The Situation Is Worsening in Syrian South as US Tries to Defend Terrorists while Israel to Strike a deal with Russia

In the recent past, the situation in the Syrian south wasn’t covered hardly in media as in Idlib and Deir Ezzor. Meanwhile, the situation in the south deserves our attention.

After de-escalation zones in Eastern Ghouta and Homs have been essentially disappeared the question was raised on a format like that as a tool in principle. It was noted that such action could hardly be considered as facilitating the settlement of the crisis in Syria.

In the zones under the guise of the so-called moderate opposition, ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra have infiltrated and established control, as recent experience has shown. Hiding, their numbers reached tens of thousands.

Two de-escalation zones continue to function at present in Idlib province and in southern Syria. Everything is clear with Idlib de-escalation zone where all the radicals operating in Syria have being expelled from all over the country including members of numerous terrorist organizations for the last two years. But in the south, the situation is not so clear.

It should be recalled that bordering with Jordan southern de-escalation zone was negotiated in Astana and established in May 2017. In early July, its status was clarified during the talks between the representatives of Russia, the United States, and Jordan. That time, the US and Jordan, as guarantor countries, pledged not only to ensure the observance of the ceasefire by the armed opposition but also to continue the fight against terrorism inside the zone.

Firstly, the bulk of ‘the southern zone’ was controlled in fact by the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) which was provided with money and weapons by Washington and Tel Aviv as well as with the regular humanitarian convoys.

However, the situation on the ground in that area has changed significantly since the summer of 2017. The experts claim approximately 55% of zone’s territory passed under the control of ISIS and al-Nusra to date. The total number of jihadists there comprises more than 5 thousand people.

Such a development prompted to raise the question of an operation to eliminate terrorists in the de-escalation area. No wonder Israel has become among the first to support clearing borderlines of the radicals. Tel Aviv even agreed to endure SAA’s returning up to the demarcation line in the Golan Heights which was really too difficult to embrace. The interest of Netanyahu is obvious. After all, so many terrorists located just near the Syrian-Israeli border are over the top, even for him.

Thus, Israel insisted on the withdrawal of pro-Iranian Shiite forces deep into the Syrian territory, as a condition for supporting the counterterrorist operation in ‘the southern zone’. It was done, as we know.

The Syrian Arab Army subsequently began to plan an offensive but the operation was postponed because of Washington’s position. The United States stated it would not allow the Syrian army to enter the so-called de-escalation zone.

The US decides to create ‘the southern zone’ having far-reaching benefits, in fact. Apparently, by providing the radicals with money and weapons and by turning a blind eye to ISIS expansion the White House all the while has been preparing a foothold to attack Damascus located less than 100 kilometers from this zone of de-escalation. Does Washington strive to retain at least something to continue reverberating around Syria even at the hands of terrorists?

VIDEO: What Do Jews Do For A Living?

Have you ever wondered why Jews have so much power? This video answers the question.

EXCLUSIVE: Eastern Ghouta’s Jihadists are Ready to Cooperate

Militants from radical groups Faylaq al-Rahman have cut their ties with the Tahrir al-Sham terrorist organization with the aim to leave Eastern Ghouta. It is also reported about several clashes between militants of the two groups.

The decision to split was taken after a number of demonstrations in the town of Kafr Batna. According to local sources, citizens of the town who have been suffering from the war every day demanded jihadists to leave the region. Many of them believe that terrorists’ withdrawal will finally bring peace to Eastern Ghouta.

To prove their readiness the radicals in this regard have made a joint statement from Eastern Ghouta as Faylaq al-Rahman Corps, Jaysh al-Islam, and Ahrar al-Sham. They all describe themselves as members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and emphasize a remarkable affirmation. The radicals confirm readiness to conduct negotiations in Geneva with the Russian side under the auspices of the United Nations, to discuss the mechanism and procedures for the implementation of Security Council resolution 2401, which demands a cease-fire.

Inside Syria Media Center publishes their release below.

Sophie Mangal is an American Patriot, 27, is a special investigative writer and contributor for Her Hindu surname “Mangal” derives from the Sanskrit “mangala,” meaning “auspicious.” Sophie Mangal – a woman with a genuine passion for Syria, for the church, and for justice. After attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a media and journalism major, Mangal monitored the refugee crisis in Europe, drawing parallels between the Syrian conflict and the Balkan problem, and has visited Syria on several occasions. She can be reached at


DEBATE: Trump’s Jerusalem Al-Quds Decision

It is very revolting to see how they keep brainwashing the people into thinking that the US, now led by Zionist Trump is leading the world to WWIII. People MUST realize that the West was hijacked centuries ago and the plan to destroy it from within has been unfolding right in front of our eyes. What we are seeing today is the fulfillment of a long-desired goal of international Jewry. Every single step they take has been carefully planned. Israel will be destroyed and the Jews who are leading the evil game will move to Russia where Putin is waiting with open arms. The United States will also be destroyed and many cities will disappear. Christians will be persecuted.

COMMENTARY: How A Case Against Israel Officials Helped Saudi Arabia

To add more confusion to our evil Talmudic world, it looks like the case against Israeli officials as well as against Trump and his comrades was actually intended to help Saudi Arabia. The Saudis want to put pressure on US lawmakers into revising this new law (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act – JASTA) that enables victims of 9-11 to sue Saudi Arabia for their alleged role in aiding the hijackers.

JASTA only allows suits against foreign governments – not individuals. So why not sue Israel? This does not mean that Saudi Arabia (Israel’s sister) did not play a crucial role. But isn’t it the case that Israel and its allies have decided to point their finger at Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden as solely responsible for 9-11? What is CLEAR is that The United States is ruled by TRAITORS. 

“How a case against Israel officials helped Saudi Arabia,” Source:

A US lawyer with ties to Saudi Arabia filed a “false alarm” lawsuit against senior Israeli and Trump administration officials, which helped the country’s lobbying efforts against legislation that allows US citizens to sue Riyadh over the September 11 attacks.

Al Jazeera has discovered that Martin McMahon, who filed the complaint in February at a district court, has connections to Saudi Arabia dating back to at least 2003.

The lawsuit alleges the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, the Trump administration’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, and the Kushner Family Foundation, the charity of Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner all committed or financed war crimes in violation of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).

JASTA is an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) that limited foreign states’ immunity to lawsuits brought by US citizens in relation to support for “acts of terrorism”. It became law in September 2016 after a veto from then-president Obama was overridden by US Congress.

The complaint against Israeli and Trump-related officials was then used by Saudi lobbyists to show members of Congress how a key ally could be put at risk by JASTA, according to Brian McGlinchey, editor of

‘Shaky lawsuit’

McGlinchey told Al Jazeera he became aware of the suit because it “was used as a talking point” for anti-JASTA lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

“They pointed to the complaint and said, ‘Here are the unintended consequences,'” he said, explaining the lawsuit was used as an example of a US ally put at risk of legal action.

McGlinchey noted the February lawsuit appeared to have been made on weak grounds.

“When you looked at the actual complaint, the State of Israel isn’t named,” he said. “It seemed a shaky invocation of JASTA.

The amendment only applies to foreign states and related entities, not individuals, as in the lawsuit.

According to 28pages, a “false alarm” complaint refers to a lawsuit seemingly filed for the purpose of providing lobbyists another piece of ammunition to argue for their specific goal.

