|Notify me of new HIR pieces!|
The Iranian Hostage
Crisis - Again
Is this hostage crisis different from
the 1979-80 Iranian
Historical and Investigative Research - 03
Does it strike you as odd that the US and Britain never attack Iran? The Islamist regime has been in place since 1979 and invariably appears very tough against the West. But the Western powers never attack Iran. What in fact happens is that the Western powers assist the Iranian Islamist regime. For example, during the 1980s the US sent billions of dollars in armament to the Iranians every year, for the duration of the Iran-Iraq war (while claiming in public that the Iranians were their bitterest enemies). When this was discovered it was called the 'Iran-Contra' scandal (because the US was also, simultaneously, arming the Contra terrorist force in Central America).
Iran-Contra is just one example. In fact, as HIR has documented, the entire history of US foreign policy toward Iran has been pro-Iranian. What is anti-Iranian is the rhetoric. But actions speak louder than words. So we should at least worry that all this brouhaha concerning the present ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ may be a trick.
In order to play the same trick on a person twice, with the same results, it must be true:
1) that this person does not understand the first trick;
2) that this person does not remember the first trick.
The entire point of this website is to teach us about the past, so that the same tricks cannot repeatedly be played on us. We’ve got an ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ going on, because Iran has seized 15 British soldiers. But we’ve been here before: in 1979, the same Iranian Islamist regime seized hostages at the US embassy. I shall take a look, first, at the propagandistic consequences of the present crisis, so that we may compare these to the ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ of 1979-80. If the same trick is being played on us, certain repeated patterns will stick out.
For a picture of how the current ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ is being interpreted, I turn to the reports of major newspapers.
First, the dramatic scene:
“Stones and fireworks were thrown at the British Embassy in Teheran yesterday as more than 200 students marched demanding that the 15 Royal Navy prisoners be put on trial for espionage.”
There were also lots of angry Iranian students in 1979. They called the US 'Great Satan.' It was impressive: an image of great bellicosity. For the present crisis, The Australian carries the following headline “TEHRAN SPOILING FOR A FIGHT.” As in 1979, the message is clear: the Iranians are tough mothers.
What about the British? The same newspaper refers us to a “letter from Leading [British] Seaman Faye Turner calling on British Prime Minister Tony Blair to pull out of Iraq.” And another Australian paper, the Advertiser, explains the contrasting British attitude in a headline “BRITAIN SOOTHES TENSIONS OVER NAVY HOSTAGES.” The article explains that:
“Britain softened its rhetoric against Iran in the crisis over 15 detained navy personnel yesterday, as a poll suggested most Britons backed the Government's goal of resolving the standoff through diplomacy.”
The Iranians are tough and the British are weak -- that seems to be the message. Is this just ugly sniping by foreigners? But the British press appears to be saying it with more venom. Robert Fiske writes in the British daily The Independent:
“Our Marines are hostages. Two more were shown on Iranian TV. Petrol bombs burst behind the walls of the British embassy in Tehran. But it’s definitely not the war on terror. It’s the war of humiliation. The humiliation of Britain, the humiliation of Tony Blair, of the British military, of George Bush and the whole Iraqi shooting match. And the master of humiliation -- even if Tony Blair doesn’t realize it -- is Iran, a nation which feels itself forever humiliated by the West.”
Notice there is a double message here: yes, the Iranians are humiliating the British, but they have a right to do so, because the British have been humiliating the Iranians.
Fiske accuses (or sneers) that the US is also being humiliated. The Daily Telegraph explains that Bush’s policy is precisely that of Blair’s (unless it is the other way around):
“The new footage of the captives came as world leaders led by US President George Bush stepped up the pressure on Iran with calls for the 15 British hostages to be released.
Mr Bush publicly backed Tony Blair's efforts to resolve the situation peacefully...”
Is this going to hurt the so-called ‘Peace’ Process in Israel? Will the Western powers now be more inclined to support Israel against the terrorists? Not at all. If anything this will accelerate the genocidal ‘Peace’ Process so that the destruction of Israel can be carried out before there is significant opinion change among ordinary people in the West. Writes Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post:
“Against this backdrop [Iran’s taking of hostages], and given the stakes involved, it could have been expected that the US and its allies would be concentrating their attention on how to weaken Iran and its terror proxies and curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But, alas, the US is doing just the opposite.
The Iranians acted as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was en route to the region. Since Friday Rice has shuttled between Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Jordan, and is on her way to Saudi Arabia. She is not working to coordinate moves to check Iran’s increasing bellicosity. Rather, Rice is laboring to empower Teheran’s terrorist allies in Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Fatah. This she does by promoting the so-called Arab peace plan which demands that Israel agree to dangerous and strategically catastrophic concessions to the Palestinian terrorist government.”
So, the effects of the ‘Iranian hostage crisis’ of 2007 are the following:
1) Iran’s prestige in the Muslim world grows as a challenger to the US and Britain.
2) The US and Britain appear weak and cowardly -- easy prey for determined Islamists.
3) The PLO races to achieve its goals thanks to US pressure.
According to an HIR investigation into the 1979-80 ‘Iranian hostage crisis,’ its consequences were the following:
1) Iran’s prestige in the Muslim world grew as a challenger to the US, and it got some cold hard cash, too.
2) The US appeared weak and cowardly -- easy prey for determined Islamists.
3) The PLO raced to achieve its goals thanks to US pressure.
You will notice the similarity.
Something else that HIR’s investigation shows is that, in 1979-80, the entire thing was theater, and it was run by the US ruling elite. The point? To promote what eventually would become a ‘peace’ process to give Israeli territory to the PLO, and to recruit more Muslims to Iran’s Islamist and terrorist movement, which the US has always been sponsoring.
The larger point? The destruction of Israel.
Here is the HIR piece on the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis. Those who don’t wish to be tricked again, in the exact same way, ought to read it.
Footnotes and Further
 Mob hurls stones and fireworks at British Embassy, The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), April 2, 2007 Monday, NEWS; Pg. 7, 746 words, Jimmy Miller in Teheran and Thomas Harding.
 Tehran spoiling for a fight, The Australian (Australia), April 2, 2007 Monday, All-round Country Edition, WORLD; Pg. 11, 593 words, Bronwen Maddox.
 Britain soothes tensions over navy hostages, The Advertiser (Australia), April 2, 2007 Monday, State Edition, FOREIGN; Pg. 26, 364 words, JILL LAWLESS, LONDON
 THE WAR OF HUMILIATION, The Independent (London), April 2, 2007 Monday, Fourth Edition, SPORT / FRONT PAGE; Pg. 68, 79 words, ROBERT FISK
 Iran broadcasts new 'confessions', The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), April 2, 2007 Monday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 463 words, Thomas Harding Stephanie Condron and Gary Cleland
An embrace of jihadist 'peace', The Jerusalem Post, March 27,
2007, Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. 15, 1574 words, Caroline B. Glick.
Notify me of new HIR pieces!