Sohel Ajani
It all started in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned from Paris to Tehran after the exile of US backed Reza Shah and declared Iran as Islamic Republic after the huge public referendum. The then puppet ruler of Iran, Reza Shah, was an open puppet of US and has allowed the US embassy to perform without any restrictions in the nation. After the exile of Shah, revolutionary youths of the country invaded the US embassy, also known as ‘Den of Spies‘.

The tense ties between the Islamic Republic and The US are still bitter and constantly kept world on toes. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the US & its allies are constantly trying to topple the Iranian regime through any means. Initially they exerted the physical pressure in the form of attach from Saddam Hussein Regime from Iraq. They support the evil regime of Saddam Hussein openly and provided it with sophisticated weapons to harm the newly formed independent republic.

Eight years war crumpled the Iranian economy where debts were on rise and falling value of currency. With all this, the economic sanction imposed by the US government played spoil sport for the already crunching economy. However, the nation resisted and shown its real strength behind its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Soon after the end of 8 years Iran — Iraq war; in 1989 nation lost its founder strong man, Ayatollah Khomeini. This served as major setback to the Iranian nation and the west started believing that the end of regime is close. These calamities turned as blessings for the striving nation in the form of leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

Iranian Revolution 1979 Fall of a Shah 1 of 10 — BBC Documentary

[ Part 2 ] [ Part 3 ] [ Part 4 ] [ Part 5 ] [ Part 6 ] [ Part 7 ] [ Part 8 ] [ Part 9 ] [ Part 10 ]

From 1989 onwards, Iranian nation has not seen backwards under the guidance of leader Khamenei. Following reports shows the growth of Iranian nation:

Iran showing fastest scientific growth of any country: Canadian report

Iran ranks first in scientific growth

The stunned West is constantly trying to downgrade the development cycle of Islamic Republic through economic sanctions, media war, spreading Iranophobia, etc. However it seems the psychological warfare is giving no positive results to west.

In recent developments, Israel is constantly warning Iran about its peaceful nuclear activities which Tehran says are meant for generating electricity and treatment of cancer patients; however Israel and West claims that it’s intended towards generation of nuclear war heads.

The latest report from IAEA (Nuclear watchdog of UN) says that there is something fishy going on in Iran in regards to nuclear development. Iran slammed this report saying its influenced by west. However, following this report, west has imposed another round of sanctions followed by other European and Asian countries like Japan.

This is one side of the scenario, however the conditions on the side of Iran is very happening. The Arab uprisings in Middle East have toppled many of the western puppet regimes like Tunisia, Egypt & Libya. And some other puppet regimes are still trying to control the uprisings in their countries; such as Bahrain & Yemen. In such scenario, other Arab monarchies can’t go directly in favor of west inviting the public uproar.

With all this, the ongoing financial crisis in Europe is acting like a trend breaker in the Western policy. The “Occupy Movement” in the US, which is actually a people’s movement, is unexpected by anyone and is a major shock for the US administration. We have seen it in the recent media pictures & videos, how the police and state are trying to control the ongoing high profile people’s uprising in western countries.

This is not the end. The actual dent in US & European economy is very visible. The natural awareness spread through the tools which the west has developed has made people much aware about the actual crises at the core of Capitalist system. Today, everyone knows the intentions of US & UK behind the attack of Iraq & Libya. This has also hampered the position of west and turned the sentiments of common people away from them.

Israel, the western puppet in the region, is constantly raising the voice over attack on Iran with the help of US. However, after the capture of drone in eastern Iranian province, Israel has to change its stand. Now we can see this kind of news in media:

Israel says Iran attack not imminent

Not to miss, the capture of drone by Iranian military holds a major importance in this psychological warfare. Till today, US drone technology considered as very sophisticated & holds very important position in the military field. Iranians not only captured the drone unaffected but also proved their superiority by capturing the most sophisticated US weapon till now. Best thing in this operation was the use of electronic waves to make the drone land.