Others called into question the text of the suit itself, which is “long and rambling”, according to William Dodge, a professor of law at the University of California’s Davis School of Law and member of the US State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Law.

“There’s been a lot of litigation around foreign official immunity recently,”

Dodge said in an interview, naming several cases that are testing the limits of the immunity granted to officials such as a case brought against Muhammad Al Samantar, Somalia’s prime minister from 1988 to 1990 under Somali strongman Siad Barre.

Samantar admitted to ordering extrajudicial torture and killings, the State Department decided he was not immune, though it wasn’t an absolute ruling.


“None of [the litigation] is around JASTA, because JASTA doesn’t affect foreign officials. None of this depends on the passage of JASTA,” Dodge explained. “Just because you name JASTA in a complaint doesn’t mean it will be seriously considered.”

Robert Tolchin, an attorney representing an accounting firm named in McMahon’s lawsuit for working with the Kushner Family Foundation, which donates to Israeli settlement organisations in the occupied West Bank, is similarly confused by what he called the “legal mumbo jumbo” contained in the text.

According to a motion to dismiss filed by Tolchin, McMahon did not meet basic legal requirements of giving street addresses for the plaintiffs, using instead the city or country in which they live.

McMahon responded with an affidavit from Miko Peled, an anti-occupation Israeli activist and author living in the US, which said “locating an individual address in Palestine is a very difficult task” because of an “uncertain” postal system.

Tolchin filed another response saying many of the plaintiffs listed in the suit, including Peled, live in the US, so the reasoning remained without merit. His research also found 13 plaintiffs were killed by Israeli forces.

No representatives of the estates of the deceased have been named, Tolchin wrote, and the deceased “do not have standing to sue in their own name simply because a lawyer has decided to name them as plaintiffs”.

Several of the living plaintiffs declined to be interviewed for this article, others did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Al Jazeera asked Tolchin for his take on the legislation, to which he replied, “I’m not sure who’s paying him to file these complaints, but I’m sure someone is.”

Saudi connections

While it’s not known who, if anyone, pays for the time required to file the complaints, Al Jazeera has learned that McMahon has a history of working for Saudi interests.

The attorney worked as a lobbyist for the Dallah al-Baraka Holding Company, a Saudi conglomerate, on the issues of banking, foreign relations, and law enforcement from March 2003 to August 2006, according to lobbying disclosures.

Al-Baraka is one of the largest business holdings in the Middle East with investments in banking, healthcare, manufacturing and many other sectors. It has also been accused of providing funds to the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks in a complaint filed in 2003.

The suit alleges that al-Baraka bank provided Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national and one of the founders of al-Qaeda who is accused of the planning of the attacks, with “financial infrastructures in Sudan beginning in 1983” and continuing for decades.

It also claims that Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national who allegedly befriended two of the hijackers and provided them with monetary support after they entered the US, was assistant to the Director of Finance for Dallah Avco, an aviation holding of al-Baraka, according to an application for a PhDprogramme.

Another lawsuit filed against al-Baraka alleges the conglomerate gave donations to al-Haramain Foundation, a Saudi charity, that funneled financial support to al-Qaeda, even after the events of September 11, according to a CBS News report from 2004. The US Treasury found direct ties between al-Haramain and al-Qaeda that year.

These and many other, similar suits were merged by August 1, when Saudi Arabia’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss legal action against the kingdom. McMahon currently serves as the defense attorney for Wael Jalaidan, one of the original founders of al-Qaeda, in one of these cases.

Jalaidan, a Saudi national, was named “an associate of Usama bin Laden and a supporter of [al-Qaeda]” in 2002 by the US Treasury Department and Saudi Arabia, resulting in the freezing of his assets.

As recently as June 2017, McMahon was working to release funds from Jalaidan’s Swiss bank accounts in order to secure payment for attorney fees, according to emails between the attorney and the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control entered into public record.

McMahon did not respond to a request for comment.

Al Jazeera spoke with Timothy LaPira, associate professor of political science at James Madison University and author of numerous works on lobbying, about the use of lawsuits to influence lawmakers.

“A lawsuit that isn’t going anywhere? I haven’t heard of lobbyists using anything like this,” LaPira said, going on to say that lobbyists depend on their credibility.

Such a lawsuit wouldn’t get far with lawmakers, he concluded.

‘Insidious’ campaign

However, Saudi Arabia has resorted to new techniques in its lobbying campaign, according to Terry Strada, the chairperson of the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism and widow of Tom Strada, one of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the attack on the Twin Towers.

She filed a 17-page complaint to the Department of Justice in March that alleged Saudi Arabia’s “unprecedented foreign influence campaign” used “insidious, deceptive foreign propaganda” to try to amend or repeal JASTA.

The “insidious” propaganda was a Saudi campaign at the beginning of 2017 to recruit and fly US veterans to Capitol Hill to lobby against JASTA without informing them of who was paying for their travels.

The Saudi government retained the services of DC public relations firm Qorvis MSLGROUP to oversee this campaign.

Not only was the campaign misleading to the veterans, but it may have put them in legal jeopardy.

The US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires anyone who represents the interest of foreign states in a “political or quasi-political capacity” to disclose their relationship or face fines and possible jail

In spite of these penalties, FARA goes notoriously unenforced. Democrats introduced a bill on August 1 to strengthen enforcement of the act.

The complaint asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to conduct “an immediate national security investigation to determine the scope and breadth of involvement and prosecute any criminal violations of FARA, or other federal law”.

Strada told Al Jazeera she hasn’t heard much regarding Saudi lobby activities since the plot behind the veterans was uncovered. “I think they’re trying to distract people… Now they’re pointing the finger at Qatar.”

While she hasn’t heard from the Saudi lobby recently, she expects further campaigns. Strada said she knows they’ve “got something up their sleeve”.


ISIS Army Trainers

COMMENTARY: U.S. Trained ISIS Forces At Secret Jordan Base

How much more proof is needed for the world to see who the real enemy is? It is NOT ISIS, but what ISIS stands for (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) and that is World Control but not exactly by Muslims, but by the tribe who created the monster, trained it and, continues to feed it with your own money! The monster will be to blame for exterminating all faiths aka Goyim. The tribe’s faith is worshipping Lucifer, that one will not be touched. 

ISIS Army Trainers

The US trained members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, in 2012 at a secret base in Jordan.

Jordanian officials state that the training was to aid insurgents fighting Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime and wasn’t intended for current campaign in Iraq.

Gee, we certainly do have a habit of training and providing arms to terrorists that turn around and cause problems, don’t we? Bin Laden, Syrian rebels, ISIS, etc.

The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.

In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey, and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.

Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on the use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine’s report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

The Jordanian officials spoke to WND amid concern the sectarian violence in Iraq will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.

ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.


Valtrex no prescription
Buy Abilify online
buy levaquin online

Iran Attack ISIS

VIDEO: Trump Attacks Iran, MSM Goes After Philip Defranco

While American’s are glued to their televisions following the latest trendy brainwashing series or the Comey hearing the tribe is following its plan without much interference. Can’t people SEE that their beloved country will soon go to war with Iran which will be backed by Russia and China and that will all lead to WWIII and a One World Government? Haven’t we learned anything on how they use ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) to create the problem so they can then provide the solution?


