In the 19th century, Persia was courted by two pushy suitors:  Czarist Russia and Imperial Britain. It was one of the key arenas where the so-called ‘Great Game’ for control of central Asia was ‘played’ by these two giant imperial powers. Eventually two ‘Areas of Influence’ were established, with Russia dominant in the north of the country, Britain to the south.

After World War One and the Russian Revolution, Britain became the supreme foreign power in Iran. This continued until after World War Two, when the ascendant USA took over as Iran’s chief  ‘ally’. In the late 1970s a popular revolt toppled the Shah and Iran’s Islamic Revolution ushered in the current era.

Dr Younes Parsa Benab: a left-wing historical perspective on Iran

For most of the 20th century, a secular left-wing was a significant force in Iranian politics. It was was not monolithic and had pro-Soviet and independent elements, like the left in most counties. It was recurrently suppressed by authoritarian Iranian regimes, acting with the support of Britain and America. After the Islamic Revolution, repression of the secular left did not come to an end.

Iran has been the plaything of domineering external interests for generations – and the determination of Iran’s current leadership to chart an independent course is not hard to understand. Those in the west with secular and ‘progressive’ aspirations for the Iranian people might do well to reflect on how those influences came to decline in the first place. The centuries-old western imperial remedy – yet more external manipulation – is no way to help this generation of Iranians.

It’s time the whole world respects the sovereign independence of Iran, which  should be free to trade freely and prosper as an independent nation. The Shanghai Group of countries understands this. Western nations – notably Britain and the USA – risk missing out if they don’t do the same – and would do this if it wasn’t for the Zionist monkey round their necks.

Persia in 1814: a blank page for outside colonial ambitions

Iranian distrust of Britain is mystifying to many Britons, whose historical appreciation is typically Anglo-centric and one-eyed. But many Iranians aren’t just outraged by the duplicity of contemporary British governments; they remember a long history of imperial manipulation and aggression.

Here’s a short extract from a three part series: The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921 by the emigré Iranian historian Younes Parsa Benab (access the entire paper here). It gives some insight into the extent of British monopolistic practices in ‘independent’ Persia, more than 100 years ago:

British designs (1884-1921)

Although British trade with Iran in this period did not exceed half of the Russo-Iranian trade, her principal objective was to establish British domination of Iran in order to defend her imperialist interests in India and the Persian Gulf. British attempts for the so-called “strengthening” of Iran were designed to enable her to resist the Russian drive toward the Persian Gulf and at the same time to dominate the Iranian economy.

The major economic concessions  obtained by the British in the Victorian era:

1. During the 1860′s concessions were given to the Indo-European Telegraph Company, acting on behalf of the government of British India, for the construction and operation of a land telegraph line running from Baghdad across Iran to the Persian Gulf where it connected with a submarine cable to India, forming part of a system of telegraph communication between Britain and India.
2. Immunity from road tolls and internal transit taxes, which were collected from Iranian merchants in the southern provinces of Iran, was granted to the British (1871).
3. A comprehensive countrywide monopoly of railway construction, mining, and banking was granted to a British subject, Baron Julius de Reuter (1872).
4. In 1888, the British firm of Lynch Brothers (which was already running a line of steamers on the Tigris) was granted a concession for running a line of steamers on the Karun River up to Ahwaz.
5. A concession was obtained by the British to organise the Imperial Bank of Persia with a monopoly in issuing currency (1888).
6. In order to encourage and increase the British investment in Iran, Britain pressed Naser al-Din Shah for a life and property decree [27]. This important commercial instrument, announced in May 1888, was designed to protect British investors and fortunes against the possible upsurge of the people’s wrath.
7. One British national was granted a monopoly on the production, sale, and export of all tobacco in Iran (1890).
8. Furthermore, there was the Act of 1889, which established “consular jurisdiction” by the British over British nationals in Iran because of “the increasing numbers of British subjects who resided in Persian as a result of the banking activities, the opening of Karun, the operation of the telegraph line, and the mining exploration” [28].
9. Finally, a historic concession was granted to a British syndicate headed by William Knox d’ Arcy to explore for and to produce petroleum anywhere in Iran except in the Russian “sphere of influence” in northern Iran (1901).

_________________________

See Dr Benab discuss the Origins of Contemporary Wars in the “New” Middle East.

In a single speech, President Obama has negated much of the goodwill and positive momentum that his new Administration brought to a weary, anxious world.

Obama: risks squandering global goodwill to placate his Zionist 'friends'

By committing to a massive expansion of the US war in Afghanistan, without time limit or any end in sight, Obama dooms his Administration to become another failed war Presidency.

America is now in danger of becoming the largest failed State in human history. Hopelessly corrupted by Zionist infiltrators, it insists of sparring (at massive cost) with invented foes, cranking up futile armed conflicts, against ‘enemies’ nominated by a foreign power, enemies that are really just popular restistance movements.

The real aim of this crazed war – not necessarily Obama’s goal, but the goal of his devious advisers – is the destablization and Balkanization of Pakistan. This is a longstanding Israeli objective. It will be dressed up, characteristically, as an attempt to achieve precisely the opposite.

