West Asia News and Discussions

[Austin]

Syrian rebels attacked Assad convoy in Damascus

Syrian rebels claimed Thursday morning they struck the convoy of Syrian president Bashar Assad in the capital. According to rebel commander Firas al-Bitar speaking to the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news network, Assad was not injured in the attack.

The convoy was reportedly attacked with 17 mortar rounds while on its way to a Damascus mosque for Eid al-Fitr prayers in honor of the holiday that ends the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Al-Arabiya reported on its Twitter feed that Assad had been seen on Syrian television “performing Eid prayers at Damascus mosque” shortly after news of the attack — footage that was reportedly aired live.

[Austin]

Moscow ‘rejects’ Saudi ‘offer’ to drop Assad for rich arms deal

Moscow has said “no” to Saudi Arabia’s alleged proposal of a rich arms deal and protection of Russia’s gas interests in the Middle East in exchange for abandoning Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to Arab and European diplomats.

The proposal of $15 billion in weapons contracts was allegedly made during the July 31 meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and influential intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Reuters reported.

Neither Moscow nor Riyadh has officially commented on the agenda of the talks, but a Thursday AFP report revealed new details of the negotiations.

According to an undisclosed European diplomat, Prince Bandar proposed the deal and told Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad will be "completely" in Riyadh’s hands. The Prince reportedly stated that if the deal was accepted, Saudi Arabia would not sign any contracts damaging Russian interests by allowing Gulf countries to transport its gas across Syria to Europe.

The terms included Moscow dropping its support of President Bashar Assad, as well as not opposing any future Security Council resolutions on Syria.

"President Putin listened politely to his interlocutor and let him know that his country would not change its strategy," a separate Arab diplomat told AFP.

Bandar bin Sultan then told Russian officials that the only option left in Syria is a military one – and that they should forget about the Geneva-2 international peace conference because the opposition would not attend, the source said. Efforts to bring about the conference – which has been put forth by the US and Moscow – have so far been fruitless, mainly because of the absence of unity within the opposition ranks.

[shyamd]

Moscow ‘rejects’ Saudi ‘offer’ to drop Assad for rich arms deal

According to an undisclosed European diplomat, Prince Bandar proposed the deal and told Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad will be "completely" in Riyadh’s hands. The Prince reportedly stated that if the deal was accepted, Saudi Arabia would not sign any contracts damaging Russian interests by allowing Gulf countries to transport its gas across Syria to Europe.

What I said on July 29th 2012 about Russia's interests:

Russia does care - they want their interests in the world to be protected. As part of that they were building alliances in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Then Syria rebellion kicked off. In fact Russia recently opened 2 soviet era sigint stations and provided satellites for the regime to communicate and supporting operations.
The next regime is not really going to be friendly to moscow and don't forget if Syria goes down, KSA, Qatar, Kuwait will pump oil and gas through Syria and into Europe, which reduces the influence of Russia in europe and their O&G monopoly. If this happens (which it will as Kurdistan begin pumping hteir o&G), the eastern european states will look more westward.

[habal]

this may explain Qatar's motivations in Syria:

In 2009, Assad refused a Qatar pipeline offer. It wants one transporting Gulf oil to Europe. It wants it via Syria. Assad declined. He did so to protect Russian interests.

a Syrian officials reaction to Putin's refusal of Bandar's offer:

"As was the case before with Qatar and Lavrov (in talks), Saudi Arabia thinks that politics is a simple matter of buying people or countries."
"It doesn't understand that Russia is a major power and that this is not how it draws up policy."
"Syria and Russia have had close ties for over half a century in all fields and it's not Saudi rials that will change this fact."

and that too monetary promises that they don't intend to keep, if it came to that:

Security expert Andrei Soldatov said "(t)his disinformation is aimed more at destabilizing Assad and his entourage."
His "position is growing stronger and stronger, and the Kremlin knows this. Turning against (him) in this situation would be very stupid."
"And don't forget that in general the Saudis take years to keep their promises."

aur log yahan par GCC ke superpower banane ke capability ke khwab dikhate hain. If they had that capability Pakistan would be the superpower and Saudi the hyperpower. And all IT-vity would be outsourced to the 'talent' in Pakistan. Just check how some top 4 accounting firms even with local partners in mid-east wish desperately to outsource their auditing to firms in Pakistan but have still yet to make a decision.