COMMENTARY: Why Is Russia Silent When Israel Bombs Syria?

Some call us a ‘Putin bashing’ site. The problem with these people is that they don’t take their time to study history, learn the truth about the Soviet Union and learn about the real Communist Party and how they work. It is easier to follow mainstream media or today’s communist alt-media and repeat the same propaganda than it is to see the truth and expose it.

By helping the tribe they are going against themselves. There is oil in the Golan Heights and very possibly Russia, Assad, Israel and it’s allies are dividing the pie and of course using the fabricated war as an excuse to spread terrorism, kill goyim and push for WWIII. Sounds crazy? Read history. It’s happened before, it will happen again. All these wars have other motives, not the ones presented to us – The Goyim. Don’t repeat what you hear, RESEARCH! 


“Why Is Russia Silent When Israel Bombs Syria? | War and Conflict,” Source:

More and more surprising is the reaction of Russia to the terrorist actions of Israel towards Syria! What is the reason for such connivance?
Only in the last two years since the strengthening of the Russian military presence in Syria, the Zionists have committed more than 30 attacks on various military facilities in Syria, including those in the zone of responsibility of Russian air defense systems. But Russia does not answer, does not defend its ally and is silent …

A very strange and surprising silence. We can not imagine if this happened during the times of the USSR.

Not only we are surprised.

The Veterans Today website also expressed surprise: URGENT: Russia Silent as Israel Bombs Syria

The details of the Israeli Air Force attack on the position of the Syrian Arab army (SAA) in the in Quneitra Governorate have been disclosed.

As it turned out, Israeli aviation attacked the Syrian government troops with unmanned aerial vehicles. The soldiers of SAA’s 90th Infantry Brigade were under fire.

The Israeli Air Force planes struck a missile attack at the positions of the Syrian army in the Khan Arnabeh district of Quneitra Governorate. It was also reported earlier the blow was carried out to the east of the village of Ein Ayshaa.

Two missiles were fired at 06.45 p.m. when government forces were repulsing  Al-Qaeda’s attacks in the vicinity of the city of Quneitra.

The remnants of an Israeli missile that hit SAA Golan regiment’s tank.

The incident led to heavy losses of equipment and material in the Syrian Arab army.

There are reports that Al-Qaeda terrorists infiltrated Quneitra from the Golan Heights occupied by Israel with the aim to strengthen the front in Madinat al-Ba’ath.

Al-Qaeda terrorists infiltrated

Apparently, Israel had prepared and launched a missile strike in order to provide artillery support to Al-Qaeda terrorists. The Israeli drones recorded in the province of Quneitra make it possible to conclude that Al-Qaeda is provided with reconnaissance information from the battlefields with Israel help too.

Now we see that even when terrorist Israel is not hiding helps terrorists with Al-Qaida, Russia is silent.

What is the reason for this silence?

To understand this, we simply need to recall what Brigadier General Nizar Abd al-Qader said in an interview for the Lebanese newspaper Al-Jumhuriyah:

“Russia has a strong Jewish lobby that influences power and does not want to quarrel with its historical homeland.”



Anglo-Soviet Invasion Of Iran – Wikipedia

It is important to go back and refresh our knowledge of history in order to better understand what is happening in the Middle East with a bit more perspective. Germany has always been used as the scapegoat because of its strength and strategic location. It resisted the Communist invasion of Europe with all its might. After Hitler was defeated by the tribe, and their American and British puppets, Europe began its downfall and the European Union has been preparing the grounds for a future Soviet invasion that we already see in the works. Money and power are the only two things that the tribe has since it lacks everything else, without them they have nothing. The Middle East has been an objective to them because of its natural resources. If we stood together and boycotted their money making machines, we would certainly defeat them for good. 

“Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran – Wikipedia,” Source:
The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, also known as Anglo-Soviet invasion of Persia, was the invasion of the Empire of Iran during World War II by Soviet, British and other Commonwealth armed forces. The invasion lasted from 25 August to 17 September 1941 and was codenamed Operation Countenance. Its purpose was to secure Iranian oil fields and ensure Allied supply lines (see Persian Corridor) for the USSR, fighting against Axis forces on the Eastern Front. Though Iran was neutral, the Allies considered King Reza Shah to be friendly to the Axis powers, deposed him during the subsequent occupation and replaced him with his young son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[2]


In 1925, after years of civil war, turmoil and foreign intervention, Persia was unified under the rule of Reza Khan, who crowned himself to become Reza Shah that same year. Later, in 1935, he asked foreign delegates to use the term Iran, the historical name of the country, used by its native people, in formal correspondence. He set on an ambitious program of economic, cultural, and military modernisation. Iran, which had been a[3] divided and isolated country under the rule of the Qajar Dynasty, was now rapidly evolving into a modern industrial state. Reza Shah also made many improvements, such as building infrastructure, expanding cities and transportation networks, and establishing schools.[4] He also set forth on a policy of neutrality, but to help finance and support his ambitious modernisation projects, he needed the help of the west.[2][4]

For many decades, Iran and the German Empire had cultivated ties, partly as a counter to the imperial ambitions of Britain and the Russian Empire (and later, the Soviet Union). Trading with Germany appealed to Iran because the Germans did not have a history of imperialism in the region, unlike the British and Russians.[2][4] Iranian embassies in occupied European capitals rescued over 1,500 Jews and secretly granted them Iranian citizenship, allowing them to move to Iran.[2]

The British began to accuse Iran of supporting Nazism and being pro-German.[2] Although Reza Shah declared neutrality at an early stage of World War II, Iran assumed greater strategic importance to the British government, which feared that the Abadan Refinery (of the UK-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) might fall into German hands; producing eight million tons of oil in 1940, the refinery was a crucial part of the Allied war effort.[2][5] Tensions with Iran had been strained since 1931 when the Shah canceled the D’Arcy Concession, which gave the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company the exclusive right to sell Iranian oil, with Iran receiving only 10 percent (possibly 16 percent) of the revenue.[6] of the profits.[2][4]

Following Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union became formal Allies, providing further impetus for an Allied invasion.[7] With the German Army steadily advancing through the Soviet Union, the Persian Corridor formed by the Trans-Iranian Railway was one of the easiest ways for the Allies to get Lend-Lease supplies to the Soviets, sent by sea from the United States. British and Soviet planners recognized the importance of that railway and sought to control it. As increasing U-boat attacks and winter ice made convoys to Arkhangelsk dangerous, the railway became an increasingly attractive route. The Soviets wanted to make Iranian Azerbaijan and the Turkmen Sahra part of the Soviet Union or even turn Iran into a communist state. The two Allied nations applied pressure on Iran and the Shah, which led only to increased tensions and anti-British rallies in Tehran. The British described the protests as being “pro-German”.[2][4] Iran’s strategic position threatened Soviet Caucasian oil and their armies’ rear and a German advance would threaten British communications between India and the Mediterranean.[8]:215–216

Demands from the Allies for the expulsion of German residents in Iran (mostly workers and diplomats), were refused by the Shah. A British embassy report in 1940, estimated that there were almost 1,000 German nationals in Iran.[9] According to Iran’s Ettelaat newspaper, there were actually 690 German nationals in Iran (out of a total of 4,630 foreigners, including 2,590 British).[10] Jean Beaumont estimates that “probably no more than 3,000″ Germans actually lived in Iran, but they were believed to have a disproportionate influence because of their employment in strategic government industries and Iran’s transport and communications network”.[8]:215

However, the Iranians also began to reduce their trade with the Germans under Allied demands.[2][4] Reza Shah sought to remain neutral and anger neither side, which was becoming increasingly difficult with the British/Soviet demands on Iran. British forces were already present in sizeable numbers in Iraq as a result of the Anglo-Iraqi War earlier in 1941. Thus, British troops were stationed on the western border of Iran prior to the invasion.


