Mike Wallace and the Subversion of Democracy
Part 2 of 3: Concealing the Conspiracy
At the height of his career as lead reporter on CBS 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace interviewed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, in 1974 – and again in 1976.
At the time, the Shah’s hold on power within Iran seemed impregnable.
Note how Mike Wallace appears incredulous when the Shah ‘candidly’ discusses the enormous influence of the American Zionist Lobby. Even so, the Shah presses his point with some skill.
While it’s often an interviewer’s role to play ‘devil’s advocate’, Wallace was surely disingenuous in his reaction. He would certainly have known about the power of the Jewish/Zionist Lobby within the US mass media. After all, Wallace was part of it himself.
Born Myron Leon Woleck in 1918 of Jewish parentage, Mr Wallace rose to prominence within a Jewish-owned television network. Along with the the other major US TV networks, CBS had a strong pro-Zionist bias throught his entire career.
The Shah: surprisingly candid...
Wallace may well have surprised by the Shah’s quite open criticism of the power of The Jewish/Zionist Lobby. It was rarely discussed in public within the USA at the time – and remains something of a taboo subject to this day, although in recent years the taboo has been weakening.
American support for the Shah evaporated soon after the 1976 interview. When Jimmy Carter came to power in 1977, Iran became a key target of the new President’s pro-human rights overseas policies.
Within three years the Shah was a fugitive.
James Perloff, author of Iran and the Shah: What Really Happened, has evident pro-Shah sentiments. Even if one does not share his enthusiasm for the Iranian monarchy, it’s hard to completely discount the case he makes that forces within the west deliberately orchestrated the Shah’s demise in the late 1970s.
Henry Kissinger and the Shah of Iran in 1975: before the knife went in
Critics of the Shah were by no means confined to the Zionist Lobby in the west. Nevertheless, the Zionist Lobby probably played the decisive role in facilitating Iran’s Islamic Revolution in the late 1970s. Without their support, the Anglo-American mass media would not have played along.
Obama’s recent apology for the USA’s role in 1953 ‘coup’ against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq (which handed the Shah quasi-dictatorial powers), may therefore conceal a more recent dirty secret of US ‘diplomacy’.
Perloff reflects on possible motivations for dumping the Shah – apparently a staunch western ally – towards the end of his essay:
Why did the American establishment, defying logic and morality, betray our ally the Shah? Only the perpetrators can answer the question, but a few possibilities should be considered.Iran ranks second in the world in oil and natural-gas reserves. Energy is critical to world domination, and major oil companies, such as Exxon and British Petroleum, have long exerted behind-the-scenes influence on national policies.The major oil companies had for years dictated Iranian oil commerce, but the Shah explained:
In 1973 we succeeded in putting a stop, irrevocably, to sixty years of foreign exploitation of Iranian oil-resources…. In 1974, Iran at last took over the management of the entire oil-industry, including the refineries at Abadan and so on…. I am quite convinced that it was from this moment that some very powerful, international interests identified, within Iran, the collusive elements, which they could use to encompass my downfall.
Does this explain the sudden attitude change toward Iran expressed by Henry Kissinger, beginning in the mid-seventies? Kissinger’s links to the Rockefellers, whose fortune derived primarily from oil, bolsters the Shah’s view on the situation. However, other factors should be considered.
Although the Shah maintained a neutral stance toward Israel, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, he allowed critical supplies to reach Egypt, enabling it to achieve a balance of success, and earning Sadat’s undying gratitude, but wrath from influential Zionists. Did this impact the West’s attitude change in the mid-seventies?
We should not overlook that the Shah opposed the powerful opium trade, now flourishing in the Middle East.
Finally, the Shah was a nationalist who brought his country to the brink of greatness and encouraged Middle East peace. These qualities are anathema to those seeking global governance, for strong nations resist membership in world bodies, and war has long been a destabilizing catalyst essential to what globalists call “the new world order.”
See also:
