- In Part Four, we discussed how at the three dimensional
level, the primary coercive element at the very centre of the Luciferian
Conspiracy is the Illegitimate Money Power, which draws its main strength
from the practice of usury; and which could be defined as being a global
`Usurocracy,` or a `Super-Capitalist - Communist -Zionist` Nexus.
- Over the past one hundred years or so, the primary gravitational
source of power, garnered from all other sources, has been the morally
indefensible principle of usury, the most destructive single product of
which, is the issue of money for all ordinary purposes as interest-bearing
- In the preceding parts, I introduced the reader to the
Illuminati plan to sometime in the near future, and precisely in accordance
with Albert Pike's agenda, tunleash a Third World War upon the hapless
population of Planet Earth, from which they conclude will emerge a New
World Order. This projected confrontation is being presented as a so called
`Clash of Civilizations,` between the purportedly Democratic West and a
falsely depicted Islamic fundamentalist worldview.
- Therefore, in order to negatively prejudice Western consciousness
against Islam, the Illuminati, through its control of the international
intelligence agencies, has artificially fomented militancy throughout the
Islamic world, by the creation of terrorist groups together with the propagation
of the illusion of Islam's imagined competition with the (not so) `democratic
- In his book, `Terrorism And The Illuminati,` David
Livingstone explains candidly and with authority, that Islam poses no threat
to the west whatsoever, and how the Muslim world has been so weakened by
its own internal corruption, along with the subversive activities of the
Western powers that since the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the Ummah has
been in complete disarray, incapable of uniting sufficiently to even represent
Islam, let alone defend itself against a technologically and militarily
- This fact was acknowledged by the primary architect of
the fabricated threat;. Zbigniew Brzezinski As to whether or not Islam
is a menace to the Western World today, he states:
- "Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global
policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam.
Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion.
It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But
what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco,
Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism?
Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries."
- In order to understand the forces now arrayed against
the Islamic world, and how the continued survival of the Muslim people
and their faith is of vital significance to those people in the West who
still believe in God, righteousness and justice, and who intend to resist
the imposition of a `New world Order,` we will now examine the root of
the `Islamic question` and its connection to the `Nexus Of Evil, ` and
thereby illustrate that the true Muslim is no enemy, but a brother worshipper
of the one true God, and a brother with whom we have far more in common
than most understand, and with whom we must develop that fellowship and
common ground, for our very survival depends on it!
- As I have maintained throughout this series, the age
of conflict which has been a feature of recent history, is the product
of a dark alliance of `magic,` money and intellect, with intellect almost
invariably subordinate to, and in the service of money, and money likewise
being in the service of magic; The infernal forces of magic (Illuminati)
manipulating both money and intellect to it's will, with money being since
the 20th century the primary overt source of it's visible power, and usury
it's preferred `whip` of choice..
- The Christian faith precludes the practice of usury,
and yet throughout what was once termed Christendom, the corrupting principle
of USURY - money traded as a commodity and lent at interest - has become
the central component of the monetary system.
- If one single all-embracing factor is to be sought for
the utter dread of a resurgent Islam which now prevails in the highest
centres of worldly power, it may be found in the Islamic moral delineation
of economics; a system of ideas which challenges the entire foundation
of the Illuminati `money power` in the West.
- Islamic Economics:
- Monetary reform campaigners in the West, especially in
the United States, might be astonished by the quantity and quality of thinking
which Muslim scholars have put into the subject of banking and of economics
generally, all of it con-stellated by the Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) simple
utterances. Here are some of the key elements of the Islamic economic philosophy:
- Individual rights: These are a consequence of the fulfilment
of duties and obligations, not antecedent to them. In other words, first
comes the duty, then the right.
- Property: Ownership is never absolute, conferring on
us the right to do with our property wholly as we please. As the Sharia
puts it, all property belongs to God; we are only its temporary incumbents
and trustees; there are duties and responsibilities inseparably attached
to the ownership of property.
- Work and Wealth: Islam exalts work as an inseparable
dimension of faith itself and reprehends idleness. We do not need work
only in order to earn a livelihood; we need work to preserve our psychic
health; we need to exercise creative skills and to spend energy in work.
- Usury: The Quran utterly and forcefully prohibits the
payment and receipt of interest, or `riba` as it is called. Interest on
a loan is regarded as a creation of instantaneous property rights outside
the legitimate framework of existing property rights.
