A History in 4 Psy-Ops: Has Iran ALWAYS Been a Member of the Club?

 Sun 6:10 pm +00:00, 8 Mar 2026  2

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Source: https://off-guardian.org/2026/03/06/a-history-in-4-psy-ops-has-iran-has-always-been-a-member-of-the-club/

When the war with Iran officially began on Saturday, I annoyed quite a few people by replying to James Delingpole on twtter with this comment:

 

I stand by it. In fact I can amplify it.

There’s ample evidence to show we’re already living in the post-nation age, and this was made explicitly clear by the Covid “pandemic”.  Iran’s vital, early role in the Covid operation is one of the facts that most strongly requires us to be cautious about the current war narrative , but it’s a development that likely predates that era-defining psy-op.

In fact, I would argue that an examination of the recent history of Iran shows that they have consistently taken part in psy-ops and media narratives, and that this demonstrates collusion with Western governments and indeed the globalist factions therein.

Starting with the birth of the current regime itself…

1. Installation of Ayatollah

Everyone is (or should be) familiar with Operation Ajax, the 1953 joint MI6-CIA coup d’etat in Iran that removed the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, allegedly to prevent the nationalization of Iran’s oil reserves. The resulting government was an absolute monarchy under Shah Reza Pahlavi.

Less discussed is the CIA’s clear and obvious involvement in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

For example, after being exiled from Iran by the Shah in 1978, Khomeini was provided safe haven in France. The reasons for this are not clear, but it is known that the Carter administration had a lot of communication with Khomeini during his time as a guest of the French government. Again, the reasons for this communication are nowhere clearly stated.

We know the former Shah himself claimed in his memoirs that the US and UK had been opposed to his government since his 1973 nationalisation of Iranian oil, and subsequent price increase (let’s remember the previous government had allegedly been removed to prevent a similar attempt at nationalisation).

Whether we entirely believe the Shah or not, we also know that by late 1978, the US ambassador to Iran was cabling DC that the Shah was “doomed”, and by early January ’79 US generals were flying out to Iran to discuss a potential coup with the Iranian military and putting them in contact with Khomeini’s second in command.

The Shah’s government ended within weeks.

This is all documented.

The potential motivations for this could be discussed at length, but there’s no denying that there was at least some Western involvement in the installation of the current regime.

2. Hostage crisis

No sooner had the new Iranian government been helped into power than they were taking part in an international “crisis”. In November 1979 an armed group invaded the US embassy in Iran and took over 50 hostages.

One supposed reason for this was the US opposition to the new Revolutionary Government in Iran and support of the Shah, but we know this isn’t true. The US helped replace the Shah, and nobody would have known this more than Khomeini and his top lieutenants.

What the “crisis” actually did was convince the people of Iran that their new government would stand up to America, whilst undermining Carter’s presidency in the US to the point he lost the 1980 election by a landslide.

The “October Surprise” theory argues that US government insiders actually deliberately delayed the release of the hostages in order to rig the election by proxy. Former Texas governor John Connelly was known to be travelling the Middle East at the time spreading this message.

The hostages were eventually released mere minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

I’m sure some will say this was all a coincidence.

3. Iran-Contra Affair

Up until 1979, all of Iran’s weaponry was bought from the United States. Following the Hostage Crisis, President Carter put an arms embargo on Iran for “supporting terrorism” which was sustained by his successor, Ronald Reagan.

However, Washington insiders have never been fans of not selling weapons to anyone, ever. They argued that an embargo would only drive Iran closer to the USSR, and immediately sought ways to covertly continue arms sales to Iran by circumventing the embargo.

Interesting isn’t it how paper thin the veneer of ideological opposition can turn out to be once subjected to examination. Some might wonder if all the contemporary “evil terrorists” and  “Great Satan” rhetoric was much more than geopolitical theatre of a particularly gaudy kind.

By 1985, the Reagan administration had been illegally supplying weapons to Iran for four years, both directly and by “washing” the sales via Israel (and, incidentally, selling weapons to BOTH sides of the Iran-Iraq war).

At the same time, the US was covertly supporting the anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua in their guerrilla war against the Socialist FSLN government. This support was illegal under US law thanks to the Boland Amendments.