[Austin]

As Foreign Fighters Flood Syria, Fears of a New Extremist Haven

[brihaspati]

Where is the Saudi something-big action? Or it is the supposed Israeli action which is the Saudi action?

[ramana]

Bji, Looks like the big action was to try to bribe Putin and it was rejected. Treat everything as inputs.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
my calculations on the Kurd and Russian-Iranian steps seem to be working out. It is touch and go - in both directions at this stage.

[Philip]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... ill-dozens

Baghdad car bombs kill dozens in attacks on Shia neighbourhoods

At least 69 dead and more than 170 wounded in attacks, raising fears of a return to widespread sectarian violence

[Austin]

Bahrain prime minister issues warning ahead of planned protests

RIYADH (Reuters) - Bahrain's prime minister accused anti-government protesters of seeking to foment chaos and topple the government on Saturday, days before planned pro-democracy protests in the tiny Gulf kingdom where unrest has persisted since early 2011.

Protesters inspired by the "Tamarrod" (rebel) protests in Egypt last month have called for rallies on Wednesday, at a time of escalating clashes between the police and pro-opposition demonstrators.

"Everybody has become aware that the truth behind what's happening is not demands for a better life, but rather to change the regime and drag the country to chaos and ruin," the official Bahrain News Agency quoted veteran prime minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa as saying on Saturday.

The opposition, mostly made up of members of the majority Shi'ite Muslim community, demands the Sunni al-Khalifa ruling family introduce democracy in Bahrain, a close U.S. ally.

On August 1, the government toughened the country's anti-terrorism laws, including imposing longer prison terms and stripping perpetrators of Bahraini nationality, which human rights groups said could lead to a crackdown on protesters.

The new laws ban demonstrating in the capital, Manama, without permission from the security services and mandate jail for anyone who carries anything resembling explosives or firecrackers in a public place.

Sheikh Khalifa, speaking during an official visit to Muharraq Province, said Bahrain was being targeted in order to destabilize the Gulf, a possible reference to Iran, which Manama has accused of instigating the protests. Tehran has denied the accusations.

"The focus now is on Bahrain because it is the entrance to other countries in our region, and it is our duty to foil all these desperate attempts," he said.

[ramana]

So Bahrain faces the whirlwind.

[brihaspati]

I am looking up Budesh for some models. That name is cropping up in some simulations a lot. Can people add in on his latests? Last known potential operational base - Manama and Dubai. How much is he really in conflict with DI? He might be the next choice for the west-Saudi-paki axis.

[habal]

I am looking up Budesh for some models. That name is cropping up in some simulations a lot. Can people add in on his latests? Last known potential operational base - Manama and Dubai. How much is he really in conflict with DI? He might be the next choice for the west-Saudi-paki axis.

what simulations are these that throw up names of individuals ? Must be organisational level simulation. Anyways, DI is splintered, his ME ops are now taken over by Buddesh. His Indian networks now report to Chota Shakeel. DI himself squats and scats around secure enclaves in TSP. Buddesh came recently on Indian TV, making comments on how DI was connected deeply with ICC and was money launderer for ICC bigwigs and indulged in fixing and managing bookies.

[Austin]

Saudi prince defects: 'Brutality, oppression as govt scared of Arab revolts' (EXCLUSIVE)

[brihaspati]

The crackdown on ICC/BCCI coincides with Budesh's antics. Which sort of shows that the subcontinental networks - including possible intrusions into the state machinery - are preparing for a post-DI world.

[devesh]

Also the recent bollywood movie about "striking back". Rare for those guys to be so bold.