The Iranian warship Babr (Tiger) after being shelled by the British sloop HMS Shoreham during the surprise attack on Iran in August 1941. [11] The Babr was later sunk by the Australian sloop HMAS Yarra.

The invasion was a surprise attack, described by Allied forces as rapid and conducted with ease.[11] Prior to the invasion, two diplomatic notes were delivered to the Iranian government on 19 July and 17 August, requiring the Iranian government to expel German nationals.[12] The second of the notes was recognized by the prime minister Ali Mansur as a disguised ultimatum.[13][14] General Archibald Wavell later wrote in his despatch, “it was apparent that the Iranian Government fully expected an early British advance into Khuzistan and that reinforcements, including light and medium tanks, were being sent to Ahvaz”.[15][16]

Soviet and Indian soldiers meet in late August.

Following the invasion, Sir Reader Bullard and Andrey Andreyevich Smirnov, the British and Soviet ambassadors to Iran, were summoned. The Shah demanded to know why they were invading his country and why they had not declared war. Both answered that it was because of “German residents” in Iran. When the Shah asked if the Allies would stop their attack if he expelled the Germans, the ambassadors did not answer. The Shah sent a telegram to the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, pleading with him to stop the invasion. As the neutral United States had nothing to do with the attack, Roosevelt was not able to grant the Shah’s plea but stated that he believed that the “territorial integrity” of Iran should be respected.[2][4]

Military operations[edit]

The Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy attacked from the Persian Gulf while other Commonwealth forces came by land and air from Iraq. The Soviet Union invaded from the north, mostly from Transcaucasia, with the 44th, 47th and 53rd armies of the Transcaucasian Front (General Dmitry Timofeyevich Kozlov), occupying Iran’s northern provinces. Air force and naval units also participated in the battle. The Soviets used about 1,000 T-26 tank for their combat operations.[2]

Six days after the invasion and the ensuing Allied occupation of southern Iran, the British divisions previously known as “Iraq Command” (also known as Iraqforce) were renamed “Persia and Iraq Force” (Paiforce), under the command of Lieutenant-GeneralEdward Quinan. Paiforce was made up of the 8th and 10th Indian Infantry divisions, the 2nd Indian Armoured Brigade, 4th British Cavalry Brigade (later renamed 9th Armoured Brigade) and the 21st Indian Infantry Brigade. The invading Allies had 200,000 troops and modern aircraft, tanks, and artillery.[17]

Page book of The Regained Glory, a book in the subject of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This page is about Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran.

In response to the invasion, the Iranian Army mobilized nine infantry divisions, some of them motorized; two of the divisions also had tanks. The Iranian army had a standing force of 126,000–200,000 men. While Iran had taken numerous steps through the previous decade to strengthen, standardize and create a modern army, they did not have enough training, armor and air power to fight a multi-front war. Reza Shah’s modernisations had not been completed by the time war broke out[2] and the Iranian Army had been more concerned with civilian repression than invasions.[18]

The Iranian army was armed with the vz. 24 rifle, a Czech version of the German Mauser.[19] Iran had bought 100 FT-6 and Panzer 38(t)light tanks and additional La France TK-6 armored cars, enough to outfit their 1st and 2nd divisions.[20] Further Iranian orders had been delayed by World War II.[21] While it was a large order and they were excellent tanks, they were not enough to defeat a multi-front invasion by two great powers. The changing nature of tank warfare in the 1930s made all but 50 of them obsolete when the invasion began. Prior to the attack, the Royal Air Force RAF dropped leaflets on Iranian troops, asking them not to fight and to understand their country was “not threatened” as it was being “liberated” from possible Nazi destruction.[17]

Soviet and British soldiers rendezvous near Qazvin.

The Iranians had little time to organize a defense, as the Allies achieved a tactical surprise.[2] The war began in the early morning hours of 25 August, when RAF aircraft entered Iranian airspace. They bombed targets in the cities of Tehran and Qazvin and various other towns and dropped leaflets urging the Iranians to surrender. The Soviets bombed targets in cities such as Tabriz, Ardabil and Rasht. Civilian and residential areas were hit, and several hundred people were killed and wounded.[2][17] Reza Shah refused requests by his generals to destroy the road and transportation networks, largely because he did not want to damage the infrastructure that he had painstakingly built during his reign. That contributed to the speedy victory of the allies.[2]

With no allies, Iranian resistance was rapidly overwhelmed and neutralized by Soviet and British tanks and infantry. The British and Soviet forces met at Sanandaj (called Senna by the British) (160 kilometres (100 mi) west of Hamadan) and Qazvin (called Kazvin by the British) (160 kilometres (100 mi) west of Tehran and 320 kilometres (200 mi) north-east of Hamadan) on 30 and 31 August respectively.[2][17] Faced with massive defeats, the Shah ordered his military to stop fighting and stand down on 29 August, four days into the invasion.[2]

British Invasion of Khuzestan[edit]

The British assembled a naval task force under Commodore Cosmo Graham to seize Bandar Shahpur, Abadan, and Khorramshahr. It attacked at dawn on 25 August.[22]

The naval attack began at 04:10 at Abadan when HMS Shoreham opened fire on the Iranian sloop Palang, sinking it in a single salvo.[22] The Abadan Refinery was of vital importance to the British commanders as well as keeping the employees of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company safe from possible reprisals. Khuzestan province was defended by 27,000 troops from the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 16th infantry divisions, consisting of both light and mechanized infantry. All Iranian tanks were deployed in Khuzestan as part of the 1st and 2nd divisions.[21] A British naval and paratrooper landing force landed at Abadan securing the city and the refinery.[17] HMS Shoreham remained in the area and provided naval gunfire support.[22] The Iranians managed to put up a resistance and the refinery and the city were captured that afternoon after hand-to-hand combat resulted in the deaths of several British and Indian troops.

