Don't be Fooled by Iran
June 1, 2013
Dissident Hamad Subani says Iran is not the enemy
of the NWO, hoped by patriots. Subani is the author
of a new secret history of Iran.
"Iran has always been a hotbed of intrigue and conspiracy directed against the rest of the Islamic World. "
by Hamad Subani (author of)
The Secret History of Iran
Given that the New World Order is a global phenomenon that seeks to enslave humanity, the Islamic World is not exempted from the conspiracies and secret societies of these same powers.
When Albert Pike allegedly predicted three World Wars, with the last one involving Muslims, it is safe to assume that a certain portion of the Islamic World would be playing its part in a massive staged conflict aimed at destroying the existing order.
Who would that player be? In the history of the Islamic World, Iran has always been a hotbed of intrigue and conspiracy directed against the rest of the Islamic World. Probably this can be attributed to its location, which is at a crossroad between the West and the Middle East. But looking back at Iran's past, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that secret groups have managed to control its destiny since ancient times.
anomalies and inconsistencies in the 1979 Revolution (which brought
Khomeini to power) have been noted in other conspiracy literature, there
are also several disparities between the activities of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and its stated goals.
The biggest contradiction was observed during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This was the biggest threat to the South Asia and the Middle East since the Mongols, and most Muslim countries who officially identified with Islam had become supportive of the Afghan resistance. Missing in action was the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its silence was indeed baffling.
Iran that emerged after the 1979 Revolution is completely different
from the rest of the Islamic World. The first major difference is the
nature of religious authority. In Iran, religious authority has been
tweaked over the centuries to create a pyramidal-hierarchical religious
bureaucracy that "manages" religion.
The problem with this arrangement
is that the wrong people on the top can also mandate wars, no questions
asked. The second major difference is over-centralization, which is
reminiscent of socialist states.
In the early years of the Islamic
Republic, the Powers That Be even tried to roll out nationalization
schemes to confiscate private property but were stymied because private
property is protected in Islamic law.
The third major difference is the presence of a network of secret societies that stretch all the way back to antiquity. This is fairly evident in esoteric architectural designs and government logos. Pyramidal buildings are springing up in Iranian cities, along with obelisks. The Iranian parliament is shaped like a giant pyramid. The logo of Iranian Secret Police features an all-seeing eye.
Following the Revolution of 1979, there were quixotic attempts at exporting the same brand of quasi-socialist-religious-
Now, under the guise of the "War on Terror" and the
"Arab Spring," many parts of the Islamic World are being dismantled,
politically and economically. Is this to make room for tomorrow's Iran?
Why does NATO push for Revolution in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and now Syria, but never Iran? Assuming that Iran is intended to play a dominant role in the Middle East, what exactly is this role going to be? Will Iran preside over the Middle East like some kind of Islamicized police state? Or will Iran bait Western powers into attacking the Middle East?
the thirteenth century, Iran was ruled by the Khwarezmshahs, a
diabolical people connected to the royal families of the Illuminati
Byzantine Empire (this cabal continues to influence Iran to this very
day, and poet-mystic Jalal al-din Rumi was among them).
Little known is the fact that the Khwarezmshahs were instrumental in baiting the Mongols into attacking and destroying the Islamic World. The people of Iran were the hardest hit by the Mongol invasion. As for the Khwarezmshahs, they were largely unharmed and were secretly rehabilitated into the families of Mongol princes. The Khwarezmshah king fled to safety to an island in the Caspian Sea. The Mongols conveniently forgot about him and instead pursued a sophisticated multi-phase program of destroying the Islamic World.
Iran is gearing towards a leadership role in the Islamic World at a time when the modern-day Mongols are encircling the Middle East. Before the 1979 Revolution, Western countries dumped sophisticated weapons and technology into Iran, including nuclear components. Companies at the heart of the American military-industrial complex built sophisticated bunkers, designed to resist nuclear attacks. We can only hope that these bunkers are not intended to be used as an "islands of safety" for the dark forces inside Iran, when (let's hope not) their work comes to fruition.
Related - Iran's "Challenging" Upcoming Election
James Perloff- Iran & the Shah- What Really Happened
First Comment from Dan:
I'll list in quotes a few assertions and innuendos from this article, and then my response to them.
Now, under the guise of the "War on Terror" and the "Arab Spring," many parts of the Islamic World are being dismantled, politically and economically. Is this to make room for tomorrow's Iran?"
Is that supposed to imply that Iran is behind the "War on Terror"? Everybody knows the beneficiary of the "War on Terror" the "Arab Spring" has been the US State Department and the NATO governments that serve as muscle of International Monetary Fund.
Before reading Subani's 'Secret History of Iran', a refresher course on the Neocon plan to take Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Jordon, and Iran might be advised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Subani writes, "Why does NATO push for Revolution in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and now Syria, but never Iran?"
They did. It failed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_Iranian_election_protests
Western countries dumped sophisticated weapons and technology into Iran, including nuclear components."
Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel has had at least 150 nuclear warheads for decades.
Former President says Israel has 150 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu exposed Israel's secret nuclear capability to an Australian newspaper in 1986. A female Mossad agent lured him back to Israel from Italy. He was then arrested and imprisoned for revealing state secrets, however they say he lied. He was released from lockup in 2004, but remains a virtual prisoner: He can never leave Israel, is barred from having contacts with non-Israelis, not allowed to have a phone or internet access, and not allowed within 500 yards of any embassies, or the border. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
No serious discussion on the danger of Iran in the Middle East can begin until that crucial fact is fully divulged by the Israeli government and US State Department.
Iran's not been the country wreaking havoc in the Middle East from Afghanistan to Lebanon for 30 years. The '79 revolution was internal, and overthrew a dictator that was installed by US and British in 1953, It wasn't Iran that invaded Iraq in 2003 countries and called it 'regime change'. It wasn't Iran that funded mercenary terrorists to topple Egypt, Libya, and Syria, calling it "Arab Spring".
I'll grant you that Iran's government may not be exactly what it appears, but none of Hamad Subani assertions hold up to scrutiny. It's off base.
REPLY FROM HS
It is true that the United States and Israel currently benefit from the aggression that is going on. But their aggression is not sustainable, it is more of a hit and run strategy, like the Mongols, they are only capable of inflicting destruction. For example, Israel could have ruled Palestine in a judicious and prosperous way, but they have certainly proved themselves incapable of that. Should Israel and the United States chose to fully devote themselves to war in the Middle East on the scale of the World Wars, they would face strong resistance. The Powers That Be are not stupid. They have always understood the value of grooming dialectical opposition within the enemy camp, one that is more palatable to the Muslim people.
The protests and demonstrations in Iran were never publicized by the Western media the same way as the Egyptian ones were. Regarding nuclear weapons, remember that Saddam had his country invaded for having a nuclear program that was roughly 1/10th of the scale of the Iranian one.