[habal]

For some reason the rebels seem intent to attack Latakia, the coastal home of the alawites, and the province of the president Assad. That this fighters are hand-in-glove with the Israelis can be seen from the fact that inspite of heavy losses in Latakia, and a totally hostile civilian environment, they still seem persistent to push on in that province. Now the 'Commander-in-chief' of the rebels Salim Idriss has himself paid a visit to Latakia to bolster sagging morale of the rebels and make it seem to them that they aren't participating in an entirely hopeless cause.http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/in ... d_homeland

Main reason may lie in fact that Latakia holds the main hub of regime's air defence systems that is the main obstacle to an Israeli or NATO/US airstrike. Any air strike by the genocidal forces needs that the air defence systems be rendered ineffective. And then Israel could come in and bomb Assad's forces on ground in a swarm of shock & aweful air strikes thus giving rebels the clear advantage by negating Assad's air force. So thus this creeping attempt at Latakia. If these rebels persevere in Latakia and they are able to make some headway, it may just be possible that they can use some kind of deniable weapons of mass destruction like tactical nuclear or chemical weapons on some enclaves to consolidate their gain further and create a tumult in loyalist ranks. Easier said than done, but they keep trying nevertheless.

Only issue with such operations are that Russia is also watching with hawks eyes, on use of chemical weapons by rebels. If they indeed indulge in any such fantasy, they may also get it right back precipitating a bigger crises than Obami could handle.

[brihaspati]

Israel's role is dual - and not simply running with the "rebels". It is playing a longer term strategic game there and don't believe everything they say to keep US lobby's happy and supplying.

[member_27444]

Israel policy is pragmatic, effective and worth emulating

! Money---> Security------> Dominance -------Manipulative-------> Survival------!
<------<--------------<-----------------<--------------------<-----------------!

cylical process left through right and back

very proven in all walk of life of individual or state

added later
OK even if you read it like Hebrew right to left its still valid.

[habal]

Israel's policy may be very pragmatic, and has served it well. But when Israel's pragmatic policy is seen in tandem with Saudi duplicity, you have a situation where the west-europeans & anglo-saxon managers of terror have both the cause (Israel's occupation of Palestine) and the tool (Saudi, Turkey, Pakistani complicity & jehadi footsoldiers) to make a fool of the rest of the world, especially countries like India, Russia & China. Ofcourse, pragmatic Israel has ensured that in this game of pragmatic pinpricks against it's neighbours it has prevented blowbacks on itself since it poisoned Arafat pragmatically and built wall around itself but the pragmatic Israel nor it's wily sponsors prevent these blowbacks from reaching the shores of India, China, Russia, Libya, Egypt, Afganistan, Iraq, Syria and other countries of former Eastern Bloc.

Unless they are reduced to a state where only a POGROM of the minorities and sundry jehadis can keep them safe, but such a move leads to cycles of violence which is then instigated by the cleverer than Isareli anglos and west-Euros on pretext of genuine grievances. Do you see clearly how pragmatic policies of Israel only conveniently serve to screw certain other countries

[devesh]

Those policies dont screw india. All that needs to be said...

[habal]

Israel is just a tool in the hands of some powerful, nothing more nothing less. No need to glorify their policies or anything .. like the pakis their 2.5 Godfathers keep them alive, even if their policies totally fail or boomerang on themsel
ves! They are allowed to fool around because at the end of the day there are powerful people who will save their skin If they mess up.

[habal]

the Syrian Army has finally touched the shores of the Eastern Province of Deyr Al-Zor, as can be seen in the map below. The fighting over there is very unique .. like in just stand up and shoot.






after marginalizing, abetting murder & rape of Christians and almost decimating them in Syria, he is now headed for Egypt to oversee the massacre of Copts. Meet the highly successful US diplomat. Ambassador to Syria and now designated Ambassador to Egypt.

[member_27444]

Israel is just a tool in the hands of some powerful, nothing more nothing less. No need to glorify their policies or anything .. like the pakis their 2.5 Godfathers keep them alive, even if their policies totally fail or boomerang on themsel
ves! They are allowed to fool around because at the end of the day there are powerful people who will save their skin If they mess up.

Notice how Israel started ew costructios just before the talks with Palestiia Authority mid wifed by Uncle
this will deflect to the new demand of stoppig it, rather tha the origial agenda, the poor PA is ot realizig every offer of talks precedes with new permits in occupied terrirotory.

identify the stage quiz

Israel policy is pragmatic, effective and worth emulating

! Money---> Security------> Dominance -------Manipulative-------> Survival------!
<------<--------------<-----------------<--------------------<-----------------!

[shyamd]

Huge explosion in Dahiye, Beirut - Hezbollah stronghold.

