With a persistance that does him credit, veteran investigative journalist and founder of Consortium News Robert Parry has been nibbling away at the 1980 ‘October Surprise’ story for a long time.

Each time he revisits the saga, Parry bites another chunk off the cookie.

Jimmy Carter - Worst President Billboard

His latest article – The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter – draws more confident and far-reaching  conclusions than before.

Parry makes a solid case that Jimmy Carter’s Administration was brought down by a conspiracy involving elements of the CIA and the far-right Israeli Government of the day. The former were ultimately answerable to George Bush senior, Vice Presidential candidate for the Republicans in the 1980 election. The latter were presumably under the control of Israel’s Prime Minister Menachim Begin, a former Irgun terrorist.

The Israeli connection helps explain how this story has taken so long to break. Parry relates (emphasis added):

As the Official Story of the 1980 October Surprise case crumbles – with new revelations that key evidence was hidden from investigators of a congressional task force and that internal doubts were suppressed – history must finally confront the troubling impression that remains: that disgruntled elements of the CIA and Israel’s Likud hardliners teamed up to remove a U.S. president from office.

Indeed, it is this disturbing conclusion – perhaps even more than the idea of a Republican dirty trick – that may explain the longstanding and determined cover-up of this political scandal.

Today, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation launches a 24 x 7 dedicated news channel six years after the ABC launched a 24-hour radio news channel.

ABC News 24 x 7

I have mixed feelings about the new round-the-clock TV news service.

On the one hand, at least News Corp’s Sky News won’t have a complete monopoly over 24×7 Australian TV news from today. That’s a positive.

On the other hand, we shall presumably be delivered another flavour of round-the-clock Zionist-lite news coverage – in this case entirely at the public’s expense. That’s a negative.

It’s not as though we don’t know what that perspective is already. We already have it rammed down our throats on every other available radio and TV channel.

There’s a ratio I keep a eye on, which I call the Is:Ir ratio. That’s the number of times a news organisation interviews a representative of the Israeli Government, compared with the number of times a representative of the Iranian Government is interviewed.

In the case of ABC-1, I estimate the ratio to be in the order of 100:1. To be blunt, I can’t remember the last time an Iranian Government representative was interviewed by the ABC.

That, of course, is consistent with the Zionist push to demonize Iran and start YET ANOTHER war in the middle east against a country that stands up to the war-crazy Israeli regime.

Iran is not in breach of international law.

It has simply run afoul of the absurdly partisan, pro-Zionist Governments of western countries, that are once again doing Israel’s bidding. They do this not in response to public opinion, which wants peace – but because they are manipulated and bullied by the Israel Lobby.

The push to isolate Iran, ruin its economy and embitter its people is a cruel, dangerous and utterly immoral policy.

The USA and EU and should stop feeding the insatiable Zionist war-machine! Leave Iran in peace!

Boycott the worse-than-Apartheid rogue State that DOES have nuclear weapons!

No Iran Sanctions

I’m reluctant to contribute to speculation, however well-informed, about the propects of an attack on Iran by the Israeli or US  military – or a combination of the two.

Spruiking for war: Haaretz front page, 16th July 201

There’s a danger of making the utterly outrageous seem ‘normal’.

So the first thing I’d like to say about a military attack on Iran is that it must not happen. This article is an attempt to help avert war, not talk it up.

The next thing is that any such attack would be an abominable and criminal act – utterly illegal under International law. Any pretence that the USA and Israel are other than rogue States would be blown away.

The third thing is that it would probably be orchestrated by the warmongers so it appears to be triggered by a (fabricated) ‘attack’ of some type by Iran, either on US soil, in Israel (less likely) or on US shipping or other targets around the world.

Such a ‘trigger’ is therefore a key sign to watch out for. Iran has made no threats, but has said it will defend itself if attacked. A faked ‘attack’ by Iran would give a veneer of legality to any US/Israeli assault, which would then quite likely trigger retaliation.

Beware ANY such atrocities purportedly carried out by Iran or its alleged proxies. They are likely to be staged false flag attacks.

About 36 hours ago, in the aftermath of the UN Security Council’s vote to punish Iran with yet another round of sanctions because of its nuclear program, a rumour circulated that Russia would freeze delivery to Iran of the long-awaited S-300 missile defence system.

The story, reported by Reuters New Agency, was based on a media release from Interfax. It was widely – and excitedly – repeated by the mainstream TV networks.