- The evil inherent in usury, however, is more recondite
and elusive than that. The lending of money at interest can in many instances
be advantageous to borrower as well as lender; fortunes have been made
with borrowed money. It is only in the contest of a total way of life of
a community that the evil nature of usury becomes more clearly visible
to the moral imagination.
- The principle of usury, once accepted, gives rise to
the regular practice of it, requiring or making possible the emergence
of a class of moneylender; human nature being as it is, and taking into
account the circumstances in which money most often needs to be borrowed,
the practice of usury is seen as conferring a compounding advantage on
the moneylender class.
- In 1979 the Mullahs in Iran (backed by MI6, CIA and funded
by the `Money Power`) overthrew the Persian monarchy, one of the oldest
in the world, while at the height of its power, replacing it with an Islamic
Republic ostensibly dedicated to the implementation of the Sharia, a law
of private and public conduct prescribed in the Quran.
- Any understanding of the `Islamic Question,` as it relates
to current events, is impossible without an appreciation of the dynamics,
both conspiratorial and otherwise, which three decades since, propelled
Iran and its people into the maelstrom of world events. So it is to that
recent piece of human history, which our attention must now turn.
- The Islamic Revolution:
- An examination of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and
its resulting geopolitical consequences can begin with three wide-ranging
- The Iranian Revolution showed that religion can still
be a more potent mobilizer of mass political action than can secular ideologies;
- The revolution challenged the cultural hegemony of Western
ideas, not only as a religion but as an alternative social model and way
- The Iranian Revolution thus can be regarded as one of
the most important events in modern history, comparable to the French Revolution
in the 18th century and the Russian Revolution in the 20th century.
- Following in the wake of the Revolution in Iran, the
much publicised Salman Rushdie affair, and the propagated and highly
spurious `spectre` of a supposed `terrorist` threat against the West, compounded
and publicly legitimised throughout western consensus opinion, by the `false
flag` on September 11th 2001, Iran and its far-flung adherents have remained
persistently in the world's `spotlight.`
- An exploration of the Islamic Revolution in Iran conveys
two great truths with vast implications:
- 1. That religion can still be a more potent mobilizer
of mass political action than can secular ideologies.
- 2. That the long-time hegemony of the Western social
model had for the Iranian people abruptly.
- The Conspiracy To Dethrone The Shah:
- There are numerous reasons for believing that the emergence
of a highly dynamic form of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran was a development
of incalculable worldwide consequence. Since that fateful day of revolution
back in 1979, the Islamic peoples have found themselves thrust into the
very `storm-front` of world events; Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the conflict in Palestine, continuing troubles in several former Soviet
republics involving Islamic majorities or minorities, the intimidation
by China of Muslims in Xinjiang province, the seemingly endless conflict
over Kashmir, and the tragic events of 9/11, have served to ensure that
the much vaunted `Clash Of Civilisations,` remains, much as the `Cold War`
once had, an ever present `threat,` in the minds of the western public's
manipulated sense of reality.
- In the West, the `Establishment` and media's portrayal
of Iran's Islamic Revolution is that Khomeini's revolt was spontaneous
and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was
hated by the people and supported wholeheartedly by the United States.
It is true that the Shah's government was not a democracy and that his
secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective and often
brutal intelligence organizations in the world. But what is not reported
is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign
on behalf of the Ayatollah, the government of the Shah was in general,
supported by the vast majority of the population.
- By 1973, Iran's economy had grown at a rate of 7-8% each
year from 1965-1973 and was fast becoming an example for the developing
nations of the world to follow. As far as the Illuminati was concerned
this could not be allowed to continue. Illuminist goals were focused on
world de-population and de-industrialization, as formulated by policy makers
like Lord Bertrand Russell and as advocated by Illuminist lackeys such
as Kissinger, Zibigniew Brzezinski and Robert McNamara (the then head of
the World Bank), as well as by the British elites who controlled the World
Wildlife Fund and other environmental front groups. Iran had to be brought
- In 1977, the Club of Rome, together with the Muslim
Brotherhood, created an organization to pursue to the graduated deconstruction
of Iran's industry. Labelled `Islam and the West,` and Head-quartered in
Geneva, it quickly came under the influence of former Syrian Prime Minister,
and Muslim Brotherhood leader, Marouf Dawalibi, along with two non-Muslim
luminaries, Aurelio Peccei, and another original endorser of Planetary
Citizens, Lord Caradon, Britain's Jerusalem `expert` and former British
ambassador to the U.S.
