The Raid on the British Embassy in Iran Raid Was Merely an Occupy Protest What do you call a group of students breaking in to a foreign embassy, hurling Molotov cocktails and torching vehicles? If you're Britain and it's your embassy in Iran, you call it "utterly unacceptable and we condemn it." But if you're Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency, it's an Occupy movement! Today, tensions ran high between Britain and Iran as students stormed Britain's embassy in Tehran and the country's Mehr News Agency reported that six people had been taken hostage. Thankfully, it appears the embassy staff is safe. (The Mehr report was later removed and a UK source tells Reuters that no British diplomats were taken hostage.) Covering the riots like a spontaneous student movement, Fars has dubbed it the "Occupy Embassy Protests" on its website. Like Occupy Wall Street? Really? Skepticism over the way state media covered the riots arose immediately. "Not saying Iranian govt behind UK embassy attack, but state photog just happened to be there & upload some great shots," tweeted The Atlantic's Max Fisher. The Guardian's correspondent Saeed Kamali Dehghan added that state media was reporting that "police used tear gas to disperse them," even though, as The New York Times' Robert Mackey pointed out "there is no evidence of gas in any of the video from state television or the many photographs published by Fars http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...sy-iran-raid-was-merely-occupy-protest/45534/ His is not a face familiar to many in the West. But members of the rampaging Iranian mob which last week laid siege to the British Embassy in Tehran knew exactly what they were doing when they held aloft a picture of a grey-haired man, with downturned mouth and his beard more neatly trimmed than those of his country's religious leaders. Qassem Suleimani, a fanatical Islamic revolutionary, has rapidly become one of the world's top terrorist suspects, as well as a powerful and sinister force within Iran. The crowd of enraged student protesters who chanted "Death to Britain" as they terrorised a beleaguered group of British diplomats, know him as the head of Iran's feared Quds Force, the 15,000-strong paramilitary wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guards - and a primary suspect for organising the assault on the embassy. There were frightening moments at the height of the violence on Tuesday afternoon when it appeared that a rerun might be on the cards of the American embassy siege in 1979, when 50 American diplomatic staff were held hostage for 444 days. If so, it would have been a triumph for Suleimani, who would have made common cause with the hardliners of 1979 who opposed the deal which eventually led to the release of the Americans. The only reason a major diplomatic crisis was averted this time was because Tehran's police, which initially did nothing to prevent the protesters storming the building, were belatedly ordered to act, removing the demonstrators and ensuring the safety of the British diplomats. It is now thought the police were acting on the orders of officials loyal to President Mahmound Ahmadinejad, who was unwilling to provoke yet another crisis with the West at a time when Iran is already under intense international pressure over its controversial nuclear programme. But the crisis could so easily have gone the other way, especially if hardliners such as Suleimani, who owe their loyalty to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's spiritual leader and is a bitter political rival of Mr Ahmadinejad, had got their way. As head the elite Quds force, whose primary objective is to export Iran's revolutionary breed of Islam throughout the Muslim world, the 52-year-old Suleimani, could just as easily launched another hostage crisis in the Middle East. Speaking after his arrival in London Mr Chilcott made it clear that he believed the attack on the embassy had been well-organised and had the backing of the Iranian government. "Iran is not the sort of country where spontaneously a demonstration congregates then attacks a foreign embassy," he said. "That sort of activity is only done with the acquiescence and support of the state." Last week's dramatic events at the British Embassy were almost certianly part of a bitter power struggle within the Iranian regime, in which Suleimani is increasingly taking a central role. Many Iranians believe Suleiman has ruthlessly used his appointment as head of the Quds Force, which was formed during Iran's eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, to further his own political ambitions. This was certainly the impression he sought to give when, in 2008, he sent General David Petraeus, the current CIA director who was then commanding US forces in Iraq, a phone text informing him that he should always deal with Suleimani if he wanted a discussion of Iranian foreign policy. "General Petraeus," the text read, "you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. The ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds Force member. The individual who's going to replace him is a Quds Force member." Indeed, as a result of the Quds Force's success in disrupting the US-led coalition in Iraq, Suleimani has been able to expand his control over Iran's overseas policy. The Iranian ambassador to Afghanistan is a Quds Force member, while Quds Force units have been sent to