President Putin meets 'Sarko the Sayan'

Hours later,  the Russian Foreign Ministry denied the reports, saying that only sale of mobile S-300s would be frozen. This retraction was not as widely reported as the initial Interfax report of cancellation.

Today comes another twist in the saga. Following a meeting in Paris between Russian President Putin and French President Sarkosy (Sarkosy is widely rumoured to be a Mossad agent), the Russian President left without fronting reporters’ questions.

According to the Xinhuanet.com news agency, Putin confirmed at his meeting that the sale os S-300′s would be totally frozen – see Putin says no missile sale to Iran: press. This was rapidly re-reported by Israeli newspaper Haaretz: Russia to freeze missile sale to Iran, Putin tells Sarkozy.

In the absence of a formal, high-level announcement from the Russian Government, it’s hard to know what’s really going on. The impression is that Israel – and its agents – are trying to ‘push’ Russia’s foreign policy. Unhappy with what the Russians are actually saying, they repeatedly put words into the Russian Government’s mouth.

Just in case you missed it…

Back in March 2009, four months ago, the United States Director of National Intelligence Admiral Blair was questioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Committee chairman Carl Levin asked about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Here’s his question – and Blair’s reply:

Admiral Dennis Blair: not everyone called 'Blair' is a Zionist stooge

LEVIN: In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said that “the intelligence community judges with high confidence that in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” Is the position of the intelligence community the same as it was back in October of ‘07? Has that changed?

BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, the nuclear weapons program is one of the three components required for deliverable system, including the delivery system and the uranium. But as for the nuclear weapons program, the current position is the same, that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in 2003 and did not — has not started them again, at least as of mid-2007.

You can read informed commentary about this in a March 10th article by Ali Frick in Think Progress: see Dennis Blair: Iran Has Not Re-Started Its Nuclear Weapons Program. Or just watch the exchange on YouTube.

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.

Mike Wallace and the Subversion of Democracy

Part 3 of 3: Celebrating Dominance

This is the final segment of a three part series concerning the veteran CBS interviewer Mike Wallace – and issues of freedom, democracy, subversion and manipulation. In Part One, a young Mr Wallace intervewed Aldous Huxley, a man who gave more informed consideration to the likely future directions of authoritarianism that most in his generation. Wallace asks Huxley a very curious question about freedom.

Iranian President Ahmenidijad portrayed as an 'Islamo-fascist'

In the Part 2 – Concealing the Conspiracy – we saw Wallace interview the Shah of Iran in the 1970s – and provide commentary on Iranian affairs at the time. Acting through agents such as Wallace, Zionists in the west pushed to destablize the Shah and usher in Iran’s Islamic Revolution.

Along with the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1982, this had a number of flow-on effects. It split Eygpt from Iran; led to war between Iraq and Iran; set the ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ trap, depriving Jimmy Carter of a second term as President; laid the foundations for the Iran-contra affair; led to a savage new round of repression of the left within Iran.

"And the winner is..." (Zionism?)

The resulting mayhem and bloodshed eventually killed millions in different parts of the middle east, especially Iraq and Iran. The key beneficary was the State of Israel.

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.

By the 1930s, it seemed the long political career of Winston Churchill was all but over.

He was a man out of time – an old imperial War Horse in an era when the patience of the British people for war-mongering was wearing thin. While Winston fulminated against Indian independence and beat the old imperial drum for more military spending, the world seemed to be moving on.

Winston Churchill: catspaw for Zionist interests?

The Great War of 1914-18 had bled the British people dry. Gandhi’s non-violent campaign for Indian independence was earning widespread respect. The peace movement was on the ascendant, having won support from some of the country’s finest intellects such as Aldous Huxley. Many hoped the age of British militarism was drawing to a close – and a slow, dignified decolonisation process lay ahead. In that scenario, Britain would remain a prosperous, productive and uniquely well-connected society – but a nation at peace.

Yet by May 1940, Britain was again at war and Churchill was Prime Minister. Rejecting German peace overtures, he immediately committed the British Empire to a ‘no holds barred’ fight-to-the-death: total war with the Axis powers. Eventually, after forging alliances with the USA and Soviet Union, Churchill led an exhausted, bankrupt nation to ‘victory’ five years later.

Winston Churchill suffered decisive electoral defeat in the 1945 post-war general election, then returned to power in 1951 for an undistinguished finale as Prime Minister.