Iran 'has proof' of British role in bombings

[albion]

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Iran 'has proof' of British role in bombings</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>TEHRAN (AFP) -<br>Iran said it has proof that Britain was involved in a double bomb attack last week that killed six people and injured more than 100 in the restive southwestern city of Ahvaz.<br><br>The British embassy in Tehran immediately rejected the allegations, which came amid mounting tensions between Tehran and London over suspected Iranian meddling in Iraq and the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.<br><br>"Information obtained by the concerned organs show that Britain is the main accused in the recent events," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state television.<br><br>"The information shows that Britain is seeking to create insecurity in our country by interfering in our internal affairs," he added, warning that the consequences "could be worrying for the British."<br><br>Britain said the allegations were baseless<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051020/wl_uk_afp/iranunrestbritain_051020175532">news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005...1020175532</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[marykmusic]

Oh gosh (tongue firmly in cheek) you don't think Britain would really interfere in Iran's internal affairs, do you?<br><br>After all, the Brits have tried to control that country for quite a while... --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

[marykmusic]

I sent this page to a dear friend who was born in Iran and has great insight into the situation there. Here's what she wrote back:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Very interesting, but the Brits recruited the mullahs in Oxford and put them in place. They are still running the behind the scenes in Iran....their main man is Jack Straw.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>She sent me here: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.americans4freeiran.com" target="top">www.americans4freeiran.com</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> and said it could be others trying to create unrest and mentioned Michael Ledeen.<br><br>Something is planned to go down there. It's a point of contention between the US and EU right now. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3268" target="top">Blair’s New Tune on Iran</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Jonathan Lindley, a Middle East expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, says that the prime minister’s office has decided to use “more stick and less carrot” in its relations with Iran. The first evidence of this new approach came early this month, when a British official accused Iran of supplying the Basra insurgency with bombmaking technology via Hezbollah. The next day, Blair himself repeated the charge. That was a turnaround from previous statements, when British officials had argued that the Iranians were actually helping in Iraq by acting as a calming influence on the more excitable Shiite groups.<br><br>Then on October 11, the Foreign Office’s Middle East Minister, Kim Howells, declared in a Parliamentary debate that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give momentum to proposals for Britain to upgrade its own nuclear arsenal. Howells ended the debate by responding to calls from members of parliament for a tougher policy toward Iran with a cryptic message, suggesting that the government is no longer quite as certain that it will never strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. “[T]he world of diplomacy requires one to choose language very carefully. My right honorable friend the foreign secretary said that he could not envisage any circumstances in which there would be some sort of armed response to the problem of nuclear proliferation. I hope that the honorable gentleman will understand what I am saying.”<br><br>That same day, British officials privately briefed The Sun, a jingoistic tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch. They told The Sun’s reporters that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was training bombmakers and smuggling them into Basra to kill British troops. The newspaper treated the story in a way the briefer must have anticipated. The headline roared, “Trained in Iran to kill our boys.” The choice to leak to The Sun, as opposed to briefing a more subdued or dovish publication, suggests that Blair was trying to whip up public anger toward Tehran. “They could depend on [that kind of spin], given everything The Sun has written about Iraq,” says Stephen Glover, the media commentator of the daily Independent. “The Sun has been the most bellicose supporter of British and American policy in Iraq. A fairly safe bet, on the government’s part, that it would continue to be so in relation to Iran.” If the government’s intention was to influence pundits, rather than the general public, The Times—also owned by Murdoch—would have been the more logical choice. And if the aim was simply to disseminate information, the bbc would have been the obvious venue.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Looks like Britain is 'coming around'. <br><br>And I was just beginning to think that war with Iran might not be possible.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Peachtree Pam]

I think MaryK's friend is very well informed. Iran is on "their" side - the side of the PTB. The threats to "attack" Iran have been a smoke and mirrors effort to distract scrutiny of their real target - Syria. <p></p><i></i>

[eric144]

Sorry for this, but what is the PTB ? <p></p><i></i>

[Peachtree Pam]

is what the abbreviation stands for.<br><br>Pam <p></p><i></i>

[albion]