[member_27444]

in shyamd parlance Musaled

[ramana]

AmyRao, No need for that.

[AbhiJ]

What failed in Pakistan won't work in Egypt

Thursday, August 15, 2013
By David Rohde

As the Egyptian army continued its violent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood this week, White House officials said that the United States can't cut off its $1.3 billion a year in aid to Egypt. To do so would cause Washington to lose "influence" with the country's generals. Vital American security interests are at stake, they argued, and keeping the torrent of American aid flowing gives Washington leverage.

If that argument sounds familiar, it is. For the last decade, the United States has used the same logic in Pakistan. Washington has given $11 billion in military aid to the Pakistani army in the name of maintaining American "influence" in Islamabad. From new equipment to reimbursements for Pakistani military operations, the money flowed year after year, despite complaints from American officials that the Pakistanis were misusing funds and inflating bills.

Can the United States do better in Egypt? Pakistan and Egypt are vastly different, but as the Obama administration fervently embraces its Pakistan approach in Egypt, it's worth examining the results of its dollars-for-generals strategy.

A decade on, little has changed in Pakistan. The country's military continues to shelter the Afghan Taliban, hundreds of American and Afghan soldiers have died in cross-border attacks from Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, and the Pakistani army remains by far the most powerful institution in the country.

Yes, the government of outgoing Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari performed poorly and mismanaged the country's economy. And it's wrong to assume — or argue — that an effective, efficient civilian government would emerge if Pakistan's army would give up its decades-old domination of the country.

But what did the United States get for its $11 billion? One goal of providing U.S. military aid was to get the Pakistani military to crack down on the thousands of Afghan Taliban who have lived, trained and planned operations from inside Pakistan since 2001. But so far that has not happened. Republicans and Democrats poured money into the coffers of the Pakistani military but it did not change the Pakistani military's long-running view that Afghan Taliban and other militants are useful proxies against Pakistan's arch-rival India.

American officials say the $11 billion did allow Washington to get what it most wanted: drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas that weakened al Qaeda and may have thwarted terrorist attacks in the United States. Pakistan's nuclear weapons also remain under government control. The drone strikes fuel bitter anti-Americanism in Pakistan, but the cold political calculus for any American president, officials argue, is preventing terrorist attacks on the homeland.

So far, the Obama administration appears intent on following the same aid-for-leverage approach in Egypt. The White House delayed the delivery of four new F-16 fighters to Egypt this week. But the fact that the Egyptian military has already killed 140 protesters — twice as many as Iran did in its 2009 crushing of the Green Movement — apparently gives administration officials little pause.

In a visit to Pakistan this week, Secretary of State John Kerry gave the administration's most full-throated defense of the Egyptian military yet. "In effect, they were restoring democracy ," Kerry said in a Pakistani television interview. "The military did not take over, to the best of our judgment — so far, so far — to run the country. There's a civilian government."

Most importantly, the White House announced that the Obama administration would flout an American law requiring the U.S. government to cut off American aid to any government the carries out a coup. How? By ignoring it.

"The law does not require us to make a formal determination as to whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such a determination," a White House official told the New York Times. "We will not say it was a coup, we will not say it was not a coup, we will just not say."

In other words, America will look the other way to maintain "influence" with the Egyptian military. One of the lessons from the last decade in Pakistan is that money might buy American officials a seat at the table. But Pakistani generals — or Egyptian generals — will not necessarily listen.

And they will definitely blame their problems on us. For the last decade in Pakistan, military officials have used pro-military media outlets to spread a message that an all-powerful United States is behind the country's ills. Some of the same patterns are emerging in Egypt. Pro-military Egyptian media blame the United States for the country's problems.

Dalia Mogahed, an expert on Egypt and the former executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, believes the United States should take a more aggressive stance in Egypt. Providing $1.3 billion per year with few questions asked is not a recipe for change.

"We need clear conditions on aid that we actually follow through with," Mogahed said in an email. "We're dealing with military massacres of protestors. Our values and our interests dictate that we condition aid on the immediate halt of excessive force and holding accountable those responsible for it."

One administration official, who asked not to be named, argued that there was no alternative to Egypt's generals. If the Sinai, for example, becomes a safe haven for militants, they would pose a direct threat to Israel and the United States. The official said he was skeptical that civilian governments could emerge that could stabilize Egypt and secure the Sinai.

