The Center for Cooperative Research
U:     P:    
Not registered yet? Register here
Advanced Search

Main Menu
History Engine Sub-Menu
Miscellaneous Sub-Menu
End of Main Menu

Submit a timeline entry
Donate: If you think this site is important, please help us out financially. We need your help!
Email updates

Click here to join: Suggest changes to existing data, add new data to the website, or compile your own timeline. More Info >>

To post in this forum, you must register.
This forum is intended to enable additional collaboration and facilitate the sharing of information among people involved in submitting and editing timeline entries.

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: derek (IP Logged)
Date: February 23, 2005 04:47AM

I'm going through some of the files i gathered and archived away, back in 2001 and 2002. They report on events (or the articles are events in and of themselves) that we have not yet included in the Iran timeline.

Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Eliot Cohen advocates overthrowing the mullahs

"First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the U.S. should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the U.S. government in regard to Iran. We can either make tactical accommodations with the regime there in return for modest (or illusory) sharing of intelligence, reduced support for some terrorist groups and the like, or do everything in our power to support a civil society that loathes the mullahs and yearns to overturn their rule. It will be wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies) to choose the latter course. The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden."

Mr. Melloan, deputy editor, international, of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, likewise says he would like the Bush administration to get tough with Iran:

From: []

"Mr. Bush has already advised the clerics to butt out of Afghanistan. Next will come attention to Iran's support of terrorism. It will need to start with a demand that Iran, the PLO and Hezbollah recognize Israel's right to exist or accept the consequences of refusal."

Israel telling US that Iran is a threat in Feb 2002
From : []

On February 8, 2002, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer speaks with Vice-President Dick Cheney expressing Israeli worries that Iran, which Israel expects to have nuclear weapons by 2005, is a greater danger to Israel than Iraq. He tells Cheney, "The danger, as I see it, is from a Hezbollah-Iran-Palestinian triangle, with Iran leading this triangle and putting together a coalition of terror."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets with President George W. Bush on February 9, 2002. The Haaretz Daily reports that the goal of the meetinig is to "convince the United States that Iran constitutes a strategic threat to Israel."

Al-Ahram weekly on the Bush administration's target list back in jan 2002

More on Israel insisting that US direct attention towards Iran from 2002

Then here's some discussion on geopolitical strategy, motives, etc, again from 2002


Edited 1 times. Last edit at 02/23/05 04:48AM by derek.

Re: Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: stefanyoungs (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2005 01:21PM

I have added the Haaretz article to the Iran Timeline. Added some others too. Many are
from the most recent events.

Re: Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: stefanyoungs (IP Logged)
Date: March 7, 2005 05:30AM

There was some good stuff in the list you have. Thanks.I haven't read through all the reports yet.
I have been updating the Iran timeline.
Reading "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline and the American Empire At the End of The Age
of Oil" by Michael C. Ruppert. Lot of good regional geo-political information in there.

Re: Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: 277fia (IP Logged)
Date: July 25, 2005 11:24AM

The funniest story I've read about Iran circulated on the internet a couple of years ago. Apparently, the Shah of Iran's son wants to return to Iran and lead "his" people. He's even written a book about it. Never mind that the guy doesn't seem to have held a job in his life and lived in London most of his adult life. Forget that his father was the head of one of the most brutal regimes in the MIddle East. Pay no attention to the fact that any Iranian under 30 probably doesn't know who he is. His website scored several million hits, mainly from inside Iran and he has recieved hundreds of thousands of personal e-mails from inside the country!

CIA or neocon plot? You choose.

Read one of the silliest stories about Iran complete with typos and misspellings here:


Re: Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: 277fia (IP Logged)
Date: July 28, 2005 10:23AM

Another golden oldie from William Safire's column in the 7/11/2002 NY Times, "The Spook Awards". That year, Mr. Safire awarded his Golden Cloak & Dagger Award to Iran, "guardian of the heritage of takia, ''the need to conceal,'' for sponsorship of its covert arm, Hezbollah, now spreading throughout the Shiite diaspora worldwide, from Lebanon to Indonesia."

Noticeably absent from Mr. Safire's list of honorable mentions is Iraq despite the fact that in 2002, Mr. Safire was busy characterizing Saddam Hussein's regime as a world class threat to peace. He would have been hard-pressed to include Iraq since even I know that the Iraqis stunk at foreign espionage.

I detect some Israeli input into the awards process based on this claim: "Damascus is said to have made a deal with the C.I.A.: We'll help you track down Al Qaeda, saving American lives, if you don't give us a hard time on Hezbollah based in Syrian-occupied Lebanon, which costs only Israeli lives."

I can't link so I'll post the entire column:

How fare the espionage agencies? Who's hot and who's not? Most agents and spymasters resolutely refuse to talk about their own agencies, but cheerfully rat on each other's intelligence gathering, evaluation and tradecraft. Time now for the Golden Cloak & Dagger Awards, based on professional assessments by a half-dozen of my spooky sources around the world.

America's C.I.A.-N.S.A. combine is rated by its peers as unrivaled in elint (electronic intelligence), shorthanded in humint (human ears in foreign ministries or terrorist organizations) and sometimes fatally weak on timely evaluation of data. Although it has some of the best analysts in the field, they rarely get out in the field and tend to skew their evaluations to the wishes of our director of central intelligence.

