The Pre-programmed War with Iran (Full Version)

By CrisHam, 27 June, 2025

Iran at the mercy of Western interests

At least since World War II, Great Britain and the United States have been interfering in Iran's sovereignty. During World War II, Iran was used, without consent, as a transit country for arms deliveries to the Soviet Union. This involved the use of armed force by both the Soviet and British sides.

In 1953, Iran fell victim to Western intervention for the second time when MI6 and the CIA overthrew the elected President Mozadegh. As we now know, British oil interests were primarily behind this. This obstruction of democratic development, contrary to the authentic interests of the liberal democratic nations, has remained in effect to this day. Shah Reza Pahlavi, then established as the undisputed ruler, brought progress and socially balanced reforms to Iran. However, due to his ostentatiousness and his feared secret police, the CIA and MI6 SAVAK, he was unable to gain broad popular support, which facilitated his 1979 coup by strengthened Islamists. Like in 1953, massive Western influence was behind this government overthrow. In retrospect, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 appears to have been a dress rehearsal for very similar events during the 2011 Arab Spring in North Africa and Syria. The disastrous consequences to this day: Islamism instead of democracy.

Before his overthrow, the Shah, in addition to the SAVAK, also disposed over a 500,000-strong army equipped with state-of-the-art American weapons.

As a result, the exiled Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini was only able to overthrow the Shah's government in 1979 with British and American backing—by neutralizing this formidable protective force on a psychological level. This came about under President Jimmy Carter, whom Khomeini, under the pretense of pro-Western sentiments, was able to convince of the benefits of replacing the Shah's regime with an Islamic republic.

The question remains why the CIA did not inform the naive Carter about this fanatical advocate of Islamic world domination. However, given that Khomeini also received massive British propaganda support,1) in which even the BBC was involved, the answer is fundamental: The democratic development of humanity requires well-informed, free-thinking citizens. Therefore, anti-liberal, autocratically ambitious circles always try to control the communications system, distort important information into one-sided propaganda, and manipulate people.

Jimmy Carter was also among the misprogrammed victims when he failed to recognize Khomeini's British propaganda for what it was and thus ensured in 1979 that the Iranian military did not stand in the way of the Shah's overthrow. With the same dishonesty with which he had deceived the American president, Khomeini also succeeded in gaining the trust of Iranians of all classes, so that they voted in the referendum for the constitution of the "Islamic Republic." Only over time did it become clear that the democratic elements of parliament and the president in this "republic" were largely tied, because the direction of policy was determined by the Supreme Leader. Since Khomeini's death in 1989, this has been Ayatollah Khamenei, just like him an Islamist hardliner, Sharia advocate, and a declared enemy of the West.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had just been promoted to the status of a great geostrategist and presidential advisor, also initiated the pseudo-strategy of the CIA arming militant Islamists against actual and alleged communists in Afghanistan. The result was the disastrous withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in August 2021, which left billions of dollars worth of weapons in the hands of the Taliban.

Obstacles and Chances in the Iranian Constitution

The citizens of Iran have no way to avert the country's suicidal militaristic course, because the Supreme Leader is elected for life by the so-called Assembly of Experts. This assembly comprises 88 Islamic jurists whose roots in Sharia law naturally preclude any openness to reform. Candidates for the Assembly of Experts are pre-screened by the powerful Guardian Council. Since the Supreme Leader appoints six of the 12 members of the Guardian Council, a closed circle of power exists that denies access to moderate forces.

The constitution adopted by the Iranian people in the 1979 referendum2) proves to be a sham, effectively establishing a dictatorship of the Supreme Leader. This contradicts not only the democratic nature of a republic, but also the explicit rejection of any (even covert) form of despotism in the preamble and in Article 3: "...it is incumbent upon the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to employ all its capacities to... 2- Elevate public awareness in all areas through the proper use of the press, mass media and other means... 6- Eliminate all forms of despotism, tyranny and monopolism."

In the military conflict in June 2025, this constitutional contradiction and de facto despotism, has almost become Iran's downfall. The moderate, democratically elected President Masoud Pezeshkian, who had strongly advocated for a negotiated solution with Israel and the United States, was forced to bow to the tough stance of Supreme Leader Khamenei, who categorically rejected negotiations – a suicidal decision in the ongoing Middle East war.

The resulting harsh Israeli-American military strike has evidently given Pezeshkian's government strong backing against Khamenei – a unique opportunity to permanently and peacefully overcome the Ayatollah dictatorship, in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution.

The democratic instrument for the long-overdue constitutional amendment is provided in Article 59: "In very important ... political ... matters, the legislative power may be exercised through referendum and directly referring to people's vote ... approved by two-thirds of the members of the Majlis (parliament)."

Article 110, Paragraph 3, which grants the Supreme Leader the "responsibility and power" to call a referendum, represents only an apparent obstacle. However, this function cannot include the right to reject a referendum, as this would contradict the fundamental republican principle enshrined in Article 3, Paragraph 8, and Article 6: "...the affairs of the state shall be conducted on the basis of public opinion expressed through elections... or referendums.

This constitutional provision is incompatible with a Supreme Leader with autocratic powers that override those of the elected government and parliament. Therefore, the "Supreme Leader" can only be the highest representative of the state, as is the case, for example, with the Federal President in Germany.