- Among the sponsors and funders of `Islam and the West`
were the prestigious International Federation of Institutions of Advanced
Studies, Bilderbergers, Aurelio Peccei, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands,
and Robert O. Anderson. The `Think Tank,` held its first planning sessions
at Cambridge University in England.
- Supported by the International Federation of Institutes
of Advanced Study, and headed by Alexander King, `Islam and the West` assembled
a policy outline in 1979, on science and technology for the subversion
of Islam. Alexander King was also a Club of Rome member, and a founder
of NATO. According to researcher Dr. John Coleman, when it was decided
that a super-body would control European affairs, the Royal Institute for
International Affairs founded the Tavistock Institute, which in
turn created NATO.
- `Islam and the West,` declared: "We have to return
to a more spiritual conception of life... The first lesson of Islamic science
is its insistence on the notion of a balanced equilibrium which would not
destroy the ecological order of the environment, on which collective survival
finally depends." This argument was used to denigrate `Western` science
and technological progress in Europe and North America.
- When the Shah had introduced his plan for modernization,
it was the Ayatollah Khomeini backed by the covert machinations of the
Club of Rome, who emerged as the leader of the `religious opposition.`
Prior to his exile from Iran in 1964, Khomeini had been based at the religious
city of Qom, where, according to Radio Free Iran, as reported by Dr. Coleman,
a former British Intelligence agent, he received a monthly stipend from
the British, with whom he was in constant contact with.
- Seen as a major threat to the Shah's authority, Khomeini
was deported to Iraq, where he lived until his arrest and subsequent deportation
by the Iraqi government in 1978. French President D'Estang was then pressured
to offer Khomeini refuge in France. Khomeini's stay in France was financed
by Francois Genoud. As Coleman writes: "Once Khomeini was installed
at the Chateau Neauphle, he began to receive a constant stream of visitors,
many of them from the BBC, the CIA and British intelligence."
- The attack on the Shah's government came through the
Muslim Brotherhood and the Mullahs and Ayatollahs of Iran, supported and
manipulated as ever by British Intelligence. Dr. John Coleman, a former
British Intelligence agent and author of a number of books and monographs
detailing the Establishment's plan for a socialist world government, states
in his report on Iran's Islamic Revolution that the Muslim Brotherhood
was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence,
T.E. Lawrence, E.G. Browne, Arnold Toynbee. St. John Philby and Bertrand
Russell," and that their mission was to "keep the Middle East
backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted..."
- Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio
Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories:
- Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet,
- 2. The CIA's network of agents,
- 3. The feudal landowners,
- 4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed
as the same enemy).
- The BBC Persian Service came to be nicknamed in Iran
the "Ayatollah BBC" for its non-stop coverage of everything that
Khomeini wanted to say. Soon a large segment of the Iranian public, most
of them impressionable young students, became convinced that the Shah truly
was evil and that a return to pure Shi'ite Islam under the Ayatollah's
leadership was the only way to save their country. The Carter Administration,
manipulated by British lackey Zbigniew Brzezinski, then collaborated with
the British to topple the Shah and install Khomeini.
- Dr. Coleman writes: "It was the BBC, which prepared
and distributed to the mullahs in Iran all of the cassette tapes of Khomeini's
speeches, which inflamed the peasants. Then, the BBC began to beam accounts
of torture by the Shah's SAVAK to all corners of the world. In September
and October 1978, the BBC began to beam Khomeini's revolutionary ravings
directly to Iran in Farsi. The Washington Post said, "the BBC is Iran's
public enemy number one."
- In 1980, in accordance with the Nihilist philosophy he
was serving, Khomeini proclaimed to the people of Iran, "destroy,
destroy, destroy. There cannot be enough destruction."
- Dr. Coleman relates that Carter appointed Trilateralist
George Ball to head a commission on U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Ball's
recommendation was that the U.S. should withdraw its support for the Shah's
regime. Dr. Coleman quotes from the Shah's own memoirs to confirm the American
stance, the reality that is contrary to the mass media-marketed `Establishment`
line that the U.S. supported the Shah to the end:
- "I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want
to know - but it is clear to me now, the Americans wanted me out. What
was I to make of the sudden appointment of Ball to the White House as an
advisor to Iran? I knew that Ball was no friend of Iran. I understood that
Ball was working on a special report on Iran. But no one ever informed
me what areas the report was to cover, let alone its conclusions. I read
them months later when I was in exile, and my worst fears were confirmed.
Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me, and ultimately
- After the Shah stepped down in 1979 and fled the country
his `firm ally, the United States, even refused to allow him asylum forcing
him to move with his family to Egypt. During the subsequent takeover of
the American embassy when supporters of the Ayatollah kept Americans hostage
for 444 days it became crystal clear to the entire world that the anti-democratic,
anti-Israel Islamic movement was also very anti-West. Nonetheless the `Anglo-American
Establishment 'continued to support and promote `radical` Islam.
- In 1977 Bhutto of Pakistan, was removed; in 1979 the
Shah of Iran was removed; in 1981 Sadat was assassinated, and in 1982 the
Muslim Brotherhood revolted in Syria. Before 1977 the Middle East had been
on the verge of achieving stability and industrial and economic parity
with the West through nationalist policies and high oil prices, but by
the early '80s the region was in flames. Egypt was reeling and Mubarak
was consolidating a shaky hold on power. Iran and Iraq, both armed by the
West, were beginning their long war. Israel and Syria were invading Lebanon
that was fighting a civil war, and Russia was invading Afghanistan whose
rebels were being supported by Pakistan. The de-population and de-industrialization
scheme advocated by the British and adopted by the Americans was off to
a great start.
- The events which occurred in Iran back in 1979, and the
subsequent repercussions worldwide have their roots, not in the religion
of Islam, but in the Luciferian Illuminati age old conspiracy to control
all the world and all its peoples. Unless we know what happened in the
past we cannot begin to understand what is happening now; for it is only
what happened in the past that gives meaning to much of what is happening
now. And if we don't know what happened in the past and is happening now,
we have no way of helping to determine what will happen in the future,
for ourselves as individuals and for our community. With this in mind,
it is expedient at this juncture to travel back in time and attempt to
dissect the root causes of the so called `Islamic Question.`
- Through The Past Darkly : Imperialism and Colonialism.
- In Iran, perhaps more clearly than elsewhere, it has
been possible for the observer to isolate and study separately the major
influences which have been at work in dramatically awakening a near eastern
religion which was long considered, much like Christianity in the West,
to be in slow and even terminal decay. In particular, we can see, how by
a incremental process, a purely religious set of ideas and values was able
to inspire sufficient popular support to topple a powerful regime, backed
by a great army and with virtually unlimited foreign support. Three primary
factors need to be explored:
- Islam in general as a faith;
- Hostile influences which in Iran threatened the survival
- The hardened form of the Shi'ite sect of Islam with which
the challenge was met.
- Over the past 180 years, there can be no argument that
foreign powers have heavily influenced Iran's international affairs to
suit their own economic and strategic interests, with little or no regard
for the opinions and interests of the Iranian people. Prior to 1945, the
two predominant foreign powers in Iran were Russia and Britain. Russia
was interested in territorial expansion, Britain in cornering the Iranian
market for British trade, in securing the continental land bridge to India
and later, of course, in controlling Iran's oil resources. The Iranians
continued throughout this period to demonstrate their hostility to foreign
intrusion, with the clergy (ulama) invariably playing a leading role.
- From 1952 onwards, the Rothschild British were at least
ostensibly replaced by the Rockefeller Americans, working in close alliance
with the Rothschild Israelis, drawing the Shah and the masses mobilized
by the ulama, inexorably into the final bitter and violent struggle planned
for them. This culminated in the 1979 overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza,
last of the Pahlavi dynasty which had been installed by the British shortly
after the end of World War I.
- Since what looked like a combination of Rockefeller America
and Rothschild Israel was actually something very much bigger, far more
sinister and a great deal more complex, it is the motives and actions of
the intrusive foreign powers that we need to examine before we can hope
to understand what happened in Iran. Indeed, we find that what these powers
had been doing in Iran was only another example of what they and other
`European` (read Illuminati) interests had been doing during the same period
in many other parts of the world, all manifestations of the phenomena known
as imperialism and colonialism.
- The subject was explored at depth and most comprehensively
at the turn of the century by a prominent British journalist and author,
J.A. Hobson, whose book `Imperialism: A Study,` deserves our attention.