Russia's impoverished spies, their morale bolstered by one of their own, Vladimir Putin, at the top in the Kremlin, have worked out a way to finance their operations: using the old Primakov network in Iraq, they take fat commissions on illegal oil deals. This enables them to carry out their primary mission -- stealing technology from the West -- though Russian operatives are babes in the woods compared with those in the vast international Chinese network, peer-reviewed as best in the world at filching arms production know-how. Russia still excels at using U.N. cover, often through Scandinavian penetrations.

Most-improved agency in Europe is Dutch intelligence, stunning others with its technical sophistication. In France, intelligence agents who leaked embarrassing data about Jacques Chirac must now cover their tracks after his re-election triumph. Germany, despite its failure to penetrate cells of Hamburg terrorists, is well regarded for its cold-war ability to triple double agents. Britain's agency, the one most trusted by the data-overwhelmed C.I.A., shines in the field of analysis.

The growing terror networks in the Far East are getting fair attention from South Korea's K.C.I.A., which cooperated with Singapore in uprooting a Hezbollah operation misidentified publicly as exclusively Al Qaeda. Indonesia's spymaster impressed his hosts at a Langley, Va., meeting recently with his Elvis Presley haircut, but has yet to get a handle on Islamic groups based in his far-flung country.

In the Middle East, individual Spook of the Year is Gen. Saeb Khier of Jordan, though no panel member is willing to say why. Israel's Mossad, making a comeback after a slump in the past decade, is admired by fellow professionals for its recent wetwork. The well-heeled gumshoes of the Saudi network, their loyalties riven by royal family dissension, are no longer at the top of the Arab field. Egyptian intelligence is more effective, thanks largely to interrogation techniques that some other agencies envy but cannot stomach.

Syria, say members of the peer-review panel, is runner-up for the Golden Cloak & Dagger for its post-Sept.-11 strategic coup. Damascus is said to have made a deal with the C.I.A.: We'll help you track down Al Qaeda, saving American lives, if you don't give us a hard time on Hezbollah based in Syrian-occupied Lebanon, which costs only Israeli lives. As a result, even though the U.S. solemnly tut-tuts at active Syrian support of these terrorists, Syria was not included in President Bush's ''axis of evil.''

This unverified account goes further: in return for a promise of secret U.S. use of Syrian territory near Iraq in the next attack on Saddam Hussein, as took place when Syria joined the allied coalition in Gulf War I, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to Syria's payment in oil from Iraq for being the conduit of Russian replacement parts for Saddam's aging MIG-29 planes and T-62 tanks.

Practitioners of espionage everywhere salute Bashar al-Assad. The eye doctor, who succeeded his father as dictator, is taking excellent instruction in duplicity from his experienced spymaster.

Push the envelope, please:

The non-judgmental Golden Cloak & Dagger Award this year goes to Iran, guardian of the heritage of takia, ''the need to conceal,'' for sponsorship of its covert arm, Hezbollah, now spreading throughout the Shiite diaspora worldwide, from Lebanon to Indonesia. While Al Qaeda gets the publicity as designated global villain, the quietly metastasizing cells of Iran's Hezbollah get the intelligence insiders' acclaim.

Re: Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: 277fia (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2005 12:11AM

How about "1953 coup explains Iranian hatred for United States" by James Ferguson in the 5/1/04 Daily Star from Lebanon?

When Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979, he famously re-baptised the United States as the "Great Satan." Most Americans were baffled. What, they wanted to know, had they done to deserve such hatred?

Stephen Kinzer’s fascinating and timely book, All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, provides the answer.

The CIA-led plot in 1953 to depose Iran’s popular nationalist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and replace him with a stooge called Zahedi and a puppet shah, was high, arrogant imperial trickery. Even today, little is known about the interlude. Apologists argue that "Operation Ajax," as it was known, was necessary if the country’s precious oil reserves were to be saved from the clutches of communism.

But at what price? Handled differently, Iran might well have matured into a proper democracy, a valuable US ally in the Mideast. Instead it became one third of the "Axis of Evil," the Old Glory-burning, nuclear bomb-making epicentre of the Islamist movement that so troubles the world today.

In the last 20 years, Iran’s revolutionary leaders have armed and funded Hamas and Hezbollah. They were linked to the 1983 suicide bombing that killed 214 US marines in Beirut, and to the 1996 attack that killed another 19 marines in Saudi Arabia.
They were a source of inspiration to Muslim fanatics everywhere, including in Afghanistan. As Kinzer points out, it is not too far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the shah’s repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Operation Ajax was a turning point in history.

The coup was orchestrated by the Americans, but it was instigated by the British; and as ever in the Middle East, the reasons for it began with oil. British prospectors first struck oil in western Iran in 1908. By 1920 the Anglo-Persian Oil Company ­- later renamed British Petroleum ­- was producing 1.5 mm tpy at its vast new refinery at Abadan on the Gulf.
Iranian oil proved vital in World War I. As Lord Curzon put it, the Allies "floated to victory on a wave of oil." It was not an asset they would ever give up lightly.