The Trump administration now has a unique opportunity to right the wrongs of its unprincipled predecessors against the Iranians during the coups of 1953 and 1979 by supporting the democratic reformist forces.

This third political transition in Iran must occur immediately, before polarizing forces (on both sides) once again unleash military and other violence, creating that dangerous psychological effect that unites any population, even a ruthless regime, against an external aggressor.

This support—now authentically American for the first time—has the potential to become a mass, depolarizing, and synergistic movement. The initial spark comes from Martin Luther King Jr.'s maxim that one must understand one's enemies (both real and, even more so, perceived). For the forces of renewal in Donald Trump's camp, this means finding surprising compatibility.

This concerns the compatibility between the principles of the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, on the one hand, and the Iranian Constitution of 1979, on the other – once the latter is freed of the autocratic elements surrounding the office of the Supreme Leader.

For example, the preamble to the executive branch states: "Hence, the system of bureaucracy ... will be firmly rejected in order to create an executive system with more efficient operation and greater speed in the fulfillment of administrative obligations." - Therefore, the system of bureaucracy ... will be firmly rejected in order to create an executive system with more efficient operation and greater speed in the fulfillment of administrative obligations.

Partial compatibility with the Iranian Constitution also applies to the concept of the state of Israel – and thus to an Israeli constitution that has yet to be drafted. With a few changes, individual articles could serve as templates if the words "Islamic" and "Quran" were replaced with "Jewish" and "Torah." A sentence from the preamble could read in the Israeli version:

"According to Jewish values, government does not arise from class status or the domination of an individual or group. Rather, it manifests the political ideal of a nation with a common faith and a common outlook that organizes itself in order to initiate the process of intellectual and ideological evolution towards the ultimate goal, which is to move towards G_d."

The Media's Responsibility

The mainstream media bears some of the blame for the military violence that flared up between June 13 and June 24. This blame also applies to the Ukraine and Gaza wars. The urgent need for media professionals to raise awareness about effective peacekeeping is becoming increasingly apparent. What is required is more critical distance from violent solutions, more thorough historical research and more psychological empathy toward supposedly hostile groups. Monster hunts must be replaced by a defense of liberal principles. This also requires clearly articulating the criticism of Islam's persistent and diverse demands for political influence, which has been neglected for far too long.

Since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979, the media have all too indiscriminately switched to a perpetual hostility without analyzing the true roots of the rift.

As a result of this superficiality, citizens are hardly aware, for example, that Iran was one of the first countries to receive American support for the peaceful use of nuclear power in 1957, nor that its desire for own nuclear weapons was a response to a war of aggression. Specifically, it was Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran (1980-1988) – which was based on American encouragement and in which poison gas was also used.3)

Even when it emerged in the Iran-Contra affair (1985-1986) that the Iraqis and Iranians had been supplied with American weapons in this war, there was a lack of conclusions and comprehensive consequences. First, it had become clear that the American security apparatus needed more efficient democratic oversight, and second, that the Iran-Iraq War was not about defending principles, but rather the business of a soulless arms industry and further polarization between two adversaries who, in practice, are fighting each other.

Beyond the unbalanced partisanship, the necessary differentiation between the Iranian population and the Ayatollah regime was also neglected in the media coverage. Thus, once again, what Noam Chomsky, in particular, has criticized in numerous analyses, namely a primitive monster hunt, was practiced.

Typical of such continuous propaganda is that it is relentlessly maintained until the respective head of government is overthrown or killed. This affected, among others, the (CIA accomplice) President Daniel Noriega of Panama in 1990, Saddam Hussein (2003/2006), Muammar al-Gaddafi (2011) and Bashar Assad (December 2024).

The dogged persistence of such long-term propaganda until its final 'success' is a sign of the influence of circles interested in polarization. This, however, contradicts the interests of Western nations. Almost 200 years ago, John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the USA, proclaimed the wise principle, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

In the case of the Iranian regime, Trump found an already existing monster which was the creation of previous manipulative interventions. He offered negotiations for months, but after Netanyahu’s decision to launch a preemptive strike, it was completely correct to drop the super-bombs. This way, he decisively was asking respect and proclaiming: The free nations of the Judeo-Christian area do not allow Israel to be threatened with extermination.

The Destructive Consequences of the Militaristic Course

For far too long, Western politics has turned away from the moderate course of the early USA. The results of monster hunts, military interventions, and government overthrows often had little to do with the announced goals, which subsequently exposed them as pretexts. 'Thanks' to uncritical media comments, such contradictions remained largely unchallenged and could therefore be exaggerated to the point of grotesqueness. This was demonstrated, among other things, by the Iraq War (2003-2011), which was launched by George W. Bush on the basis of false CIA reports and justified with pathetic words: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

The danger to the world turned out to be a fantasy claim and the announced liberation the destruction of half a million human lives and large parts of the building stock and infrastructure. The country is still radioactively contaminated in parts by DU shells.4)

For American and other Western citizens, this absurd war has smeared the reputation of their liberal democracy. This was the cynical ‘reward’ for almost 5,000 of their own soldiers killed and around one trillion (according to other sources, over two trillion) dollars in costs.5) The disaster was made possible because the necessary lessons had not been learned from previous wars that had started and ended in a similar way (especially Vietnam).

This article has a second part that can be found in the blog list below this one.

Refernces and Internal Links