That is the same argument American officials have been making in Pakistan for years. The core question is simple: can democracy emerge in the region?

Putting conditions on our aid that require the Egyptian military to carry out elections will help answer that question. Hurling billions at generals will not. Pakistan has taught us that much.

[shyamd]

BREAKING: Putin to arrange for joint-military exercises with Egypt, puts Russian facilities 'at Egypt's disposal'http://t.co/1xRN73O7BD

[Austin]

Perhaps that link is more like Faking News then Breaking news.

[Singha]

egypt and israel have been trading places as #1 and #2 in the list of military aid takers from USA. they have been given a lot of kit something like $4 billion of military aid per annum.....abrams tanks and F-solah among them.

[shyamd]

Iranian arms to Syria down but not over, says Iraqi foreign minister - Your Middle East http://t.co/od589AH0FJ

Iraqi FM discussing Iranian overflights in delivering arms to Assad

-------------
Tunda catch
http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-top- ... 40373.html

Now, in the wake of a carefully-crafted operation involving India’s Research and Analysis Wing and intelligence services in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, that man is in jail.

[devesh]

http://news.sky.com/story/1121610/saudi ... to-kingdom

Saudi Prince: Fracking Is Threat To Kingdom

A Saudi prince has warned that his oil-reliant nation is under threat because of fracking technology being developed elsewhere around the world.

Billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said the Gulf Arab kingdom needed to reduce its reliance on crude oil and diversify its revenues.

His warning comes as rising shale energy supplies in the United States cut global demand for Saudi oil.

In an open letter to his country's oil minister Ali al Naimi and other government heads, published on Sunday via his Twitter account, Prince Alwaleed said demand for oil from Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) member states was "in continuous decline".

He said Saudi Arabia's heavy dependence on oil was "a truth that has really become a source of worry for many".

He added that the world's biggest crude oil exporter should implement "swift measures" to diversify its economy.

Prince Alwaleed, owner of international investment firm Kingdom Holding, is unusually outspoken for a top Saudi businessman.

But his warning reflects growing concern in private among many Saudis about the long-term impact of shale technology.

It is allowing the US and Canada to tap unconventional oil deposits which they could not reach just a few years ago.

Chancellor George Osborne has also announced support for fracking in Britain and in offshore waters, to ease a reliance on foreign oil and gas.

Some analysts think this may push demand for Saudi oil, as well as global oil prices, down sharply over the next decade.

Over the past couple of years the Saudi government has taken some initial steps to develop the economy beyond oil.

It has sought to liberalise the aviation sector and provided finance to small, entrepreneurial firms in the services and technology sectors.

Mr Naimi said publicly in May that he was not concerned about rising US shale oil supplies.

Prince Alwaleed told Mr Naimi in his open letter, which was dated May 13 this year, that he disagreed with him.

The prince said: "Our country is facing a threat with the continuation of its near-complete reliance on oil, especially as 92% of the budget for this year depends on oil.

"It is necessary to diversify sources of revenue, establish a clear vision for that and start implementing it immediately."

The prince said Saudi Arabia should move ahead with plans for nuclear and solar energy production to cut local consumption of oil.

The shale oil threat means Saudi Arabia will not be able to raise its production capacity to 15 million barrels of oil per day (mbpd), Prince Alwaleed argued.

Current capacity is about 12.5mbpd; a few years ago the country planned to increase capacity to 15mbpd, but then put the plan on hold after the global financial crisis.

While most Saudi officials have in public insisted they are not worried by the shale threat, Opec has recognised that it needs to address the issue.

In a report earlier this month, Opec forecast demand for its oil in 2014 would average 29.61mbpd, down 250,000bpd from 2013. It cited rising non-Opec supply, especially from the US.

The fracking warning comes as Saudi Arabia announced three foreign consortiums - led by US, Spanish and Italian firms - have won a $22.5bn contract to build Riyadh's 110-mile, six-line metro train network.

[VKumar]

Hundreds of muslims in a prominent mosque in Cairo butchered by Egyptian Army and goondas. Not a single Indian or Paki mullah has anything to say. No comments from the hundreds of Human Rights NGOs. Where is humanity headed?