A book that was intended to set the `alarm bells` ringing for the British
people, was used to good account by Lenin in 1916, when he was preparing
his own thesis on capitalism: "I made use of the principal English
work on imperialism, J.A. Hobson's book, with all the care that, in my
opinion, this work deserves." 
- The social pathology about which Hobson writes, is the
debasement of politics, especially the politics of nationalism, by what
he calls `Special interests,` financial in character, which promote policies
inconsistent with the interests of the community. In other words, the peoples
of the colonizing and imperialist countries of Europe were the victims
rather than the beneficiaries of aggressively acquisitive policies conducted
all over the world in their name.
- For a definition of nation, Hobson quotes the philosopher
John Stuart Mill:
- "A portion of mankind may be said to constitute
a nation if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which
do not exist between them and others. This feeling of nationality may have
been generated by various courses. Sometimes it is the effect of identity
of race and descent. Community of language and community of religion greatly
contribute to it. Geographic limits are one of the causes. But the strongest
of all is identity of political antecedents, the possession of a national
history and consequent community of recollections, collective pride and
humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in
- It is a debasement of this genuine nationalism, by attempts
to overflow its natural banks and absorb the near or distant territory
of reluctant and unassimilable people, wrote Hobson, "that marks the
passage from nationalism to a spurious colonialism on the one hand and
imperialism on the other."
- Conspiracies of `the few` seeking their own advantage
at the expense of the people as a whole have unfortunately, ever been endemic
in human society; but the usurpations of `the few` in the last century,
which drew many of the nations of Europe into an irrational rivalry for
conquest and plunder in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, were very different
in character and purpose. Sectional interests in society; namely, big business
and high finance, like a cancer in the human body, prospered while society
as a whole suffered. In other words, the driving force of the new imperialism
was primarily financial and broadly economic.
- What happened to any country which contracted a debt
and was unable to guarantee payment of the interest was demonstrated again
and again in many parts of the so-called undeveloped world - for what other
reason did France invade and attempt to conquer Mexico? More frequently
the insufficient guarantee of an international loan gave rise to some other
form of interference in the internal affairs of the debtor nation. We see
an example of this in Egypt, which became for all practical purposes a
province of Britain and where a bloody suppression of popular revolt had
the support of enormous British national fervour.
- Tunisia likewise became a `dependency` of France for
no other reason than the securing of loans granted to that country. Perhaps
it was China which suffered most as a result of the imperialist nations
establishing footholds there, complete with arrogantly assumed extra-territorial
rights which they were ready at all times to defend with armed might.
- The question of how the people of Europe, especially
their educated classes, including even their churchmen, could have allowed
this to happen, demands a satisfactory answer? How did this imperialism
escape general recognition for the predatory, evil and sordid thing it
was? Each of the `predator` nations would rise quick enough to accuse its
rivals of hypocrisy in masking greedy, aggressive and destructive behaviour
with pretensions of altruism, but all were permitted by these educated
classes to be equally guilty.
- The Church:
- There had long existed in all the countries of Europe
a proportion of people with a genuine missionary zeal to spread Christianity
among the `heathen` and to diminish the cruelty and suffering thought to
prevail among them. It was hardly surprising, therefore, that the greedy
and aggressive forces that directed imperialism would make good use of
such disinterested movements, some of which had worked abroad -the Catholics
in China and Ethiopia, for example-long before the birth of imperialism.
- Leopold, King of the Belgians, when taking possession
of the Congo with all its natural resources, was able to proclaim: "Our
only program is that of the moral and material regeneration of the country."
- Since most of the educated classes in Europe who allied
themselves with imperialism were nominally Christian, and since the church
itself was an imperial component of the alliance, there can be no disguising
the fact that imperialism, which helped to precipitate an age of conflict
unprecedented in recorded history, was as much nominally Christian in character
as it was financial. The use of the word Christian in this context, however,
must be qualified with the reminder that the missionary impulse was animated
by the dynamic of an essentially power-oriented church, an institution
with a strong appetite for expansion and growth, both in terms of adherents
and of material advantage.