Iran was ruled then by the Qajar shahs, a weak and decadent dynasty almost bankrupted by its own corruption which had sold the Iranian oil concession to the British for a pittance. It was Britain’s refusal to renegotiate this concession that ultimately led Mossadegh to expel them, expropriate the Abadan refinery, and nationalize the industry in 1951.

The Anglo-American alliance is now so well established that we tend to forget the Atlantic was not always so narrow. After World War II, Clement Atlee’s Britain was still rooted in the mindset of empire. Former US President Harry S. Truman, meanwhile, had strong sympathy for the new nationalist movements emerging around the world; and no-one epitomized those movements better than the charismatic Mossadegh.

Tall, bald and with a great beak of a nose, Mossadegh was a brilliant and passionate orator. His belief in an independent -­ and democratic ­- Iran was unshakeable. Iranians, and indeed Americans, adored him. In 1951 there was a showdown with the British at the United Nations. Washington tried to adjudicate but the result, to the chagrin and fury of the British, was a stalemate. Time Magazine promptly nominated Mossadegh their Man of the Year.

A compromise over the oil concession might still have been reached, but when Atlee and then Truman were replaced by Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower, it was all over for Mossadegh, whose domestic position had been much weakened by the economic collapse brought on by the blockade of Abadan.

With the Cold War gathering momentum, London cleverly convinced Washington that the Free World could not afford to let Iran fall into Soviet hands; and that only the expulsion of Mossadegh, whom they called "unbalanced," could prevent such a catastrophe.

When Britain was expelled from Iran, its formidable local network of spies and agitators was handed wholesale over to the Americans. The kingpin was one Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore, who ran the covert operation directly from the US Embassy. Using great imagination as well as suitcases full of cash, Roosevelt suborned key police and army units and organized a series of "spontaneous" street demonstrations that culminated in the storming of Mossadegh’s house. Hundreds were killed. Some of the civilian victims were found with 500-rial notes still in their pockets.

Kinzer reconstructs the heady days of the coup with lucidity and a good eye for the telling detail. For instance, when Zahedi first addressed the nation via Radio Tehran, it was decided that martial music should be played. One of Roosevelt’s agents had brought along a likely looking record from the embassy library. As Zahedi approached, a technician played the first song. To everyone’s embarrassment, it turned out to be The Star-Spangled Banner.

Britain never recovered its near monopolyon Iranian oil. The concession was assumed instead by an international consortium -­ 40 % British, 40 % American, and 20 % French and Dutch. The new consortium agreed to share its profits on a 50-50 basis with the Iranians, and to retain the name Mossadegh gave it -­ the National Iranian Oil Company ­- to preserve the facade of nationalism. Mossadegh was placed under house arrest in his village west of Tehran, where he died in 1967.

It was not until 2000 that the US officially acknowledged its involvement, in a carefully worded speech by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who said: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Albright’s statement amounted to a kind of apology; but it will take more than soothing words to restore the cordial relations enjoyed by Iran and the US during the Truman era.
Washington trampled on a nascent Middle Eastern democracy in the interests of oil and its own ideology. Is it any wonder that America is now struggling to convince Iraqis -­ and the world -­ that its occupation of Iraq is about the establishment of democracy rather than oil rights?

Re: Old articles I've dug up.
Posted by: 277fia (IP Logged)
Date: August 13, 2005 04:34AM

This article about a planned US attack on Iran is from the Wayne Madsen Report which does not maintain an archive. Wayne Madsen is known as a bit of a tinfoil hat type. For the heck of it, I am posting this article so down the road, we'll see if he is right.

August 10, 2005 -- U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. According to sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran's nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons. The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups. The German intelligence comes from classified briefings provided by elements within the CIA that are concerned the neocons in the Bush administration will, in attacking Iran, set off a chain of events that will lead to world war. Intelligence on U.S. plans to attack Iran has also been passed by CIA agents to counterparts in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. The Bush war plans for Iran also entail quickly seizing Iran's southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran's oil reserves and refineries are located. Khuzestan has a majority Shia Arab population that has close links with their ethnic and religious brethren in Iraq. The Bush plans call for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz and receive diplomatic recognition from the United States and a few close U.S. allies. After World War I, Khuzestan was annexed by Iran, then called Persia. There are also plans to incite rebellions among Iran's other minorities, including Azeris and Turkmenis in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Other minorities targeted by the neo-con planners are Iranian Kurds along the Iraqi and Turkish borders and Baluchis along the border with Pakistan. The neo-con plan seeks to separate Iran from its oil resources and create an "Irani triangle" centered around Teheran, Isfahan, Qom, and other historically Persian centers. In anticipation of the U.S. attack, the spy sub USS Jimmy Carter has placed taps on undersea communications cables in the Persian Gulf that carry Iranian commercial, diplomatic, and military traffic. In addition, Task Force 121 covert paramilitary forces have scouted Iran using the cover of journalists and businessmen to pinpoint military targets.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under the Creative Commons License below:

Creative Commons License Home |  About this Site |  Development |  Donate |  Contact Us
Terms of Use