The Coming Persian War

by Jason Reza Jorjani

Ex: https://jasonrezajorjani.com

On Friday the 13th of October, 2017, President Trump gave a speech on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Persians will forever remember as “the Arabian Gulf” speech. Seven months earlier, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that the United States was initiating a “comprehensive review” of its Iran policy, including the JCPOA colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.” About a month after Tillerson’s April 19th statement, the Secretary of State accompanied President Trump on a state visit to Saudi Arabia where the President addressed tens of Arab nations in a speech that identified Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism. This, despite the fact that Iran has never carried out an act of terrorism on American soil whereas, during his campaign, Donald Trump himself rightly identified Saudi Arabia as responsible for helping to plan and organize the 9/11 attacks. A comparison of the remarks of candidate Trump regarding Saudi Arabia to the policies of President Trump on Saudi Arabia is one of the clearest examples of Donald Trump’s hypocrisy and charlatanry. Another is his not having included the Saudis in his “Muslim ban” that does prevent Iranians from immigrating to the United States. The candidate who lambasted Hillary Clinton for taking money from Saudi Arabia went on to literally do a war dance with the Saudis, and to form a coalition with them against Iran. Several weeks after this trip to Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Tillerson referred to the Persian Gulf as “the Arabian Gulf”.

During his Friday the 13th speech decertifying the JCPOA and laying out a strategy for regime change in Iran, President Trump echoed his Secretary of State when nearly six minutes into the twenty minute speech, he said that Iran “harasses American ships and threatens freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea.” Trump’s speech presented the outcome of the “comprehensive review” of Iran policy announced by Tillerson back in April. In summary, the new Iran policy includes renegotiating the nuclear deal to remove the time limits on the heavy restrictions of Iran’s nuclear energy program, to target Iran’s ballistic missile development, especially its efforts to acquire ICBMs, as well as measures not directly related to the nuclear program but targeting the regime, such as the imposition of crippling sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which “has hijacked large portions of Iran’s economy”, and finally, to support “regional allies”, i.e. Sunni Arab states, in confronting the Iranian military and paramilitary presence in Shiite-majority countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

For someone who has long been involved in the Iranian opposition to the Islamic Republic, and who was outraged by Obama Administration policies toward that regime, there were certainly elements of Trump’s speech that, on the face of it, seemed positive. These included his description of the regime as a tyranny that does not reflect the character and will of “a proud people”, a regime that has “raided the wealth of one of the world’s oldest and most vibrant nations.” Trump rightly condemned the Islamic Republic for brutally crushing the peaceful mass demonstrations of the summer and fall of 2009. He rightly chastised Obama for a nuclear deal that “threw Iran’s dictatorship a political and economic lifeline, providing urgently needed relief from the intense domestic pressure…” Indeed, Obama was penning secret letters to the Supreme Leader at the same time that the latter was ordering the murder and torture of young unarmed protestors whose chants included “Obama, Obama, either with us (the Iranian people) or with them (the Islamic regime)!” Trump’s evocative description of Obama’s perverse physical transfer of “huge piles” of cash to the Mullahs by airplane was particularly compelling.

There is, however, good reason to question the sincerity of the President when he claims that in his proposed policy of confronting the Islamic Republic, the United States government stands “in total solidarity with the Iranian regime’s longest suffering victims… The Iranian people [who] long to… reclaim their country’s proud history, its culture, its civilization…” The bare minimum of showing respect for the people of Iran’s millennial Persian civilizational heritage is to refer to the Persian Gulf by its proper name, which dates from the time of classical Greek geographers and has since been officially recognized by all major international organizations. Wanting to get under the skin of the Mullahs and threaten them is no excuse, since from the moment that they seized power in 1979, they have been Arabizers that tried to suppress Iran’s Persian identity. At one point they even wanted to bulldoze Persepolis and change Iran’s language to Arabic. President Trump’s use of the bogus term “Arabian Gulf” was bound to terribly offend the Persian people themselves. It reveals that the rest of his rhetoric about Persians being oppressed and victimized by the Islamic Republic was primarily for domestic consumption, preparing Americans for the “liberation” of yet another country.

Trump’s deployment of the phrase “Arabian Gulf” was no more accidental than Secretary of State Tillerson’s seven months earlier. It signals the true end game of the new Iran policy: the transformation of the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Gulf through targeting Iran’s nationwide Persian cultural identity by engineering ethnic separatism, reducing Iran to an impoverished rump state of ‘Persia’ surrounded by resource-rich “microstates” exploitatively controlled by Saudi Arabia and the rootless global capitalists whose cancerous Deep State has destroyed America’s moral compass. That Trump and Tillerson intend to pursue a war with this outcome was made clear in statements that Walid Phares volunteered to Fox News on October 13th during a preview and preliminary analysis of the President’s “Arabian Gulf” speech.

When asked about the nature of the new Iran policy that the President was about to announce, Phares explained, “The Pasdaran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, will be under the focus of [i.e. in the crosshairs of] our allies, and speaking of our allies, remember the President went to Riyadh. He met with 50 Arab and Muslim leaders. This is way different from what was the situation in the ‘90s. He has a much larger coalition. Even if the Europeans are going to be criticizing his position, he has a much larger bloc in the region to work with.” The Fox News anchor fails to ask Phares why he is jumping all the way back to the 1990s rather than drawing a contrast with Obama’s Iran policy. What does a “larger coalition” of Arab nations have to do with “the situation in the ‘90s”?

Phares is referring to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the coalition of Arab nations that George H. W. Bush formed to demolish Iraq. Saudi Arabia was the backbone of this coalition, as it will be the linchpin of the “much larger bloc” of Sunni Arab states that Trump will lead in a war that shatters and devastates Iran. On Phares’ revealing analogy, the Revolutionary Guard’s forward positions in the Shiite crescent are akin to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The difference is that the entirely predictable reaction of the Islamic Republic of Iran to being bombarded by Saudi-based missiles and air force jets is going to be a massive retaliation against Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-Arab sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, which will require American and allied Arab forces to put boots on the ground in Iran (at least in support for ethnic separatists and other terrorists) whereas Bush Senior’s coalition never marched to Baghdad. It is also predictable that, if attacked, the Islamic Republic will use Hezbollah to unleash asymmetrical warfare inside the United States on a scale that makes 9/11 look like a firecracker. Certainly, at that point, Congress will be intimidated into authorizing a full-scale American occupation of Iran.

I met Walid Phares and discussed Iran policy with him. Later on, I wrote him a very substantive letter warning the Trump Administration not to go down the Pro-Saudi path that it has since chosen to pursue with respect to regime change in Iran. This was the secret plan that Hillary Clinton had for dividing and conquering Iran, and the main reason that I and so many others within the Persian Renaissance movement supported Donald Trump was to make sure that it never actually became US foreign policy. The one thing that could turn the largely pro-American Persian people against the United States is American support for a Saudi-led Sunni Arab war against Iran. I was introduced to Walid Phares by Michael Bagley, the former intelligence director of the infamous Blackwater militia and founder of the Jellyfish intelligence agency.

During the summer of 2016, a certain individual contacted me. I’ll call him X. He praised Prometheus and Atlas to high heaven and said some things that I am not going to disclose because you will find them as hard to believe as I did before I was read into certain esoteric projects. Initially, I dismissed X as a nutcase and would rarely respond to him. Then he offered to concretely assist my efforts on the Persian front by putting me in touch with Michael Bagley, the President of Jellyfish, which he described as a private security and intelligence agency working with the Trump Team to prepare a new United States policy regarding Iran and the Islamic world. I was told that General Michael Flynn worked for Jellyfish, clandestinely of course, and I appreciated Flynn’s position on the Islamic threat. I figured that engaging with Michael Bagley would be an easy way to find out whether X was a crank or whether the other things he was telling me might be true.

Whereas some of what I later saw and heard while working with X and his other associates (there was a Y and Z) might have been smoke and mirrors, deliberately tailored to my personality profile and edgy techno-scientific interests, Michael at least turned out to be totally legit. His clients mostly consist of the chief executives of Fortune 500 companies, but I surmised that he had a special rapport with X and that the group X represents had some role in forming Jellyfish and mainly used it for their purposes – with the corporate consulting acting as a cash cow. I met with Michael months before the 2016 Presidential Election, again after Trump’s victory (which I was not surprised to see), as well as in the early days of the new administration. He would see President Trump on a regular basis, and he introduced me to others with even more access, including Walid Phares, who Michael described as the shadow Secretary of State. He said that Rex Tillerson was just supposed to be a front man, and that when I spoke to Walid I should assume that I am essentially speaking directly to President Trump. What really interested me was a proposal by Michael that I act as a liaison who provides media content produced by the Persian Renaissance Foundation to Jellyfish for broadcast into the Islamic Republic of Iran from a facility in Croatia.

Why Croatia? As X and I discussed, Croatia is a part of Iranian civilization. During Tito’s rule, which imposed a Slavic identity on all of Yugoslavia, scholars were actually prosecuted, imprisoned, and even tortured for researching and writing about the Iranian origin of the Croatian people. Specifically, they are part of the Scythian branch of Iranians – cousins of the Persians who rode deep into Europe. Widely known in Europe as “Alans”, they brought the Persian culture of chivalry and the Arthurian mythos to the West. On top of their Scythian ethnic roots, they were also a colonial territory of the Persian Empire under Darius – whose naval power, at its zenith, reached the Adriatic Sea. At least, that is how X pitched it to me. For all I know, Michael has never heard of the Scythians and the Balkans facility had absolutely nothing to do with Croatia’s heritage.

You see Michael’s interest in me was not limited to what we called “the Iran project.” At a meeting we had in Washington just before the Trump Administration came to power, Michael proposed to “take Richard [Spencer] out” and install me as the leader of the Alt-Right. By then, I had met Richard during NPI 2016 and, as someone whose fatal flaw is always wanting to see the best in people, I counter-proposed that Spencer was a reasonable guy who would accept direction from above if it meant that, through a figurehead other than himself, he could have access to the President. Steve Bannon was known to be a reader of Arktos books and Michael’s plan was to send me into the White House to cultivate a relationship with Bannon, and through him, to influence President Trump. My main reason for wanting to have such influence was to help determine Iran policy. Michael got at least one of my letters on this subject into the hands of the President. In it, on behalf of the Persian Renaissance, I explicitly warned Trump not to pursue a pro-Saudi or generally pro-Arab strategy for regime change in Iran. In retrospect, I suppose that through that letter the President and his policymakers also acquired some fairly substantive intelligence on our outlook, intentions, and capabilities.

Together with X and Michael, a plan was hammered out to secure my position as the leader of the Alt-Right by creating a corporate structure that unified the major institutions of the movement, in both North America and Europe, bringing Richard’s National Policy Institute think tank together with Daniel Friberg’s European Arktos publishing house, and the Red Ice Radio and Television network founded by Henrik Palmgren. A major investment would allow me to become a majority shareholder both in this new Alt-Right Corporation, and in its would-be subsidiary, Arktos Media, replacing Daniel Friberg as its CEO. When I expressed concern to Michael about what this plan would mean for my academic career, he replied, “What do you need an academic job for? You’ve been there and done that. Now it’s time for us to put some money in your pocket.” When a man who routinely does work on contract for Fortune 500 executives says something like that, it really does amount to an assurance that one will not be thrown under the bus (in the way that I now have been).

The funds for this investment into the Alt-Right Corporation, through yours truly, were going to be secured through a multi-billion dollar black budget for a classified project to be implemented by the Trump Administration. That project involved the construction of a vast constellation of “micro cities” in North Africa and Western Anatolia to contain the flow of migrants from the Islamic world into Europe, and to act as resettlement areas for illegal immigrants expelled from European countries. I was fully aware of the catastrophic damage that these migrants were doing to the social fabric of European countries: increasingly frequent acts of terror, molestation of women and children, and the spread of no-go zones where sharia law is enforced in European cities. So I can honestly say that I would have had no problem sleeping at night knowing that I was profiting from a project that would relocate these mostly military-aged Muslim men to places where they cannot volunteer to act as a fifth column for the Islamic State. Especially since I had been forced to helplessly witness ISIS destruction of the irreplaceable Iranian heritage in regions of northern Iraq and Syria that were once cultural centers of the Persian Empire. Not to mention the rape, enslavement, and genocide of Yazidi Kurds, crypto-Mithraists who are the purest remnant of ancient Iranian ethnicity.

As I have explained in previous pieces, the funding for a capital investment that would have established me as the majority shareholder of the Alt-Right Corporation never materialized. Now you can see why. Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals at high levels conspired to ensure that President Trump never authorized the construction of what they considered glorified concentration camps, even though I was told by both Michael and X that the black budget funding for the “micro cities” had already been allocated.

Let me tell you what X did when I started writing him letters warning that I was losing control of my partners and influence over the direction of the corporation. I wrote that I would be forced to take drastic measures if he and Michael allowed me to be humiliated in front of them on account of hollow promises and repeated, false assurances that the obstacles had been cleared and the capital would finally reach us. This was Spring of 2017, before the current troubles in Venezuela. X sent me a nearly $1 billion itemized oil contract, to pass on to a top-notch petroleum engineer at one of the world’s largest oil companies and ask if they were willing to take it on. X confessed that his “Promethean pirates” were planning to overthrow the socialist government of Venezuela and that they needed to get into the oil industry there before doing so. The engineer came back and said his company was not capable of the project.

I am sorry to have to disclose these facts. However, in the wake of The New York Times libelous publication of the video footage of me that Patrik Hermansson (aka. ‘Erik Hellberg’) surreptitiously obtained and deceptively edited, I contacted both X and Michael and gave them a final opportunity to do right by me. After all, I would never have been in that pub with ‘Hellberg’ as an Alt-Right leader if Michael had not promised to fund our proposed corporatization of the movement. What is worse is that Mr. Hermansson was sent my way by people closely associated with X, who was a founder of The London Forum. X was the person who contacted Jez Turner and Stead Steadman to set up that talk for me, and also secured an invitation for my dear friend Shahin Nezhad, leader of the Persian Renaissance Foundation, to give a speech as well. This is significant because ‘Erik Hellberg’ first met and set his sights on me during that event.

There was something very peculiar about X’s involvement with bringing me to The London Forum. He did not attend the talk himself, complaining about the Antifa demonstrators who surrounded the venue (there were even police helicopters circling the high-rise building during my speech). However, at one point X was actually in the lobby of the conference hotel and he sent up a certain Potkin Azarmehr. This troubled Shahin and I, as well as our close associate Aria Salehi (a member of the Board of Trustees of the Persian Renaissance), because we had encountered Potkin a day or two earlier at a Persian Renaissance event in London. He was not there as a sympathetic audience member but as a person carrying out surveillance, sitting alone in the back of the room with a disapproving look on his face. Potkin did the same thing at The London Forum event where Shahin and I spoke. He came in, checked things out, reviewed the book stand, and then left grumbling about how we were a bunch of “Mosleyite Fascists.”

What was a leftist like Potkin doing at either event? Why is he an associate of X if the latter is a founder of The London Forum and someone claiming to help facilitate the aims of the Persian Renaissance – including by getting me into business with the Trump Administration through Michael and the Alt-Right? Potkin is rumored to be an asset of Scotland Yard, and to have connections to the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq (MKO, aka. MEK, or National Council of Resistance of Iran), Marxist-Islamists who are even worse than the Islamic Republic and who lost any shred of legitimacy they may have once had when they defected to Iraq with some Iranian tank divisions and sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. Late in the course of my work with X, another associate of his who had also been falsely promised funding, let me know that X had at one point worked for MI6.

What were Michael’s true intentions when he suggested that I enter the leadership of the Alt-Right? Well, I can report that not only did our “Iran project” go nowhere, it has since come to my attention that even though X kept encouraging the Pan-Iranist discourse of the Persian Renaissance in the private meetings that I had with him, Michael was being told by people in “the deep state” that our Pan-Iranism was at odds with the kind of regime change that they wanted to see in Iran. Apparently, so was our tough stance against Islam and our emphasis on Pre-Islamic Persian values. In fact, Donald Trump eventually hired an American convert to Islam to manage his new Iran policy! After this, those of us in the Iranian opposition participating in private White House discussions regarding regime change had to fill out a form stating that we are Muslim, even though millions of young people in Iran today – and certainly all of the most anti-regime people in the country – have left Islam, usually for some form of Neo-Zoroastrianism. This is reflected in the part of Trump’s Friday the 13th speech, where he says “We hope that our actions today will help bring about a future… where young children, American and Iranian, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish, can grow up in a world free from violence, hatred, and terror…” On account of the Persian Renaissance movement, the Abrahamic religions, including and especially Islam, are on their way out in Iran. Why would Trump not acknowledge the millions of Neo-Zoroastrians who are the most anti-regime and most pro-Western elements in contemporary Iranian society? Whose interests does this serve?

Why was I continually encouraged to present policies to the shadow Secretary of State, in person, and to the President of the United States, in writing, which Michael had already told X were unacceptable? How could this have been allowed to go on for so long that, on August 11th, the Persian Renaissance formed the Iranian United Front (Jebheyé Irângarâyân) unifying the most established patriotic political parties opposed to the Islamic Republic, including the Pan-Iranist Party, under the false assumption that the Trump Administration would give us a serious hearing? Perhaps because certain agencies wanted us to put all of our eggs in one basket, so that they could break them all at once.

As the youngest and most intellectual member of the new coalition, the one who named it Jebheyé Irângarâyân, and the person whose speech introduced it to the English-speaking world, tarring me in the pages of The New York Times and countless other media outlets that have echoed its libelous coverage of the doctored Antifa video, could potentially be used to destroy the whole coalition. On September 28th, the mainstream Persian media outlet Radio Zamaneh ran a hit piece on me even more libelous than that of The New York Times, titled “In America, an intellectual leader of Iranian Fascism has been dismissed from teaching.” The Persian Renaissance Foundation is referred to as an imperialistic “fascist” organization, and its fate is explicitly and irrevocably tied to mine. Hopefully, you are starting to get the picture.

What was done to me on September 19th was the outcome of a long-term plan, and it is not just about the destruction of my academic career. Administrators at NJIT are simply useful idiots. This is about the reorientation of the trajectory of geopolitics in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. It is about aborting a Renaissance of the Persian Empire, which could bring progress and prosperity back to the dark heart of what is now ‘the Islamic world.’ I have been the most passionately outspoken and philosophically sophisticated advocate of that Renaissance who also has deep ties to the United States of America, the country in which I was born and raised.

In fact, like Donald Trump, I was born in Queens and spent most of my life in Manhattan. Dad actually used to frequent the same neighborhood butcher as Donald’s father. My paternal ancestors include the Qajar monarchs, one of the longest reigning dynasties in Iran’s 3,000 year history, and my grandfather, Reza Qajar Jorjani, was a renowned patriotic public intellectual who helped to found the University of Tabriz – one of Reza Shah Pahlavi’s key instruments to guard against the secession of Azerbaijan and to restore its Persian cultural character after centuries of backward Turkicisation. When the Shah sent him from Tehran to Tabriz, after years in European cities such as Montpellier and Paris (with his best friend, Sadegh Hedayat), my grandfather’s orders were to wage a culture war to salvage and reinforce the Persian heritage of Tabriz. His wife, my recently deceased grandmother, Leila Dowlatshahi, hails from the family who were the regional governors of the Azerbaijan province of Persia in the Qajar period, including the northern part of Azerbaijan in the Caucasus, seized by the Russian Tsars in the mid-1800s and occupied by the Soviet Union until 1991. Her aunt, Esmat Dowlatshahi, became Reza Shah the Great’s wife, integrating our family into the Pahlavi Dynasty. God bless his soul, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the “King of Kings and Light of the Aryans” (Shahanshah Aryamehr) whose “White Revolution” (1963–1978) endeavored to revive Persian Imperial glory, was my grandma’s cousin.

So the coming Persian War is particularly personal for me. I call it the Persian War because it is specifically a war being orchestrated against the Persian civilizational identity of Iran. As I explain in the speech where I introduced our nationalist opposition coalition to the English-speaking world, the conflation of “Iran” and “Persia” has in recent years been used to the opposite effect that this equivalence had in the West for most of history. Iran is shorthand for Eranshahr (Ancient Persian, Aryana Khashatra) or “Aryan Imperium”, which is how all Iranians, including the dominant Persians, always referred to the “Persian Empire.” Prior to 1935, Iran’s internationally recognized official name was “Persia.” Moreover, even after 1935, when Westerners referred to Iran as “Persia” they meant to suggest what has more recently been termed “Greater Iran” or the Persianate World, the Imperial sphere of influence from the borders of China to the Caucasus, from Northern India to Syria, wherein Persian (Parsi or Dari) has been a lingua franca for centuries and where people of many diverse ethnicities and religions (including huge Buddhist regions in Pre-Islamic times) were brought into a humanistic cultural, intellectual, and spiritual dialogue with one another through the Persian crown.

Today, at the behest of Arab oil sheikhs and transnational corporatists who want to loot Iran’s resources by dividing and conquering the country, “Persia” means the Persian ethnostate that would be left after fomenting Azeri, Kurdish, Ahwazi, and Balochi separatist revolts against the government of Iran. This rump state of “Persia” would have lost about 30% of Iran’s remaining territory (already a shadow of what it was only two centuries ago, let alone during the five great Persian Empires), and about 70% of vital resources such as oil and gas. Moreover, the Arab Republic of Al-Ahwaz (i.e. Iran’s Khuzestan province), Greater Azerbaijan, Greater Kurdistan, and Free Baluchistan, would have no deeply-rooted and rich civilizational heritage to serve as the backbone of nationalist resistance against exploitation of the oil and gas resources that belonged to Iran. Meanwhile, the rising tide – rather, the incipient tsunami – of patriotic sentiment based on the Persian Imperial heritage would be contained in a small and impoverished Persian ethnostate stretching from the Caspian Sea to the “Arabian Gulf”, rather than leading to the establishment of the sixth Persian Empire on the ruins of the Caliphate of Al-Qaeda (in Central Asia) and the Islamic State (in the Middle East).

I call it the coming Persian War because we, the Persians, will not go quietly into that good night. The Trump plan to divide and conquer Iran, working with Saudi Arabia and their paid agents amongst Iran’s ethnic minorities in resource-rich outer provinces, may succeed in the short term but it will eventually end in a catastrophic failure. Weimer Germany is the best analogy. Within a decade, a stoker will reignite the fire from out of those ashes. Except that we are not Germans. Through the Scythians (i.e. the Saxons) and the Alans, we lent the Germans and Goths our Faustian (i.e. Zoroastrian) genius and chivalric spirit but those northern Barbarians never understood the essence of our cosmopolitan humanism.

Al-Ahwaz and a Kurdish nation have nothing but Sunni fundamentalism and barbaric tribalism to offer the world, whereas our Persian civilizational heritage has not only held Iran together for centuries it has, repeatedly, offered all of humanity the best chance at forming a world order based on innovation, compassion, and social justice. Martin Heidegger rightly observed that “Language is the house of Being”, and there have been very few languages that became, for centuries, the lingua franca of many peoples other than those for whom it was a native language. These include Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, French, English, Russian – and Persian. We will rebuild our house of Being and defeat, at any cost, those who want to see it become a ruin inside of a ghetto.

Profiteers who are used to running ghettos want to ghettoize all of the great nations of Earth. They have been doing it to America for decades. But not to worry, after we have our own house in order we will also work to make America great again. The people of Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, the nation of Melville, William James, and Jackson Pollock deserves better than Donald Trump or any other chump who is ‘elected’ to be a mere tool of an unaccountable and totally corrupt Deep State apparatus, which has metastasized like a cancer throughout all of the organs of the United States government.