- The dual character of the church nowhere was more clearly
epitomized than in Winston Churchill's account of the religious service
at Khartoum immediately after the defeat of the Mahdi's forces, which had
sought to overthrow British hegemony in Sudan:
- "... And the solemn words of the English Prayer
Book were read in that distant garden... the bands played their dirge and
Gordon's favorite hymn "Abide with Me" ... A gunboat on the river
crashed out a salute ... Nine thousand who would have prevented it lay
dead on the plain of Omdurman ... Other thousands were scattered in the
wilderness, or crawled to the river for water."
- Churchill omitted the final touch: the deliberate shooting
of the wounded crawlers.
- The incongruity of so vast an exercise of cunning and
force in the service of a cause "whose kingdom is not of this world"
requires little emphasis. However, the hostile logic of a century and a
half of imperialism is self-evident: those who offered any obstruction
to what in the West was generally regarded as progress were held to "fully
deserve" the punishment they got, however severe.
- Since it is supposedly one of the primary intentions
of religion to help people distinguish between right and wrong, or good
and evil; since a century and a half of aggressive imperialism would have
been impossible without the compliance and complicity of the Christian
churches; since it has always been one of the functions of the intelligence,
informed by religious insights, to restrain and regulate the appetite for
acquisition and power -- it would seem that there was something radically
faulty about Christianity as preached and practised during those decades
of rampaging rival national imperialisms.
- The Mullahs:
- Iran and its people experienced foreign intrusion, intervention
and interference during the century and a half before the revolution, as
a continuous unfolding process. But, for the purpose of our own analysis,
this needs to be considered as comprising two ostensibly separate, but
interconnecting phases representing the periods prior to, and following
World War II. On the former side of this divide, we find separate national
imperialisms, mainly British and Russian, and on the latter a consolidated
global imperialism wearing the outward appearance of an alliance of America
and Israel, but which was in actuality a continuation and consolidation
of the Rothschild's Rockefeller Illuminist Imperium.
- During both periods; the pattern of ever increasing conflict
between the foreign interest and Iran's religious class as a mobilizer
of mass political action-was set quite clearly in 1892. This was a confrontation
triggered by the action of the Shah in selling to a British company a monopoly
for the cultivation and marketing of tobacco. The leading mullah of the
day, Mirza Hassan Shirazi, promptly issued an order prohibiting the use
of tobacco. Not only was this order instantly obeyed, but angry demonstrations
occurred throughout the country. Intimidated by this show of strength,
the Shah backed down, cancelled the contract and paid compensation to the
- The signal was loud and clear; there could be no security
for the foreign interests and no `progress,` unless the power of the religious
class could be broken. It was, therefore, with the approval of the British
and the Russians that in 1905, the Shah yielded to revolutionary demands
for representative government of the kind which had recently been introduced
in Russia, with the hope no doubt, that party politics could be used to
undermine the power of the Mullahs. A parliament (Majlis) was set up, and
in 1906 Shah Musal Firudin became, nominally at least, a constitutional
monarch. However, he died the same year.
- The Mullahs who had given their support to the demands
for constitutional reform were not deceived by the rubber- stamp Majlis
that emerged, and the agitation continued, involving both religious and
secular elements. At the height of this trouble, the British and Russians,
without consulting the Persian government, announced that they had divided
the country into two spheres of influence so as to counter any possible
German threat to their interests. The Russians helped the new Shah, Mohammad
Ali, to suppress the revolution, occupying Tabriz in the process.
- A number of Mullahs were hanged and the shrine of Imam
Reza at Mashad, one of Iran's most famous places of pilgrimage, was shelled.
Mohammad Ali was then deposed by the Majlis and replaced by a regency which
continued until Ali's son Sultan Achmad reached the age of 18 and was crowned
in 1914-marking the commencement of a period of almost total national disintegration,
as the whole country became a stamping-ground for foreign powers.
- The New Dynasty:
- Ignoring the young Shah's declaration of neutrality at
the outbreak of the 1914-18 war, British, Russian and Turkish forces invaded
the country, but the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 eliminated the main patron
of the Qajar dynasty. By 1919 Persia had no effective central government
and separatist movements were in power in the provinces of Khuzistan, Gilan
- The only coherent force remaining in the country was
a Persian Cossack division, which, after fighting against the Bolsheviks,
had retreated through the British lines. Its leader, Brigadier Reza Khan,
restored some semblance of order in Tehran and became the strongman in
national politics. After the Persian government signed a treaty with the
Soviet government, restoring relations with Russia, Reza Khan was encouraged
by the British to stage a putsch. Shah Sultan Achmad was deposed and by
1925 the Cossack officer had been raised to the throne as Shahanshah (king
of kings), assuming the dynastic name Pahlavi.