President Obama asked the Iranians to return the captured drone and that also without any apology; this has created uproar in the social media where the Iranian supporters utilized this opportunity to make fun of the US administration.

West also knows that the war with Iran is not a war with any arrogant regime or war with a dictator like Saddam or Gaddafi, however, it’s a war of Ideology. The US can kill people, invade country and install the puppet regime, however they can’t replace the powerful stronger with the weaker one.

The US & the West is trying its level best to shake the foundations of Islamic Republic by economic sanctions, psychological pressure of attack from Israel, installing missile shield in Turkey, by removing Iranian supporters like regime of Assad from Syria, attacking Hamas & Hezbollah, etc. However Iranians are replying by their simple actions.

They can change the puppet regime, however changing the concept and deep rooted ideology of martyrdom & sacrifice is not possible for west.

History of U.S. Intervention in Iran — 1953 Until Present

   Columnist – John Sammon
The Three Stooges became famous, but there were really four of them, three who were in real life brothers named Horwitz, Moe, Curly and Shemp, and a fourth non-relative, Larry. The Republicans have done the same thing. There’s Mitt, Rick, Herman, and now Newt.

The GOP candidates aren’t related, but they might as well be because they share the same kind of ineptitude as The Stooges.

Which one is which?

Herman is sort of like Curly in that he doesn’t have much hair and both he and Curly Horwitz in real life were womanizers (Curly drank too much), but Newt cheats on his wife too and like Curly, Newt has a cute mischievous-looking fat face. When Curly would forget dialog in a filmed scene with the camera rolling because alcohol had fogged his brain, he would (no joke) roll on the floor turning circles and get screams of laughter until he could finally remember his lines.

Herman did sort of the same thing when asked if Obama had handled Libya correctly, except he rolled his eyes while fumbling for something to say.

Unlike Herman, Curly was loveable.

Rick Perry is perhaps most like Larry Fine in that he often appears as a hopelessly nondescript middleman between the other Stooges. His epic performance in which he tried to act cute and clever and do standup comedy, mugging for the audience, leading them to surmise he was drunk, coming just before his ultimate gaff of completely forgetting which government agency he said he would eliminate, reminds me of Larry’s hopelessly little harmless character, always standing by as leader Moe slaps Curly.

Mitt must be Moe. Their first names both start with the letter M. They have the same dark hair and Mitt is perhaps leading in the polls right now like Moe was the leader of the Stooges, because his stupidity isn’t quite as blatant as the others, because Herman’s and Rick’s antics keep him at the forefront.

Newt is like Shemp. Shemp was the only successful solo performer of the Stooges and had to be forced back into the act to save his brother Moe’s career. He didn’t want to return because he was successful on his own. Newt likewise was famous long before Mitt, Herman and Rick. In some ways he is the most glib of the GOP Stooges, and like Shemp was, he is adroit at making little verbal adlibs under his breath, asides that if not always truthful, sometimes sound good.

Shemp was also the first Stooge along with Moe just like Newt predates Rick and Herman.

Where does Obama fit in all this? Obama is the straight man who in the next election will get all the Stooges side by side and in one swipe collectively slap their faces (win reelection easily).

Moe’s (Mitt’s) admonition to the other Stooges should apply to all of them. “You goose brain! I’ll tear your tonsils out and tie ‘em around your neck for a bow tie.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Know-Nothingness Republican Platform For 2012

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

   By: Jerry Okungu
Finally, the forces bent on toppling the strongman of Libya have entered Tripoli. With two of his sons reportedly captured by rebels, it is only a matter of time before the rebels lay their hands on the strongman himself.

Gaddafi was Libya and Libya was Gaddafi. Libyan oil money was his personal wealth.

With oil dollars in his pockets, he dazzled and mesmerized fellow heads of state in Africa making many of them literally eat from his palms. Time and time again, he bankrolled almost every AU summit in various capitals when the host country was cash strapped and could not bear the shame of hosting his peers.