The Australian armed merchant cruiserHMAS Kanimbla and her escorts successfully navigated the Khor Musa inlet, arriving at Bandar Shapur at 04:15. The Kanimbla successfully landed two battalions of its troops, facing no resistance from Iranian patrol boats. Seven Axis merchant vessels were seized, while an eighth was scuttled.[22] The naval base there was secured that evening following heavy fighting. At Khorramshahr, HMAS Yarra surprised the Iranian sloop Babr, sinking it at its dock. There had been no time to prepare resistance, as the Iranians had been taken by surprise and the head of the navy, Gholamali Bayandor, was killed.[2]

Persian Gulf Command map showing position of posts and stations

The surprise led to virtually no resistance in other areas of Khuzestan. The RAF attacked airbases and communications and rapidly gained air superiority. They destroyed numerous Iranian aircraft on the ground, and protected their forces from Iranian counter-attacks.[17]

The 8th Indian Division (18th Brigade plus the 25th Brigade under command from the 10th Indian Division) advanced from Basra towards Qasr Sheikh (which was taken on 25 August) across the Shatt-al-Arab waterway and captured the city of Khorramshahr, which was next to Abadan on the same day. The Karun River was not secured, as Iranian snipers remained, impeding British advance for a short time. Britain also landed troops at Bandar Abbas and the Shatt-al-Arab was secured. By 26 August, there was no organized resistance remaining in the area, with the Iranian forces overwhelmed by superior firepower, 350 Iranians taken prisoner and many killed or scattered.[17]

The British hoped to capture Ahvaz and then drive north into Zagros Mountains passes to reach Qazvin, where they would link up with British troops in central Iran and Soviet troops from the north. By the early morning of 27 August, the British forces had reached Ahvaz.[2] The Iranians led by General Mohammad Shahbakhti, had prepared a strong defense. Iranian infantry had entrenched themselves around the city, with artillery support and tanks. Although Iranians had taken heavy losses and their morale was decreasing, they were prepared to fight hard. The Indian Army advance came to a halt and they were hesitant to cross the Karun River and attack the city. A British attack on the defenses around the city were repelled by Iranian tanks and infantry.[2]

Whether the Iranian defense could have been successful is debatable and on 29 August, after some more sporadic fighting, word reached the Iranian commanders at Ahvaz that their government had accepted a ceasefire and they were not to fight any longer.[2] The British and Iranians agreed as part of the ceasefire that the Iranians would not lay down their arms and remain at their posts but they would be joined by the British troops, who would carry out a parade in the city. In exchange, the Iranians would safely evacuate British residents in the city to British troops. The British with their Indian troops paraded in the city, with full military honors given by the Iranian general.[17]

British invasion of Central Iran[edit]

Map of Iraq and western Iran in 1941

Farther north, the 10th Indian Infantry Division[23] under Major-General William Slim attacked central Iran. Slim directed the battle remotely via radio from India. The Indian Army infantry and armor massed at the Iraqi border town of Khanaqin (160 kilometers (100 mi) north-east of Baghdad and 480 kilometers (300 mi) from Basra). Unlike the terrain in Khuzestan, the British were attacking in Kermanshah province, with mountainous terrain, advancing along steep mountain passes and a narrow road.[17]

The British force broke through the border at the town of Qasr-e Shirin and moved into the Naft Shahr oilfield with little opposition. The British stated that the operation had been carried out with minimum losses for the Iranians but British troops faced a determined defence by 2,000 Iranians as they tried to capture the town of Gilan-e Gharb 30 kilometres (20 mi) inside of Iran, which if successful would block the British from moving through the steep Pai Tak mountain pass.[17] The RAF provided close air support and was involved in several dogfights with Iranian aircraft. Six Iranian fighters were shot down and several others damaged, for no loss, ensuring air superiority. The RAF also bombed several local towns and dropped leaflets urging surrender.

The British captured Gilan-e-Gharb and attacked Iranian forces who defended the town of Sarpol-e-Zahab.[17] With overwhelming firepower and decreasing Iranian morale, the British captured that town, scattering the remaining defenders. The Pai Tak Pass, and the road to Kermanshah and eventually Tehran was open. The armored columns began to secure the pass and the areas around it.[17] The British forces moved along the Kermanshah highway towards the city of Shahabad. There was little Iranian resistance but some trees were cut down and a section of the road was even dynamited, which delayed the British forces for several hours.[17]

The main Iranian forces in the region consisted of the 5th and 12th infantry divisions of 30,000 troops with supporting artillery at Kermanshah and Sanandaj. They were all light infantry (as the mechanized and armor had been stretched thin fighting on multiple fronts). The British reached the outskirts of Shahabad in the early morning hours of 28 August after delays. At the village of Zibri, they faced a strong Iranian garrison willing to put up a fight which caused the British several casualties but with poor Iranian leadership and overwhelming British firepower, resistance crumbled and the British took Shahabad on the morning of the same day.[17] By 29 August, the British had reached the town of Kerend and were within 3 kilometers (2 mi) of Kermanshah and the Iranian commanders were told of the ceasefire order and stood down. The defenders declared Kermanshah an open city and the British entered on 1 September. They also entered Sanandaj peacefully and eventually Qazvin, which had already been captured by the Red Army.[17]

Soviet invasion of Northwestern Iran[edit]

British supply convoy with Soviet escorts in Iran, September 1941

The Soviet forces attacked on 25 August and Iranian airbases were destroyed by preliminary air attacks. The Soviets attacked using three armored spearheads, totaling over 1,000 tanks and motorized infantry; the Iranians had no tanks in the area.[2] The first force, consisting of the 47th Army[23] broke through the border and moved from the Azerbaijan SSR into Iranian Azerbaijan. They moved towards Tabriz and Lake Urmia. They captured the Iranian city of Jolfa. An Iranian reconnaissance aircraft discovered the forces south of Jolfa moving towards Marand. It was possible for the Iranian 3rd Division under General Matboodi to move motorized infantry towards Shibli to halt the breakthrough, but due to being taken by surprise, he failed to make the proper counter-attack. He also failed to destroy the bridges and highways with explosives, allowing the Soviets to rapidly move through the region.[2] Five Iranian bombers were intercepted trying to attack the Soviet positions around Jolfa.[17]

The 53rd Army crossed the border and moved towards the city of Ardabil, defended by Iran’s 15th Division led by Brigadier-General Qaderi.[23] Two Iranian regiments began to move towards the town of Nir to confront the invaders. Despite having a solid force and well-motivated troops, Qaderi jumped into his car and abandoned his troops. He sabotaged the defense even further by ordering the supply trucks delivering food, weapons, and artillery to unload their weapons to make way for his personal belongings. The Soviets bypassed Nir and moved south.[2] Ardabil was bombed by the Soviet Air Force and received minor damage to its barracks. Cut off and bypassed, both the Iranian 15th Division in Ardabil and the 3rd Division in Tabriz began to collapse. Despite that, the regular troops tried to maintain order and began to march towards the enemy without many of their commanders. However, lacking food, supplies, and ammunition, the troops were forced to abandon much of their heavy equipment. Heavy pockets of resistance remained, with some desperate fighting until the end. They were unsurprisingly beaten by the Soviets, who 26 August had occupied Iranian Azerbaijan (including Tabriz and Ardabil).[2]

British soldiers inspecting a Soviet tank T-26, 31 August 1941.

On 25 August, the Soviet attack against Gilan Province began with their Caspian Sea Flotilla, led by Rear-Admiral Sedelnikov. The flotilla consisted of more than a dozen patrol boats, destroyers, multiple anti-aircraft barges and landing craft. Facing them were three Iranian gunboats. Meanwhile, the 44th Army crossed the border and moved into Gilan Province. They moved along the Astara highway and the main coastal highway (Jadeh-e-Shomal). Heavy Iranian forces in the area made the naval landing force secure Iranian cities, which were then joined by the land forces. The flotilla landed troops and rapidly captured the border city of Astara. The landing force boarded their ships and moved towards their next targets.[2]

The main objective of the attack was to capture Iran’s Caspian Sea port of Bandar Pahlavi. The Iranian forces in Gilan, led by General Iranpour, made their stand at the provincial capital of Rasht and Bandar Pahlavi and offered a stubborn resistance.[17] The Iranian forces sank barges at the entrance to Pahlavi harbor, and lacking coastal artillery, moved a battery of 75mm guns to the area. The Iranians fought desperately, and despite Soviet superiority, the Iranians prevented them from landing. The Iranians were careful to not fire their guns while Soviet aircraft flew overhead to prevent them from disclosing their location. Soviet aircraft were kept at bay by 47mm anti-aircraft artillery on Iranian barges.[2]

The next day, however, the Soviet Air Force moved into action, using many heavy bombers. In groups of 4 aircraft each, their bombers attacked military positions and civilian targets throughout Gilan, including Bandar Pahlavi and Rasht. At least 200 civilians were killed during the bombings. The bombings also destroyed many Iranian positions, and resistance was finally crushed by the 44th Army advancing from land, capturing both cities. Fighting was very intense, and the Soviets took their heaviest casualties of the invasion here. However, lacking armor and air power, the Iranians could not stop the enemy.[2][17] On 28 August, they were forced to surrender. Nevertheless, some Iranian forces refused to accept defeat and retreated to Ramsar to continue fighting. Their efforts were undercut when the Iranian government announced a ceasefire the next day.[2] By then, the Soviet forces had reached the city of Chalus, meaning that they could cross the Chalus Highway (Jadeh-e-Chalus) and reach Tehran across the Alborz Mountains.[17]

Soviet advance on Iranian heartland[edit]

Soviet soldiers crossing the border on 25 August 1941.

Meanwhile, the Soviet invasion force in Iranian Azerbaijan had moved south. The 47th Army had been delayed in the Jolfa area when three individual Iranian soldiers managed to block an important bridge until they ran out of ammunition and were killed.[23] The Soviets did not use artillery for fear that they would damage the bridge and delay their advance further.[10] The 47th Army moved south, capturing Dilman (100 kilometers (80 mi) west of Tabriz) and then Urmia (Oromiyeh), ostensibly to block the escape of “German agents”. The latter was defended by only a few snipers. The Soviets responded by bombing targets in the city, killing over a dozen people and wounding many others, and much of the city’s bazaar was burned.

Meanwhile, the 53rd Army moved south of Ardebil towards the Tehran-Karaj-Tabriz highway, capturing the city of Meyaneh (Mianeh) and moving southeast towards Qazvin and Tehran by 27–28 August.[17][23] Iran’s 15th and 3rd divisions had already been bypassed and defeated, and there was only sporadic resistance against the Soviets. The Soviet armored spearhead drove down the highway and poised to take Qazvin on the 29th (151 kilometers (94 mi) from Tehran), followed by Saveh and Qom, south of Tehran, cutting the main Tehran-Saveh-Persian Gulf highway and cutting Iran effectively in two. But the Iranians accepted the ceasefire on 29 August, and the Soviets entered the now “open city” on 30 August. At the same time, elements of the 53rd Army captured the city of Hamadan. One civilian (a small child) was killed in a small bombing raid, and the sporadic resistance was defeated. They stopped their advance on 1 September and did not move further towards Tehran from Qazvin in light of negotiations with Iran’s government.[17]

Soviet invasion of Northeastern Iran[edit]

On 25 August, the Soviet Army invaded northeastern Iran from the TurkmenistanSSR. Details of this invasion were not nearly as extensive as details of the others. The Soviet invasion force had to cross mountainous terrain, and its goals were to recruit new troops from the Turkmen Sahra, assemble with the Soviet troops and to capture the city of Mashhad, the second largest city in Iran.[17]

Defending Mashhad and Khorasan province was Iran’s 9th Infantry Division, totaling 8,000 troops. They were light infantry, and it was unlikely that they could defend against the more numerous Soviet forces with armor and air power. The Soviet Air Force bombed Mashhad Airport, destroying many Iranian fighter aircraft, along with numerous military barracks. The Soviet forces advanced in three columns across the border. There was heavy fighting for three days, and by 28 August, the Iranians had been driven back after taking heavy casualties. Mashhad fell to the Soviets the same day.[17]

Final phase and outcome[edit]

British and Soviet officers inspect troops, in preparations to the Joint Soviet-British military parade in Tehran. Iran, September 1941.

By 28–29 August, the Iranian military situation was in complete chaos. The Allies had complete control over the skies of Iran, and large sections of the country were in their hands. Major Iranian cities (such as Tehran) were suffering repeated air raids. In Tehran itself, the casualties had been light, but the Soviet Air Force dropped leaflets over city, warning the population of an upcoming massive bombing raid and urging them to surrender before they suffered imminent destruction.[24] Tehran’s water and food supply had faced shortages, and soldiers fled in fear of the Soviets killing them upon capture. Faced with total collapse, the royal family (except the Shah and the Crown Prince) fled to Isfahan.[2][24][24]

The collapse of the army that Reza Shah had spent so much time and effort creating was humiliating. Many of the military generals had behaved incompetently or secretly sympathised with the British and ended up sabotaging the Iranian resistance.[2] The army generals met in secret to discuss surrender options. When the Shah learned of the generals’ actions, he beat the head of the armed forces General Ahmad Nakhjavan with a cane and physically stripped him of his rank. He was nearly shot by the Shah on the spot, but at the insistence of the Crown Prince, he was sent to prison instead.[24]

The Shah ordered the resignation of the pro-British Prime MinisterAli Mansur, whom he blamed for demoralizing the military.[24] He was replaced with Mohammad Ali Foroughi, a former prime minister.[2] The Shah ordered the Iranian military to end resistance and order a ceasefire. He entered into negotiations with the British and Soviets.[2][24][24]


Foroughi was an enemy of Reza Shah (he was forced into retirement in earlier years for political reasons, and his son was executed by firing squad). When he entered into negotiations with the British, instead of negotiating a favorable settlement, Foroughi implied that both he and the Iranian people wanted to be “liberated” from the Shah’s rule.[24] The British and Foroughi agreed that for the Allies to withdraw from Iran, the Iranians would have to assure that the German minister and his staff should leave Tehran; the German, Italian, Hungarian and Romanian legations should close and all remaining German nationals (including all families) to be handed over to the British and Soviet authorities. The last order would mean almost certain imprisonment or, in the case of those handed to the Soviets, possible death. Reza Shah delayed on the last demand. Instead, he planned the secret evacuation of all German nationals from Iran. By 18 September, most of the German nationals had escaped via the Turkish border.[10]

In response to the Shah’s defiance, the Red Army on 16 September moved to occupy Tehran. Fearing execution by the communists, many people (especially the wealthy) fled the city. Reza Shah, in a letter handwritten by Foroughi, announced his abdication, as the Soviets entered the city on 17 September. The British wanted to restore the Qajar Dynasty to power because they had served British interests well prior to Reza Shah’s reign. However, the heir to the throne, Hamid Hassan Mirza, was a British citizen who spoke no Persian. Instead (with the help of Foroughi), Crown Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi took the oath to become the Shah of Iran.[24] Reza Shah was arrested before he was able to leave Tehran, and he was placed into British custody. He was sent to exile as a British prisoner in South Africa, where he died in 1944.[2][4] The Allies withdrew from Tehran on 17 October and Iran was partitioned between Britain and the Soviet Union for the duration of the war, with the Soviets stationed in northern Iran and the British south of Hamadan and Qazvin.


Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

Soviet sphere of influence, Iran, 1946

The Persian Corridor became the route for a massive flow of supplies (over 5 million tons of matériel) to the Soviet Union and also the British in the Middle East. At the end of August 1942, German intelligence agents spread leaflets in Tabriz and other cities; an underground fascist organization called MelnuneIran, was founded. Agents of Melnune Iran instigated anti-government protests in the lake Urmia region. The Bakhtiari and Qashqai peoples carried out armed resistance against the new government.

The new Shah signed a Treaty of Alliance with Britain and the Soviet Union in January 1942, under which Iran provided non-military assistance to the Allied war effort. Article ⅝ of this treaty, although not entirely trusted by the Iranian leader, committed the Allies to leaving Iran “not more than six months after the cessation of hostilities”. In September 1943, Iran declared war on Germany, which qualified it for membership in the United Nations (UN). At the Tehran Conference in November of that year, Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin reaffirmed their commitment to Iranian independence and territorial integrity, with a willingness to extend economic assistance to Iran. The treaty ruled that Iran was not considered to be “occupied” by the Allies but instead a member of the Allied Powers.[4]

Lend-Lease Program US planes stand ready to be picked up at Abadan Air Field, Iran.[26]

The effects of the war were very disruptive for Iran. Much of the state bureaucracy had been damaged by the invasion and food and other essential items were scarce.[27] The Soviets appropriated most of the harvest in northern Iran, leading to food shortages for the general public. The British and Soviet occupiers used the delivery of grain as a bargaining chip and the food crisis was exacerbated because foreign troops needed to eat and use the transport network to move military equipment. The British pressured the Shah to appoint Ahmad Qavam to be the prime minister, who proceeded to mismanage the entire food supply and economy. In 1942, bread riots took place in Tehran, Martial law was declared and several rioters were killed by the police. inflation increased by 450 percent, imposing great hardship on the lower and middle classes. In some areas there were famine deaths but there was virtually no armed resistance against the occupation.[4]


In 1943, 30,000 Americans helped to man the Persian Corridor and 26–34 percent of the supplies sent to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act were sent through Iran. The Americans also assuaged Iranian fears of colonization by the two powers by confirming that they would respect the independence of Iran. The US also extended Lend-Lease assistance to Iran and began to train the Iranian army. Arthur Millspaugh became the finance minister of Iran but ran into much opposition trying to direct Iranian finances.[4]

There were two notable German attempts to undertake operations against the Allies in 1943. In the summer of 1943, Abwehr‘s Operation Francois was an attempt to use the dissident Qashqai people in Iran to sabotage British and American supplies bound for the Soviet Union. Also in 1943, Operation Long Jump was an unsuccessful German plot to assassinate the “Big Three” Allied leaders (Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt) at the Tehran Conference.


1950’s era Iranian postage stamp illustrating the Iranian warship Palang (Leopard). The British Royal Navy sank the Palang while it was moored at an Abadan pier during the surprise attack on Iran in August 1941.[11]

During the three years of occupation, Joseph Stalin had expanded Soviet political influence in Azerbaijan and Iranian Kurdistan in northwestern Iran, as well as in Iran founding the communist Tudeh Party of Iran. The Soviets had attempted during their occupation to stir tensions between the tenant-farmers and the landlords (known in Iran as arbabs).[17] On 12 December 1945, after weeks of violent clashes a Soviet-backed separatist People’s Republic of Azerbaijan was founded. The Kurdish People’s Republic was also established in late 1945. Iranian government troops sent to reestablish control were blocked by Red Army units.

When the deadline for withdrawal arrived on 2 March 1946, six months after the end of World War II hostilities, the British began to withdraw, but Moscow refused, citing “threats to Soviet security”. Soviet troops did not withdraw from Iran proper until May 1946, following Iran’s official complaint to the newly formed United Nations Security Council, which became the first complaint filed by a country in the UN’s history, and a test for the UN’s effectiveness in resolving global issues in the aftermath of World War II. However, the UN Security Council took no direct steps to pressure the Soviets to withdraw.[28]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Jump up to: a b Compton Mackenzie, Eastern Epic, p.136
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah Farrokh, Kaveh. Iran at War: 1500-1988. 
  3. Jump up ^ Pollack, p. 28
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k Pollack, Kenneth. The Persian Puzzle: Deciphering the Twenty-Five Year Conflict… 
  5. Jump up ^ Reed, Stanley; Fitzgerald, Alison (2010). In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-95090-6. 
  6. Jump up ^ Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. Free Press, 2008, p.121.
  7. Jump up ^ Esposito (1998), p. 127
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b Beaumont, Joan (January 1981). “Great Britain and the Rights of Neutral Countries: The Case of Iran, 1941”. Journal of Contemporary History. 16 (1): 213–228. JSTOR 260624. 
  9. Jump up ^ “Abbas Milani, Iran, Jews and the Holocaust: An answer to Mr. Black”. Retrieved 2011-09-22. 
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b c “Iranian History (1941)”. Retrieved 15 September 2014. 
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b c Stewart, Richard Anthony (1988). Sunrise at Abadan: The British and Soviet invasion of Iran, 1941. New York: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-92793-8. 
  12. Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Iranica “Anglo-Iranian Relations iii. Pahlavi period”
  13. Jump up ^ Stewart, Richard A. (1988). Sunrise at Abadan: The British and Soviet Invasion of Iran, 1941. New York: Praeger. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-275-92793-6. 
  14. Jump up ^ “(Supplement) no. 37685”. The London Gazette. 13 August 1946. pp. 4097–4098. 
  15. Jump up ^ “(Supplement) no. 37685”. The London Gazette. 13 August 1946. p. 4098. 
  16. Jump up ^ Ward, Steven R. (2009). Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-1-58901-258-5. Retrieved May 2012. 
  17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Gholi-Majid, Mohammad. August 1941: The Anglo Russian Occupation and Change of Shahs. 
  18. Jump up ^ Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War: 1500–1988, Osprey Hardcover, released 24 May 2011; ISBN 978-1-84603-491-6.
  19. Jump up ^ Parsa, Ali. “Brno, the Persian Mauser”. Retrieved 30 August 2015. 
  20. Jump up ^ Barret, Dave. “Iranian Tanks”. Archived from the original on 4 October 2012. 
  21. ^ Jump up to: a b “Armour in Iran Army”. Retrieved 15 September 2014. 
  22. ^ Jump up to: a b c d O’Hara, Vincent P. (30 November 2011). Tucker, Spencer, ed. World War II at Sea: An Encyclopedia. 1 (illustrated, reprint ed.). ABC-CLIO. pp. 86–87. ISBN 9781598844573. 
  23. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Stone, Stone &. “War Diary Records for Invasion of Iran 1941”. 
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Milani, Abbas. The Shah. 
  25. Jump up ^ “Abadan Airfield Photo”. Retrieved 15 September 2014. 
  26. Jump up ^ “Iran in world War II”. Archived from the original on 16 October 2009. Retrieved 12 January 2010. 
  27. Jump up ^ “UN History”. Retrieved 15 September 2014. 


External links[edit]






A U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and warplanes in the Persian Gulf

For 40 Years, Iran’s Been Preparing For The War The US Has Been Threatening

Will Trump get us into war with Iran? That will mean WWIII. But then again, Israel‘s last victim in the Middle East is Iran and it is on the NWO agenda that a war must take place between the US and Russia. If Iran is attacked; Russia will respond.

A U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and warplanes in the Persian Gulf
A U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and warplanes in the Persian Gulf

“For 40 Years, Iran’s Been Preparing For The War The US Has Been Threatening,” Source:

The character of this war has changed over time. From the failed Nojeh Coup, which attempted to destroy the Islamic Republic in its early days, to aiding Saddam Hussein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, to helping and promoting the MEK terrorist group, to training and recruiting the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, to putting special forces on the ground in Iran, to imposing sanctioned terrorism, to perpetrating the Stuxnet cyberattack — the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of these policies.

People gather around a car as it is removed by a mobile crane in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012. Two assailants on a motorcycle attached magnetic bombs to the car of an Iranian university professor working at a key nuclear facility, killing him and wounding two others. (AP/Fars News Agency, Meghdad Madadi)

President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the ground in the Persian Gulf, and virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action. It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table. However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.

To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran. The challenge was too daunting. It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with, but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35 percent of the world’s seaborne oil exports, go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.

Faced with this reality, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran over the years. These plans have included promoting the false narrative of a threat from a nonexistent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when, in fact, Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades). These “alternative facts” have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.

Plan B: The war for oil in West Africa and Yemen

Iran’s navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari briefs media on a 10-day drill in international waters beyond the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
Iran’s navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari briefs media on a 10-day drill in international waters beyond the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari briefs media on a 10-day drill in international waters beyond the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

In the early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham House issued one of the first publications that determined African oil would be a viable alternative to Persian Gulf oil in the event of a disruption in Persian oil transportation and distribution.

In 2002, the Israeli-based think tank Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies suggested America push toward African oil. That same year, the African Oil Policy Initiative Group formed for a symposium and subsequent white paper which made the rounds in Washington. In an interesting coincidence, 2002 was the same year in which the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram was “founded.”

In 2007, the United States African Command, or AFRICOM, helped consolidate this push into the region. In 2011, Chatham House published “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy,” a paper outlining the “US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States.” This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternative to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria and Yemen took on new importance.

In 2012, several alternate routes to Strait of Hormuz were identified which would have been considered limited in capacity and more expensive at the time the Chatham House report was published. However, West African oil and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in the event of war.

In a 2015 article for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran,” geopolitical researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya correctly states:

“[T]he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

War on Iran has never been “Plan A.” The neoconservative think tank The Washington Institute for Near East Policy argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran. Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper called for the assassination of scientists, the introduction of malware, covert maneuverings to provide Iran plans with design flaws, sabotage, viruses, etc.

These suggestions have been fully and faithfully executed against Iran.

Obama set the stage to undermine Iran, not create peace

An Iranian security person walks at a part of the Uranium Conversion Facility, outside the city of Isfahan, 410 kilometers, south of the capital Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, March 30, 2005.
An Iranian security person walks at a part of the Uranium Conversion Facility, outside the city of Isfahan, 410 kilometers, south of the capital Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, March 30, 2005.

An Iranian security person walks at a part of the Uranium Conversion Facility, outside the city of Isfahan, 410 kilometers, south of the capital Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, March 30, 2005.

With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the “Iran nuclear deal,” which restricts Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran, was signed in the naive belief that a war with Iran had been alleviated. Obama’s genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed and disbanded the antiwar movements by negotiating this deal with Iran. But the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining it.

In April of 2015, as the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work delivered a speech at the Army War College Strategy Conference and elaborated on how the Pentagon plans to counter the three types of wars purportedly being waged by Iran, Russia, and China.

As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington. Failing that, Washington would be better prepared for war because under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to inspections. In other words, the plan would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots. Apparently the plan was not moving forward fast enough to please President Barack Obama. In direct violation of international law and concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles. Iran’s missile program was and is totally separate from the JCPOA. In fact, Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the framework of international law to build conventional missiles.

A Ghader test missile is launched from the area near the Iranian port of Jask port on the shore of the Oman Sea during an Iranian navy drill, Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013.
A Ghader test missile is launched from the area near the Iranian port of Jask port on the shore of the Oman Sea during an Iranian navy drill, Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013.

President Donald Trump followed suit. He ran on a campaign of “draining the swamp” in Washington with his speeches full of contempt for Obama. Ironically, like Obama, candidate Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker and a businessman who would create jobs, and spouting rhetoric of non-interference.

But few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words. Fewer still heeded the advisors he surrounded himself with, or they would have noted that Trump considers Islam the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.

The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration reflect the contrarian character of Trump and indicate their support of this continuity in U.S. foreign policy, including Bush-era neoconservatives. Michael Flynn, a former intelligence chief and Trump’s current national security advisor, stated that the Obama administration willfully allowed the rise of Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group known in the West as ISIS or ISIL), yet the newly appointed head of the Pentagon, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief.”

So, the head of the National Security Council believes that Obama helped Daesh rise, and the head of the Pentagon believes that Daesh helps Iran continue its “mischief.” Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused and confusing?

And is it any wonder that on Jan. 28, when Trump signed an executive order calling for a plan to defeat Daesh in 30 days, the United States, United Kingdom, France and Australia ran war games drill in the Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran — the country that has, itself, been fighting Daesh in Syria and Iraq?

Why a US war with Iran would fail

The Iranian warship Alborz, foreground, prepares before leaving Iran’s waters on April 7, 2015.
The Iranian warship Alborz, foreground, prepares before leaving Iran’s waters on April 7, 2015.

When Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United States lied and accused Iran of violating the JCPOA.

Threats and fresh sanctions ensued.

Trump, the self-proclaimed dealmaker who took office on the promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran within his first two weeks in office. Sanctions take jobs away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of neo-colonialism. What a deal!

Coupled with Trump’s “Muslim ban,” the sanctions were a clear attack against Iran and an attempt to isolate the Islamic Republic as previous administrations have.

Even though the president has lashed out at friend and foe alike, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot go it alone. Although in his book, “Time to Get Tough,” and on the campaign trail he lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about face, he has not included the Saudis and other Gulf Arab state sponsors of terror on his travel ban list. It would appear that someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and killing Yemenis.

In fact, Erik Prince, the infamous founder of the notorious private military company Blackwater, is said to be advising Trump “from the shadows.” Prince also received a $120 million contract from the Obama administration, and for the past several years has been working with Arab countries, the UAE in particular, in the “security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.

Private military contractors have been an integral part of Saudi Arabia’s strategy to win it’s ground war in Yemen, something the inexperienced Saudi military has been unable to accomplish on it’s own.
Private military contractors have been an integral part of Saudi Arabia’s strategy to win it’s ground war in Yemen, something the inexperienced Saudi military has been unable to accomplish on it’s own.

So, is military confrontation with Iran on the horizon?

Not if sanity prevails. And with Trump and his generals, that is a big if. While for many years the foundation has been laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it has always been a last resort. It wasn’t a last resort because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win this war.

Iran fought not just Iraq when the United States was arming Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, but virtually the whole world.

The United States and its allies funded Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction. In a period when Iran was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population virtually one third of the current population, and its supply of U.S.-provided weapons halted.

Yet Iran prevailed.

Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global village.

It is time for us to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.