginia.�

      With the successful revolution/coup in Iran in 1979, the Shah was
exiled to Egypt, and back in the United States, Bilderberg and Trilateral
Commission co-founder and international banker David Rockefeller was
approached by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the deposed Shah, who was
suffering from cancer, and �she was turning for help to the man who ran
one of the leading U.S. banks [Chase Manhattan � now, JP Morgan Chase],
one which had made a fortune serving as the Shah�s banker for a quarter
century and handling billions of dollars in Iran�s assets. Ashraf�s message
was straightforward. She wanted Rockefeller to intercede with Jimmy
Carter and ask the President to relent on his decision against granting the
Shah refuge in the United States,� and further, �The new Iranian
government also wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which
Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates
ran much higher.� And so, �a public campaign by Rockefeller � along with
[Henry] Kissinger and former Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman John
McCloy � to find a suitable home in exile for the Shah� was undertaken,
and �Rockefeller also pressed the Shah�s case personally with Carter when
the opportunity presented itself. On April 9, 1979, at the end of an Oval
Office meeting on another topic, Rockefeller handed Carter a one-page
memo describing the views of many foreign leaders disturbed by recent
U.S. foreign policy actions, including Carter�s treatment of the Shah.�
According to a Time Magazine article in 1979, �Kissinger concedes that
he then made telephone calls to �three senior officials� and paid two
personal visits to [Secretary of State] Vance to argue that a U.S. visa
should be granted the Shah. He expressed that view volubly in private
conversations with many people, including journalists. He said that the
last of his direct pleas was made in July. He and Rockefeller then sought
to find asylum elsewhere for the Shah. Rockefeller found a temporary
residence in the Bahamas, and Kissinger persuaded the government of
Mexico to admit the Shah on a tourist visa.� Eventually their efforts were
successful, as it was further revealed, �The late Shah had friends at Chase
Manhattan Bank and in the highest echelons of trilateral power. David
Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger played instrumental roles in arranging
the Shah�s exile and shaping US policy toward Iran.�

Tut tut Sawtull. Go read the whole document and stop inferring that I (as
opposed to the author of the extract) am implying anything. You have a
long way to go. Find out about the Bilderberg organisation and the
Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and countless
other 'think tanks' and US/Globalisation policies before you dismiss the
notion that it is 'all about money'. It is all about 'globalisation' which is
the latest buzzword replacing the more sinister (and actual name) One
World Government ideology which is ALL ABOUT THE ELITE MAINTAINING
THEIR GLOBAL POWER AND PROFIT, at your, and my, expense.

It is difficult to accept at first sight, but the goal is and has been for some
time, to DESTROY the growth economy, and destroy nation states, in
favour of elite government over the dumbed-down masses. The article
goes to some lengths to help you get your mind around the seemingly
contradictory US/UK actions to prevent Iran from prospering. As we can
all see, the prevention of economic growth maintains Iran and countless
other countries in the region nicely under control of the organisations
and foundations created by the elite (MFI, World Bank, UN etc.) which all
ultimately allow the elite to continue their safe, comfortable lives of
luxury, while so-called developing nations serve as their production sites.
Allowing us all, no encouraging us, to believe there is a religious motive
behind it all, is simply another psy-ops tactic, which has worked
extremely well

Read this article as it will help you formulate your conspiracy theory, with
actual facts as opposed to your twisted and tortuous anti-Iranian/Shia
diatribe.

Edited by Duende

Duende, here's CFR coming to Iran's rescue!!! http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_200_dollar_oil_if_ war_with_iran_says_cfr_pres.htm

Kissinger did the same: http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3244

The same people who control the Neo-Cons are trying to turn people against a future war on Iran... !!! I explained why here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ;PN=1&TPN=1

 

I'm actually way ahead of you (just because I dont talk about something doesnt mean I dont know about them). The CFR, the UN, the US Government and Israel, as well as Iran, Russia and France are all on the same side.

It's like a game of chess, one side plays the black the other the white, and we are just pawns in their game until and unless we find out what's really going on (that's why I concern my posts with revealing their biggest secrets such as the real reason why they invaded Iraq and the real motives of Iran and "Hezbollah")