When Gaddafi landed in any African country be it South Africa, Ghana, the Gambia, Uganda or Sudan, the colonel was the man of the hour. His entry was always delayed for maximum effect. He would come in dressed in flowing robes befitting his pet dream of becoming the King of Kings. His entourage, consisting of well trained and armed female body guards was equally ruthless; no one dared stand in the King’s way.

In a way King Gaddafi tried his best to imitate the way American presidents behave when they visit Third World countries. For the American presidential security detail, there is hardly any distinction between an African president and an ordinary public spectator. I saw it in Abuja when Clinton arrived there in 2000 on his first state visit soon after Obasanjo was elected the first civilian president in decades. The American Marines were so arrogant and intimidating such that the equally arrogant Nigerian security drew their guns warning that unless they backed down and played second fiddle in security arrangements then they were ready to call off the visit. The Americans backed down.

While on the same trip; Clinton visited Tanzania and specifically Arusha. Why he did so I cannot remember but it must have been some peace memorandum between either warring Sudanese or belligerent Somalis. When he landed, a number of IGAD presidents had gathered to meet him. Some of them were not even allowed to get closer to him, let alone greet him. It was America’s arrogance or was it their insecurity at its best?

A few years ago, I had the privilege to attend a number of AU meetings in Addis Ababa, Accra and Banjul. While in Banjul in 2006, Gaddafi arrived in a plane load full of white stretch limousines manufactured in America. These Limos were all offloaded in Senegal so that the King of Kings would snake his way in to the Gambian capital in style. As the convoy moved along, he stopped at every village market and dished out petro dollars to poor Africans along the way. Meanwhile his team of bodyguards and publicity handlers had combed the city for security detail as they splashed the entire city with Gaddafi’s life-size portraits. Any tourist visiting Banjul at the time could be forgiven for thinking that Gaddafi was the Gambian head of state or better still, he was running for election in that country.

I remember him making a grand entrance later in the day having missed the opening ceremony during the APRM forum when Rwanda and Kenya were being peer-reviewed. Instead of coming to sit in the hall, his aim was to attract media attention and disrupt the proceedings. No head of state raised a finger as far as I can remember.

During the same summit, he refused occupy one of the villas he had built for visiting heads of state on behalf of the Gambian president. Instead, he chose open ground and pitched tent like the Bedouin that he was. The following year, he threw tantrums at the AU Accra Summit over the seating arrangement. He insisted that he must sit alone in an enclosed area, far away from any other head of state. When John Kufuor of Ghana declined to grant him his request, Gaddafi stormed out and went to address university students at one of Accra’s campuses.

Gaddafi’s arrogance knew no limits. When his dream of forming the United States of Africa with him as the first Head of State failed, he hit the roof. This was despite having bribed many heads of state to vote in his favour. When he realized that fellow heads of state were not with him, he gathered traditional leaders across the continent, made them kings and forced them to declare him King of Kings!

Of all fallen despots of the continent, Gaddafi’s fall must have been the most painful of them all for Gaddafi. His pomp and glory could not be matched by Emperor Bokassa, Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Idi Amin, Joseph Mobutu and Sani Abacha before him. He was the mightiest of them all and when his time came, he surely fell from grace to grass. The question to ask is this: Will the King of kings allow his enemies to capture him and try him publicly like his comrade Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or Ben Ali of Tunisia? Or, will he commit suicide like Adolf Hitler? Only time will tell.

   Columnist – John Sammon
Arrogance takes many forms and as we prepare to celebrate July 4 I ask the question, do you think America is the greatest country on earth?

If you do, I respect your right to an opinion, but if you do think we’re the greatest, what is this based upon? Is it because we have more power than other countries? Military power? Is it because we have more money than other countries?