Found this analysis in the Asia Times:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Taken aback by the British accusations, the Iranian government has hit back by implicating Britain in the twin bombings that occurred in Ahwaz (the capital of Iran's Khuzestan province) on October 15, killing four people. Although the Iranian government has provided no solid evidence to implicate the British, these accusations are not altogether extraordinary.<br><br>The consensus in Iran (both in the security/intelligence community and the media establishment) is that the bombings in Ahwaz, as well as six bombings in June, are the work of very small Arab separatist groups that are ultimately controlled by elements in the (former) Iraqi military intelligence service.<br><br>Privately, Iranian officials are worried that the events in Khuzestan signal the export of the Iraqi insurgency to Iran. But there is a British connection, albeit one which is not necessarily decisive. The Khuzestani Arab separatists (who call this southeastern Iranian province "Arabistan" ) were closely nurtured by the former Ba'athist government in Iraq and were an integral part of (former) Iraqi intelligence operations in Khuzestan. But they have also had a presence in Britain since the late 1970s.<br><br>Indeed, they seized the Iranian Embassy in 1980, prompting the British authorities to deploy the Special Air Services against them. But throughout much of the 1980s, Iranian Arab separatists were able to operate freely in the UK, even though the British authorities were well aware of their Iraqi intelligence connections. The atmosphere changed in 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the end of the prolonged honeymoon between the West and Saddam Hussein.<br><br>Indeed, during a number of occasions in the 1990s, Iranian Arab separatists based in the UK were intercepted at Heathrow airport by UK security service (MI5) officers as they were about to board flights to locations such as Larnaka, Athens and Istanbul, where they would meet Iraqi intelligence officers.<br><br>The message from the British was clear: Iraqi intelligence activity on UK soil would not be tolerated (as it had been in the 1980s). But since the downfall of Saddam, Iranian Arab separatists are back in favor in London. They have met Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, on at least one occasion and the Iranian government alleges that many more secret meetings have taken place. Interestingly, Iranian Arab separatists have also been openly courted by the Canadian government.<br><br>None of this implicates the British government in the bombings in Ahwaz, but the very fact that UK officials are showing greater hospitality to elements which, at the very least, applaud these bombings, makes the Iranian government understandably nervous. Seen from this perspective, Iranian accusations pointing to British complicity in the bombings in Ahwaz have more merit than British accusations implicating Iran in the emerging Shi'ite insurgency. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ22Ak01.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...2Ak01.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

Was not Saddam also our man? <br><br>How do we know when the Mullahs have become too independent? <br><br>For that matter, what exactly was it that Saddam did that made him too independent? It wasn't invading Kuwait. PTB made the decision on Saddam before he invaded Kuwait.<br><br>It seems like every side is playing all sides. I really don't know what to infer. I don't doubt the British did put the mullahs in power, but aren't the British also betrothed to the US, and Israel?<br><br>Finally, because I'm feeling very confused right now, I still don't understand what makes Syria such a threat. Is it like before? Have Syria's rulers simply become too independent of the PTB, and why would it matter? I hear dubya urging confrontation with Syria, but I don't know why.<br><br>...20 questions over<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[eric144]

"I don't doubt the British did put the mullahs in power, but aren't the British also betrothed to the US, and Israel?"<br><br>It's a 3 way axis and one of them, Israel (and its supporters in the US) has been screaming for attacks on its potential enemies since 9/11. I suspect they want totally controlled regimes in the whole region including Saudi Arabia.<br><br>P.S. thanks Pam <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eric144>eric144</A> at: 10/23/05 2:31 pm<br></i>

[marykmusic]

Thanks, Pam; my friend is more than well-informed, but deeply, emotionally attached to a real democracy getting established in her country of origin. It's not happening with their current government, and neither the US nor Britain has any intention of allowing it.<br><br>Among the stories she has told me are what her older sister saw and reported: when the American Embassy was stormed in 1979, there were only about 100 "radical militants" and they didn't even speak good Farsi (the native language of Iran), but had some kind of foreign accent. It was all a show for the Western media.<br><br>The Shah stayed on, along with a small handful of his loyal men, for quite some time afterward. All of them (and one was her father) died of the same very rare cancer, within two years.<br><br>The Iranian revolution of 1979 was not at all what we have been told, nor is the government in power there now. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>