[mraghu]

In fact the al-fateh mosque was raided, How are the seculars reacting in India ?No body is calling for a boycott of egyptian goods or asking to break off relations with egypt.

[abhishek_sharma]

It only gets worse from here

[Singha]

looks like kurds and jihadi militias are in a serious fight:

TOI
QURU GUSIK (Iraq): Thousands of Syrian Kurds have poured into Iraq over the past few days, to escape deadly clashes between Kurdish fighters and jihadists and seeking a respite from privation.

The UN says more than 15,000 refugees have crossed into Iraq in the latest influx since Thursday, with more expected to follow.

[Lalmohan]

the saudi prince may wish to diversify his economy - but with no other natural resources, or agriculture, low population - and that too mostly pampered and reared on lavish handouts with no work ethic and religious extremism and a poor world outlook... his options may be rather limited

the end might come sooner than everyone expected

[Austin]

Saudi subversion: Gulf kingdom backs Egypt in defiance of Washington

The open backing by Saudi King Abdullah for the military crackdown in Egypt adds an entirely new dimension to the ongoing crisis.

RT was one of the few to report that the Egyptian military’s removal by force of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi and his entire government was undertaken with the firm, secret backing of Saudi Arabia and several Gulf oil states, directly in defiance of Washington’s agenda.

Now Saudi King Abdullah has confirmed this in an open declaration of support for Egypt’s military action against what the King called “terrorists.” It is the most open declaration to date that there is a huge and deepening rift between Washington and the Saudis of a scale perhaps unprecedented since the 1945 agreements between US President Roosevelt and then King Ibn Saud.

In his official August 16 statement, King Abdullah declared, “The people and government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stood and still stand today with our brothers in Egypt against terrorism, extremism and sedition, and against whoever is trying to interfere in Egypt's internal affairs…” So much for Obama’s call for “dialogue” between the army and the Brotherhood.

The Saudi support for Army head and Defense Minister General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi was immediately backed by Jordan and the Emirates. It came after several days of violent protests by Muslim Brotherhood supporters in several Egyptian cities, which resulted in hundreds of deaths in clashes between the military and Brotherhood backers demanding Morsi’s return. NATO governments, led by Washington, have at the same time have tried to increase pressure on the provisional government to reinstate Morsi and the “democratically elected” government.

The US cancelled joint military exercises with Egypt and warned that the “traditional” military ties with the US were at risk should the military refuse to budge. Angela Merkel phoned French President Hollande on August 16 and both called for an EU “review” of relations with Egypt. What is clear in both EU and Washington reactions to date is that they are hard-pressed to do anything.

The EU is hardly eager to inflame Saudi leaders into another oil embargo, as was done in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War. Now the open backing by Saudi King Abdullah for the military crackdown creates an entirely new dimension to the crisis.

[Philip]

"All roads lead to the CIA" ! The truth has finally outed about the Iranian coup. Just as it did some years ago about the bombing of the Air India Kashmir Princess,which dear Tim H,brushed off as "it happened a long time ago"!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 75160.html

The truth about the CIA and Iran: US intelligence agency finally admits role in coup
Sixty years on, declassified documents have finally revealed that the agency was behind the 1953 coup – as Iranians long suspected

Tim Walker
Tuesday 20 August 2013

The events of 19 August 1953 have cast a long shadow over modern Iran and its political rivals.

Generations of Iranians have blamed the US intelligence agency and its British partners for planning and executing the coup that overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and two US presidents – Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – have publicly owned up to their nation’s involvement.

But yesterday, precisely 60 years on, the CIA finally formally acknowledged its own role in a declassified document published by the independent National Security Archive research institute at George Washington University in Washington, DC. The confession comes in an extract from “The Battle for Iran”, an internal CIA report written by an in-house historian, which dates back to the mid-1970s. The crucial excerpt reads: “The military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.”

The CIA’s admission arrives at an inconvenient moment for Iran’s new moderate president, Hassan Rousani, who came to power in June promising a break from the adversarial foreign policy style of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rousani, who won a landslide election victory, recently appointed Iran’s former UN envoy Mohammad Javad Zarif to be his foreign minister; Zarif is said to have been at the heart of negotiations with the US to try to break the diplomatic deadlock between the two countries, which arguably stems from the events of 1953.