The Iran Contra affair was an evolution of the Iranian arms deals, a covert operation spearheaded by Colonel Oliver North, where weapons were illegally sold to Iran, and the profits from these sales were in turn used to fund rebels in Nicaragua. This was totally illegal, and technically high treason.

The scandal broke in 1987, resulting in years-long Congressional hearings and – eventually – dozens of criminal charges. Of the 11 men convicted of wrongdoing in the Iran-Contra affair, only one ever spent any time in prison, and almost all had the convictions overturned on appeal, or received presidential pardons from George Bush Sr in 1991.

Oliver North went on to run for political office and have a successful career in the media, working as a television host and publishing over a dozen books. Not bad, considering he was supposedly a traitor who committed high treason.

It’s reasonable to ask – does this sound like something that would happen if Iran was really a deadly opponent of the American government?

Why would the American government sell weapons to a regime they truly believed to be a threat to their very existence?

And why would a man who committed treason in arming an enemy receive such a light sentence and be allowed to flourish afterwards?

It’s almost as if no one really thought it mattered very much isn’t it?

At very least we are seeing the paper thin veneer again, and the undeniable fact that other mostly unspoken interests united these alleged enemy states above and beyond the rhetoric and propaganda.

4. Covid

 

The Covid “Pandemic” is the grand-daddy of all psy-ops, exceeding most of its predecessors in both complexity of execution and scope of its aims.

And the Iranian government was in it up to its eyeballs.

Iran was one of the first countries, alongside Italy, to feel the brunt of Covid outside China. Indeed, their endorsement of the pandemic narrative was used by some in the alt media as evidence the pandemic must be real, because Iran would never cooperate with a globalist psy-op.

But cooperate they did. To the max. They worked closely with the World Health Organization, according to WHO’s official report:

WHO and its partners provided critical support to Iran to overcome these challenges and scale up the response to COVID-19, which resulted in mobilizing more than 130 million vaccine doses and capacity to conduct genomic sequencing analysis of 7700 viral samples.

Iran imposed lockdowns, made masks compulsory and enacted vaccine mandates just like everyone else. They also applied for a $5 billion Covid loan from the IMF.

While real global outsiders were standing up for their nation’s interests and “dying suddenly” for their trouble, Iran was happily playing along. Making the lives of ordinary Iranians shorter and sadder, and making a lot of money for their elites doing it.

Conclusion

The evidence shows unambiguously that the current Iranian regime has a history of cooperating with Western, pro-globalist powers,  to the detriment of its own people and to the mutual interest of the political class on both sides – and that MUST call anything and everything they do into question.

Including this war.

We live in an age of fake binaries and “lesser evils”, why wouldn’t that system of thought control be applied to warfare?

We are told to think in simple labels – Muslims vs Christians. Human Rights vs Sharia Law. Democracy vs Theocracy. Regime changers vs national sovereignty. Anti-establishment rebels vs Imperial oil hunters.

But we know from past experience that these simplicities are used to conceal sometimes deep, convoluted and very different realities of convergent interest and obedience to narratives.

And we know that this war has already assisted with some fundamentals of the “great reset” agenda, which is probably the biggest current threat to humanity.

Is that all this war is about? No, probably not. There are probably many narratives being pursued and many interest groups seeking to benefit, and even cynically waged wars can produce chaos and unlooked-for outcomes. We can assume any murdered Iranian leaders didn’t intend to end up dead for example, though it would be naïve to assume the power structure won’t willingly sacrifice even a few of its own sometimes.

Orwell understood the mutual interests of the ruling elites in promoting war, and in controlling its outcome. He understood that the way it’s sold to the “proles” is not the way it’s viewed by those organising and benefitting from it.

Even while this war is warring, Iran is still promoting the Covid lies, still on board with the globalist programs, still working on their own Central Bank Digital Currency, still building their digital identity infrastructure.

We need to remember that and we need to develop a more sophisticated way of understanding – and opposing – the new post-covid war narratives.

We’re not living in 2003 anymore. We know the globalist endgame, and it’s neither American Hegemony nor an Islamic Caliphate. Rather, it is a program of digital control of money, food and travel that limits human freedom.

A program both sides of this war endorse.