Recently, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer decried the behavior of Republicans who are attempting she said to stall budget talks and to engage in political one-upmanship instead of dealing with the president in extending the national debt ceiling, the ability of the U.S. to borrow money and live over our means, something you wouldn’t do with your own family budget. This is a disaster set to happen in August if the debt ceiling isn’t increased in which the U.S. could default on money owed if it doesn’t increase the amount it can borrow.

If we don’t extend our ability to live beyond our means it could collapse the United States. Both China and Saudi Arabia keep excess money in U.S.-backed T-bills because of their faith in the country’s financial institutions.

America because of its arrogance wants to fight three wars simultaneously while militarizing outer space and at the same time shipping low-skilled factory jobs over to China which in turn erodes the middle or potential middle class here.

And we borrow money instead of dealing with it.

We have two stark choices. Don’t extend the debt ceiling, default on money owed and financially implode, or keep borrowing and shuffle off dealing with the situation until next year as we have done for decades by living on borrowed time. Let’s assume the second scenario.

That will allow us to continue to be the greatest country on earth.

That’s what the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist said we are. She also said we’re the “unchallenged global leader of the world, the financial leader of the world, and in a leadership role.”

Most Americans would probably agree with those statements.

But do the people of other countries agree that we are leaders over them?

Are we the greatest because we’re powerful, militarily and financially? Is an elephant a greater creature than a mouse merely because of its size and power? Also, how many people in other countries believe America is the greatest country on earth? If it is we who are proclaiming ourselves the greatest, I have always been dubious about self-proclamations of superiority.

If we’re the greatest, are we better than other people, and how are we better? Everyone on earth wants the same things, love and affection, security and safety, comfort and an interesting and stimulating life, wealth and happiness. We can’t be greater than other people in those ways.

Are we braver? I don’t think courage is a strictly American value.

Are we more generous? A case can be made that America has given much over the years. But that assumption carries with it the automatic polar opposite that other countries give less, and give less as a matter of choice. Many countries in the world are impoverished. They have less to give if its money or raw materials.

Therefore, is being richer being greater?

Are we kinder? I don’t think kindness is a mostly American emotion.

Why are we greater than other countries?

Is it because we achieve more? We sent a man to the moon. The ability to do this again depends on money and power. The little country of Nepal and its people can hardly be blamed for having a smaller GNP and for not having an ambitious space program and as a result being a lesser people.

The concept of greatness means that you have to be greater than others, in other words, have supremacy over others. That’s the only way to be greater. Greater means better.

Let’s say that our form of free-market capitalism and our form of government are better than other countries, and remember, this is a self-proclamation, because, when was the last time you heard a Frenchman say, you’re better than he is?

I’m willing to accept that our form of government is better than that of Communist North Korea. But having a superior government is a little bit like having a better car. You’re richer and more successful than I am. You drive a more expensive and a better car. Are you greater than I am because your car is faster and gets you where you want to go? My slower more junkie car gets me where I want to go too. Most of the time.

I don’t feel you’re better than me because of your car.

I don’t feel any greater than a British person, or an Indian, or an islander on Samoa, and I think the idea of greatness comes down to simply money and power.

I think Gandhi, a truly great man who had very little except powerful ideas of equality and not supremacy, would agree. The above are the wrong reasons to feel the greatest.

   Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited” and Editor-in-Chief at Global Politician

UPDATED May 10, 2011 at 13:30 CET

On May 2, a mere few hours after bin-Laden was assassinated in Pakistan, and then again on May 4, I published in Global Politician and the Chronicle Media Group detailed articles regarding the raid, its background, and its unfolding (the entire texts of these 2 articles are appended below). On May 5, I reiterated my claims in an exclusive interview I granted to the Macedonian weekly Publika and in a televised investigative journalism show (“Vo Centar” with Vasko Eftov).

My articles contained numerous bits of information that were confirmed only days later. Here is a partial list:

I was the first journalist to expose the fact the Obama and other senior figures in the administration watched the raid unfold in a live feed. I even identified the ultra-secret and sophisticated equipment involved (helmet-cams with small, mobile drop-down transmitters). A day later, BBC confirmed that indeed this may well have been the materiel used in the operation.