Mossadegh’s overthrow led to 26 years of authoritarian rule under the Shah, Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was backed by the US but ultimately overthrown himself in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The anti-Americanism generated by the coup also inspired the students who seized the US Embassy in Tehran during the 1979 revolution. More recently, the coup was invoked by President Ahmadinejad during the dispute over his country’s nuclear programme; Ahmadinejad demanded an apology for 1953.

The declassified account of the coup begins by relating the political backdrop to the CIA’s intervention. Mossadegh had been elected prime minister in 1951, several years after Iran achieved independence from Great Britain. One of his first acts was to nationalise the country’s oil industry, which at the time was controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – later renamed BP. The British government, dismayed by the potential loss of its most precious foreign asset, called for a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil.

According to “The Battle for Iran”, Mossadegh “had become so committed to the ideals of nationalism that he did things that could not have conceivably helped his people… In refusing to bargain… with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he was in fact defying the professional politicians of the British government. These leaders believed, with good reason, that cheap oil for Britain and high profits for the company were vital to their national interests.”

The US, meanwhile, believed Mossadegh’s actions left Iran “open to Soviet aggression” just as the Cold War was escalating. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Dwight D Eisenhower approved the coup, which was codenamed “TPAJAX” by the CIA, but known to British intelligence as “Operation Boot”. The mission began by promoting anti-Mossadegh propaganda, bribing members of the Iranian parliament, and enlisting the Shah to take part.

An attempt to arrest Mossadegh on the evening of 15 August failed, but on 19 August a mob paid by the CIA rioted in Tehran, and then marched on the Prime Minister’s residence. According to Donald N Wilber, one of the planners of the coup, who wrote his own account shortly afterwards: “The Army very soon joined the pro-Shah movement and by noon that day it was clear that Tehran, as well as certain provincial areas, were controlled by pro-Shah street groups and Army units… By the end of 19 August… members of the Mossadeq government were either in hiding or were incarcerated.”

According to Wilber, within days the CIA gave the new regime $5m to help provide stability. Many of Mossadegh’s supporters were imprisoned or executed. As many as 800 people may have been killed. Mossadegh was convicted of treason and sentenced to three years in jail; he spent the rest of his life under house arrest and died in 1967.

Speaking in Cairo in 2009, President Barack Obama acknowledged the role of the US in the coup, saying, “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.”

Yet the CIA has waited until now to openly admit its involvement, not least in order to maintain good relations with the British secret services, which have always been reluctant to reveal their part in Mossadegh’s ousting – even though the episode has long been public knowledge.

The National Security Archive’s Deputy Director Malcolm Byrne, the editor responsible for analysing the declassified documents, said the agency ought to release any remaining records relating to the period. “There is no longer good reason to keep secrets about such a critical episode in our recent past,” Byrne said. “The basic facts are widely known to every school child in Iran. Suppressing the details only distorts the history, and feeds into myth-making on all sides.”

See how the CIA "paid for" mobs to riot in the streets to engineer the coup! hasn't exactly that happened with sudden ferocity in the countries "blessed" by the "Arab Spring"? We saw a similar tactic used in the so-called "Orange" revolutions in former Warsaw Pact ,Eastern European nations earlier. For some time the govts. changed to right wing pro-NATO entities,only to se ethem routed in subsequent elections as we have seen in Ukraine for example.Shaky-Willy in Georgia is nothing but another Reza Pahlavi,propped up by the CIA.His unforgettable duck for cover during the spat with Russia destroyed his macho image once and for all.

While I'm not a blind supporter of AH and the AA party,what is AH doing in the US of A? Is he playing the same role of another alleged CIA stooge ,the Sri Lankan Sarodhya movement head,Dr.Ariyaratne? In India,the CIA seems to be playing a game of "hedging its bets",so that no matter who loses the next elections , the CAI will win!

PS:has another democratically elected govt. in Egypt this time,similarly been thrown out? We will have to wait another 50 years to find out.Unfortunately,I certainly won't be alive by then to read the expose.If there are some young BR members,pl. try and remember my prophetic words if you can!