Syria to support the Assad regime's barbaric campaign to silence anti-government protests. The Quds force, which takes its name from the Arabic for Jerusalem, actively supports a number of radical Islamist groups throughout the Middle East that are committed to the destruction of Israel, such as Hizbollah in Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli forces have intercepted several weapons caches bound for Hamas militants in Gaza and Hizbollah in southern Lebanon. Western intelligence agencies have also identified Quds Force activity further field. Nigerian security officials recently arrested two Quds officers following the seizure of an illegal arms shipment in Lagos. A Quds unit travelled to Libya in September following the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime and smuggled hundreds of surface-to-air missiles and other weapons out of the country. And recently they have been active in encouraging dissident Shia activists in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province to overthrow the Saudi royal family, as well as supporting various dissident Islamist groups in the Gulf. Suleiman's emergence as a major international terrorist, though, came after American investigators accused him of masterminding the recent plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington when he was dining in his favourite restaurant. The two suspects, who will be tried next year, are said to be active Quds Force members, and the Obama administration responded to the failed plot by placing Suleimani on its specially designated list of global terrorists. Suleimani responded by saying he did not fear American threats of assassination, and that he was ready for "martyrdom". As the Western powers gird themselves for another round of diplomatic confrontation with the ayatollahs, it seems that Suleimani is destined to play a central role in the challenging months that lie ahead. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ed-the-British-embassy-outrage-in-Tehran.html
No problem for us or Israel or the yanks. Still a problem for them. The are next in line. US, Israel and others are just waiting for an attack. Thats why they are buggered either way. If they have the nuke, they won't be invaded, just more isolated and they will suffer. No nukes, they will be invaded and they will suffer. They just have to look across their boarders to see what is instore for them.
And we can expect the usual drivel from the Iran apologists (anti Zionists) when this Iranian sham of a government get what they have been asking for. Maybe then the Iranian populace will get the freedom from tyranny which they are long overdue. Maybe an invasion to implement "Regime change" in Iran is what is needed.
The yanks done that in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Hasn't helped the people, all it has done is either set them back or cause a civil war. You seem to have an agenda when it comes to Iran and accuse those against you as 'Iran apologists (anti Zionists)'. Does that make you a 'Zionist (Anti Iran)'? You have insinuated that 'an invasion to implement "Regime change" in Iran is what is needed' - for who? Iranian people? Israel? USA? Britain? It seems to be that this policy of 'Regime change' has not worked. The ones where it has was where the people themselves changed it. Not from outside intervention. I will support the Iranians if they rise against the 'Mullahs' but I will not support another war which IMO based on lies.
Maybe you should rewind a few pages and read where Jacky said that Iran's leaders only wanted "Regime Change" in Israel and tick him off. I'm neither "anti" nor "Pro" anyone because i'm neither Israeli nor Iranian nor American so I don't have an agenda and my observations/opinions are gathered by observing both sides of every story unlike some who are distinctly one sided in their views.
Leaders of Israel want "Regime Change" in Iran. Iran wants "Regime Change" in Israel. If it is done by it's own people, thats one thing but outside intervention would cause issues. And outsiders do not do it for the benefit for the locals. My main gripe with Israel is they should stop building settlements and get the **** out of Palestine (Gaza and West Bank). But thats a different can of worms, really.
It is really and the OP was about Iran and the raid on the UK embassies, on that front i'm not impartial and i've said all along that it was "allowed to happen" by the Iranians. I stand by that argument.
"My main gripe with Israel is they should stop building settlements and get the **** out of Palestine (Gaza and West Bank)." The fact that this was the case between 1948 and 1967 did not see peace. Also there has never been a country called Palestine (did the Arab countries try to set it up during 1948 and 1967? No they didn't.)
The current Israel didn't exist before 1948. New countries come about. Look at South Korea, Pakistan, Kosovo, and South Sudan, just to name a few. Besides, whether Palestine exists or not depends on countries recognising them or not. The only one vetoing them is the US. Other countries don’t recognise Israel. Does that mean Israel doesn’t exist? North Cyprus exists yet it is only recognised by the Turks (as far as I know). The Libyan rebels were recognised as the leaders of Libya before they took the whole country. Anyway, I am not saying Israel to cease to exist; I want the Palestinians to have their own country.