Obama is clever, but he’s not Superman. He cannot fight demons on a dozen fronts at once. He cannot solve America’s horrific problems, fix its substandard healthcare system, solve it’s grotesque over-dependence on fossil fuels, make friends out of foes, show leadership in solving the global environmental crisis, extricate troops with a modicum of honour from Iraq, stand up to the foreign agents in its midst, pay for some of the damage his predecessor has done to Americans and others, rectify the US fiscal imbalance, keep public debt under control, rebuild America’s creaking civilian infrastructure, restore confidence in the banking system and world economy….. AND fight a massive new unwinnable war against a largely imaginary enemy, under the advice of  Zionist agents who clearly have other interests at heart.

Bay of Pigs Invasion: the fiasco of '61

In 1961, the CIA and military establishment in the USA foisted the Bay of Pigs operation on President Kennedy – another young and popular new US  President. They misled JFK into thinking that the Cuban people would welcome invading forces. They lied.

When Kennedy realized he’d been set up by his own advisers, he refused to play along. Instead of caving in to their demands and escalating the conflict against Cuba, he let the Bay of Pigs invasion fail.

Listen to America's youth, Barak - not to well-groomed Zionist liars

Obama had the chance to do the same with Afghanistan. The war against Afghanistan was launched, in 2001, on the basis of a pack of lies. Instead of helping to expose the lies of 9-11, Obama is squandering his legitimacy in a futile attempt to sustain them. He has now agreed to escalate a failing war against a popular resistance, jeopardizing all his good work on other fronts.

This morning, talking heads on the BBC, CNN and Fox sounded more gleeful than they’ve been for many months. The war mongers are happy again. Another US President has been suckered into an making an open-ended commitment to military conflict. America, playing the role of half-witted big brother of the Jewish State, has agreed to keep playing its sordid game.

President John F Kennedy must be groaning in his grave.

America’s real friends should now get out of Afghanistan without delay and let the misguided State of War fail all alone.

The USA cannot even investigate with integrity the murder (on September 11th 2001) of three thousand of its own citizens. It hasn’t even taken care of the thousands of suffering 9-11 first responders – victims of that despicable Zionist false-flag operation.

The Madrid Windsor Building remained standing after a blaze lasting nearly 24 hours... Yet kamikaze Arabs led by cave-dwellers in Afghanistan turned THREE NYC skyscrapers into dust on 9-11 in a fraction of that time?!! The official rationale for attacking Afghanistan is a sick joke

Nearly eight years after September 2001, a US President continues to lend support to obvious lies. He pretends ‘Al Qaida’ was behind the 9-11 atrocity. How absurd! Surely Obama is not really as stupid as that?

It underlies the truth of Voltaire’s famous remark: “As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities”. Peace-loving people around the world had hoped for better from Obama.

This is not the Change we Need.

The best hope now is that rest of the world stops subsidizing America’s criminal aggression. Creditor nations – principally China and Russia – should tell Obama that if he wants to maintain US military bloat to fight yet more illegal wars, he can’t do it on their slate any more.

They can threaten a collapse of the dollar unless America starts contracting its swollen military industrial complex and withdraws from madcap wars. They won’t do this in public, of course. But there are ways of getting the message across.

The long-suffering giants of Eurasia should play their trump card.

No more wars for Israel on their tab.

________________________

Less than 12 hours after Obama’s speech. Neocons, who usually Obama-bash for breakfast entertainment, are praising the President’s ‘courage’ and locking in behind him. Yet the American public is deeply sceptical.

Check out Robert Kagan’s Obama’s Gutsy Decision on Afghanistan in the Washington Post – as well as the comments below the article. Here are five of my favourite comments from the public:

1/ Kagan in favor of an Obama decision? Better rethink the decision. This guy has been so wrong, so often.

2/ I love President Obama. No doubt about that, but I disagree with him on his thinking regarding Afghanistan and I believe this is the last nail in the coffin which destroys the country of the USA as Afghanistan destroyed the former Soviet Union and every other invader to that amazing land of long suffering people.

If a neocon supports what President Obama is doing, then what President Obama is doing can’t be right.

I would ask that President Obama rethink what he is getting us into and reevaluate this recipe for disaster. It is going to cause more suffering and more pain. We don’t have the money for such a disruptive activity as endless war.

3/ Stop listening to the neocons. Listen to the people.

4/ Kagan, a guy who never saw a war he didn’t like, now thinks the Army is going to “strengthen Afghan civil society”… Please. How about presenting one piece of evidence that the Army is capable of doing such a thing. Kagan, a guy who never saw mission-creep he didn’t like.

5/ ”..And the end of the fight
Is tombstone white
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear,
“A fool lies here
Who tried to hustle the East.”

— Rudyard Kipling
___________________

From the Russian President, a perfectly nuanced comment under the headline Afghanistan Must Ultimately Rule Itself – Medvedev, showing yet again why that country is such a strong force in world chess:

Russia's President Medvedev: no fool

“I believe that today a number of threats are still there and in that sense we are ready to participate in the efforts directed at putting things in order, at preventing terrorist attacks,” Medvedev said in an excerpt from an interview recorded on Thursday. “On the other hand, I too believe that sooner or later there must be a normal political system in place in Afghanistan,” he added, speaking through an interpreter.“It is impossible to rule Afghanistan with the aid of the (NATO) alliance, it is impossible to rule Afghanistan from abroad, Afghanistan should find its own path to democracy.”

Translation? How about: “America can have it’s damn fool war if it wants, and I won’t help them blame Russia for its failure – but fail it will…”