I wrote that bin-Laden and his family moved into the compound in late 2005 and early 2006. This was confirmed on May 7 by Amal, his young Yemenite widow. Moreover, on May 5 and 6, the CNN made public utility bills (connection to the gas network, for instance) which prove that the building complex was not in full use prior to April 2006.

I further asserted on May 2 that both the ISI and the CIA knew about bin-Laden’s whereabouts and were involved in procuring the land, constructing the structure and transferring him and his family there. On May 5 and 6, the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence service) insisted in a series of press releases that it had corresponded in 2009 with the CIA and sought their input regarding the fate of bin-Laden’s brood, mentioning the compound specifically and repeatedly. On May 4, the CIA admitted that they have been watching the compound for months prior to the raid. Such prolonged presence in a sensitive militarized border town would, of course, have been impossible without the close collaboration of the ISI.

Moreover: in an interview the aforementioned talkative bin-Laden widow gave to the Daily Mail, she astoundingly made the statement that, back in 2001, after the invasion of Afghanistan, her infamous husband and she crossed the border and entrusted themselves to the “Pakistani government” (presumably the ISI). Bin-Laden, she averred, was stashed among friendly tribesmen in villages (exactly as is set out in my articles) until 2006. This was further confirmed by Reuters on May 7.

In my articles I said that 3 men and 1 woman died in the raid and that bin-Laden was unarmed. This was later confirmed by everyone involved, including the Pakistani authorities. The 3 men were bin-Laden’s son and 2 couriers who were mistakenly (and intentionally) misidentified as 2 Pakistani brothers (actually, they were not brothers and they were not Pakistani). The woman was one of bin-Laden’s entourage, possibly one of his wives.

Finally, all manner of “experts” explained why bin-Laden didn’t have weapons, bodyguards, escape tunnels, and hidden rooms behind double walls in his compound: he didn’t want to stand out, they said. But, in the lawless and crime-ridden border areas of Pakistan everybody who is anybody has bodyguards and is armed to the teeth. Indeed, bin-Laden provoked the intense curiosity of locals and the CIA alike precisely BECAUSE he did NOT have any of these amenities. Thus isolated, he was forced to rely on couriers and one of them allegedly led the investigators to his doorstep.

Sources (note the dates, days after in have published my articles):

•   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/us-obama-statement-idUSTRE74107920110507

•   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7450G720110506

•   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384420/Osama-Bin-Ladens-wife-talks-moving-cave-terror-chief.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

•   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/world/asia/08binladen.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden%27s_hideout_compound

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_of_Osama_bin_Laden

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

UPDATE DATED May 4, 2011 at 20:30 CET

The United States shared with the Israelis the two-way wireless and satelite video feeds (provided by the raiding party’s helmet-cams and drop-down transmitters) of the assault on bin-Laden’s compound. At a certain point an officer is heard asking for instructions “from the Commander (in Chief Obama – SV)”. Obama then ordered him to “terminate target” (i.e, to kill bin-Laden) although this is not captured on tape. Obama gave the lethal command from an underground situation room, flanked by Panetta, Clinton, Gates, and other senior officials.

In 2001, shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA whisked bin-Laden and his family to a safe haven in Pakistan, among friendly tribesmen who served as guides and supplier for American special forces on the ground. The CIA, in cahoots with Pakistan’s ISI, then embarked on the construction of the compound that was stormed on May 1, 2011. In 2005-6, bin-Laden and his family were transferred there and virtually imprisoned. Bin-Laden was not allowed to carry weapons and he had no bodyguards. The entire fortress-like edifice was locked from the outside. The CIA allowed only couriers to come and go with censored mail and minimal money orders. One of the couriers was a Tunisian and the other Jordanian. They both collaborated with the Mossad and with the CIA on multiple assignments.

The decision to assassinate bin-Laden was adopted after he was repeatedly heard threatening to expose what he knew about various covert operations in the USA and elsewhere should he not be allowed free movement.