- Unlike many of his predecessors, it was not in the nature
of Shah Reza Khan, to be a mere `creature,` of the Imperialist foreign
powers. On the contrary, he saw himself as being the saviour of his country
and the defender of its national independence, and cultivated the fiction
that he was an actual descendant of Iran's ancient kings. With Kemal Ataturk,
Turkey's great modernizer, as his model, he was convinced that the religious
classes were the only real obstacle to progress; and he proceeded with
the ruthlessness of a Cossack soldier to try to destroy their power. It
was, therefore, mainly for the purpose of strengthening his own position
against the Mullahs that he sought and used the support of the foreign
powers, playing one off against the other wherever possible.
- The resulting effect was a complete transformation of
the traditional monarchy, into a modern dictatorship armed with all the
expertise and appurtenances of modern totalitarianism, including a ubiquitous
- "In so far as the word "Modernization"
has had any meaning in the Iranian context, what was modernized by the
Pahlavi dynasty was the apparatus of repression . .. Among the few individuals
to resist the imposition of the Pahlavi dictatorship in an open fashion
was again one of the ulama, Sayyid Hasan Mudharris. He spoke up in the
Majlis ... went into exile and was murdered in exile by agents of Reza
Khan."Professor Hamid Algar:
- At the beginning of the 1930s, seeking to protect Iran
from both the British and the Soviet Union, the Shah entered into an alliance
with Germany; and by the commencement of hostilities in 1939, many thousands
of Germans were working in Iran, with hundreds of Iranians studying in
German universities and technical colleges. This brief alliance was to
prove to be the Shah's undoing. In 1941, as the German forces were advancing
deep into Russia, the British and their Soviet allies demanded he expel
all the Germans and to permit the transit of supplies and reinforcements
to the Russian front. When he refused to comply, the Allied forces invaded
Iran and the Shah's 120,000-strong army vanished like "snow in summer."
- The British, conducting a surprise attack on the Iranian
navy at Khorramshahr, destroyed all the the Iranian ships, killing many
of those on board. Iran was subsequently divided into two spheres of military
occupation and the British, having appointed Reza Khan as Shah, now sent
him into exile in South Africa, where he died three years later.
- However, any expectations which the British and the Soviets
may have had about their future role in Iran were to be disappointed, for
in power-political terms World War II was to inaugurate an entirely new
game in which the aims and ambitions of separate nations, like Britain
and the Soviet Union, were to be of diminishing consequence. Unnoticed,
except by a few percipient observers, following the cessation of hostilities,
a new global imperium had risen, like a `phoenix ` from the ashes, geographically
centred in the United States, but not specifically American. The various
nations would maintain their embassies and continue to be involved in many
ways, but their actual power to influence events in Iran and elsewhere
would henceforth be purely marginal.
- Quietly, and under pressure from Washington, London and
Moscow signed a treaty with Iran under which all their forces would be
withdrawn within six months of the war ending. In 1943 the United States
set up its Persian Gulf Command and the American presence became increasingly
conspicuous. The British and Soviets duly withdrew their forces in 1946,
the nascent republics in the north were crushed, and the Tudeh Party was
pushed into the background of public affairs. Developments continued according
to program, but it was a program that remained for most people a great
- To be continued in Part Six.
- Comments To : http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/
- Reference Notes
- Article on Iran in Comment, published by the Catholic
Institute for International Relations, London, May 1980.
- Algar, Hamid The Roots of the Islamic Revolution (The
Open Press, London, 1983), p. 9.
- Lectures at the Muslim Institute, London, 1980, Siddiqui's
- Taheri, Amir Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster
in Iran (Hutchinson, 1988).
- Lenin quoted by Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews
(Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1987).
- Hobson, J.A. Imperialism: A Study (Geo. Allen and Unwin),
Rev. Ed., 1938, p. vi.
- Hobson, op. cit., p. 5.
- Hobson, op. cit., pp. 46-7.
- Hobson, op. cit., pp. 53-4.
- Hobson, op. cit., p. 197.
- Hobson, op. cit., p. 205.
- Hobson, op. cit., p. 204.
- Algar, op. cit., p. 20.