WRITTEN MAY 2, 2011 at 10 AM CET

On May 1, 2011 Osama bin-Laden was allegedly shot in the head by Navy Seals during an operation in Pakistan. The order came directly from US President Obama and he also monitored the firefight from the White House Situation Room as it unfolded.

Bin-Laden’s body was first whisked away to Afghanistan where DNA samples were taken and an autospy was performed. The cadaver was then returned to Pakistan and buried at sea. Thus, we have only the word of the United States administration – not known for its veracity – that he is no longer with us.

But, even if true, why wasn’t bin-Laden taken alive? Presumably, had he been abducted, he would have proven to be an invaluable source of intel on crucial national security issues facing the United States. A shot to the head, execution-style, indicates orders to shoot to kill (as was later confirmed by the CIA and the military – SV). Why give up such a cornucopia of information that cannot be obtained in any other way? To shut him up, of course. A live bin-Laden would have had to be debriefed, interrogated, and then judged in a court of law or military tribunal. To prevent multiple embarrassments and a myriad incriminating revelations involving multiple administrations, he had to be disposed of summarily.

All powers are self-interested – but America is narcissistic. It is bent on exploiting and, having exploited, on discarding. It is a global Dr. Frankenstein, spawning mutated monsters in its wake. Its “drain and dump” policies consistently boomerang to haunt it.

Both Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega – two acknowledged monsters – were aided and abetted by the CIA and the US military. America had to invade Panama to depose the latter and to molest Iraq for the second time in order to force the removal of the former.

The Kosovo Liberation Army, an American anti-Milosevic pet, provoked a civil war in Macedonia till 2001. Osama bin-Laden, another CIA golem, restored to the USA, on September 11, 2001 some of the material it so generously bestowed on him in his anti-Russian days.

Normally the outcomes of expedience, the Ugly American’s alliances and allegiances shift kaleidoscopically. Pakistan and Libya were transmuted from foes to allies in the fortnight prior to the Afghan campaign. Milosevic has metamorphosed from staunch ally to rabid foe in days.

This capricious inconsistency casts in grave doubt America’s sincerity – and in sharp relief its unreliability and disloyalty, its short term thinking, truncated attention span, soundbite mentality, and dangerous, “black and white”, simplism.

In its heartland, America is isolationist. Its denizens erroneously believe that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is an economically self-sufficient and self-contained continent. Yet, it is not what Americans trust or wish that matters to others. It is what they do. And what they do is meddle, often unilaterally, always ignorantly, sometimes forcefully.

Elsewhere, inevitable unilateralism is mitigated by inclusive cosmopolitanism. It is exacerbated by provincialism – and American decision-makers are mostly provincials, popularly elected by provincials. As opposed to Rome, or Great Britain, America is ill-suited and ill-equipped to micromanage the world.

It is too puerile, too abrasive, too arrogant and it has a lot to learn. Its refusal to acknowledge its shortcomings, its confusion of brain with brawn (i.e., money or bombs), its legalistic-litigious character, its culture of instant gratification and one-dimensional over-simplification, its heartless lack of empathy, and bloated sense of entitlement are detrimental to world peace and stability.

America is often called by others to intervene. Many initiate conflicts or prolong them with the express purpose of dragging America into the quagmire. It then is either castigated for not having responded to such calls – or reprimanded for having responded. It seems that it cannot win. Abstention and involvement alike garner it only ill-will.

But people call upon America to get involved because they know it rises to the challenge. America should make it unequivocally and unambiguously clear that – with the exception of the Americas – its sole interests rest in commerce. It should make it equally known that it will protect its citizens and defend its assets, if need be by force.

Indeed, America’s – and the world’s – best bet are a reversion to the Monroe and (technologically updated) Mahan doctrines. Wilson’s Fourteen Points brought the USA nothing but two World Wars and a Cold War thereafter. It is time to disengage.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————