We, the Persians, do not hold the decent and hard-working American people responsible for: (1) CIA and CFR orchestration of the Islamist seizure of power in 1979; (2) that piece of CIA theater known as “the hostage crisis” that muddied Iran’s good name; (3) the solidification of the Islamic Republic through full US operational support for Saddam Hussein’s war of aggression from 1980–1988 at the cost of half a million Iranian lives; (4) destruction of irreplaceable Persian archeological treasures by Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, terrorist groups that the United States set up in our former provinces; (5) Obama’s facilitation of the mass murder and torture of the valiant youths who rose up in 2009; (6) Trump’s proposed war to create an “Arabian Gulf.”

We know that you do not really have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” You are oppressed by a rogue dictatorship. Rest assured that after we liberate ourselves and secure our future, we will bring the ever-living fire of true freedom to your bountiful continent as we once brought it to Greece. Far be it from us to leave your resistance movement in the hands of the Alt-Right or comparable culturally impoverished and regressive reactionaries. We are coming to save you, America. So speaks the living spirit of Xerxes, King of Kings, Light of the Aryans...

Bonapartist Iran

Bonapartist Iran

The question of Iran’s immediate future probably has more profound implications for the long-term survival of the Aryan heritage than any other contemporary crisis.

Jason Reza Jorjani

Ex: https://altright.com

 

On April 19^th 2017, United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson held a press briefing in which he announced that the Trump Administration would be conducting a “comprehensive review” of its Iran policy. There are those of us who have known, since before the Inauguration, that regime change was on the table for Iran – with the only question being, just what kind of regime change? The fake news Assad gas attack and retaliatory fireworks in Syria were not at all reassuring. A month later, on May 19^th, the Islamic Republic holds its 12^th Presidential Elections. One thing is clear: Whoever is elected could be the last president of the Shi’a theocracy.

There is a plan to destroy Iran, a plan drawn up together with Saudi Arabia by those within the American military-industrial complex who consider the Saudis an ally of the United States. Hillary Clinton, who has extensive ties to Saudi financiers, certainly intended to implement this plan. Judging from the repeated references to Saudi Arabia in statements on Iran made by both the Secretary of Defense, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, it is beginning to look like this plan might move forward even though there appeared to be substantively different plans for Iran back when General Flynn and Steve Bannon were the leading members of Team Trump. Whether or not this Saudi plan succeeds will have a deep impact on the future of Westerners and others in the wider Indo-European world. The question of Iran’s immediate future probably has more profound implications for the long-term survival of the Aryan heritage than any other contemporary crisis.

Surrounded by a dozen artificial states that do not predate the European colonial machinations of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, Irân is the only real nation between China and India in the East and the sphere of declining European civilization to the West and North. Shorthand for Irânshahr or “Aryan Imperium”, the country’s 55% Persian majority never referred to Iran as “the Persian Empire.” The classical Greeks coined that term and it stuck in the West. It is dangerously misleading because, while the Persians have been the most culturally dominant ethno-linguistic group within Iranian Civilization (playing a role comparable to the Han within Chinese Civilization), the Kurds, Ossetians, Baluch, and others are both ethnically and linguistically Iranian even if they do not speak the Persian language (referred to as Pârsi or, wrongly, as Fârsi in Western Iran and as Dari or Tâjiki in Iranian Central Asia).

The conflation of “Iran” and “Persia” has, for a number of years now, been enlisted as part of a plot to further erode the territorial integrity of Iran by reducing it to a Persian rump state. While the rootless globalist conspirators plotting to frame “Iran” as a conceptual construct of Persian Imperialism are certainly driven by economic and strategic considerations, their ultimate goal is the erasure of the very idea of Iran or Iranshahr. They see the revival of this idea as perhaps the single greatest threat to their broader agenda, and since the total failure of the Islamic Reform Movement of 1997–2009, just such a revival has been at the heart of an ultra-nationalist cultural revolution known as the Iranian Renaissance.

This movement strives for a rebirth of the Pre-Islamic worldview of Iranian Civilization, seeing the so-called “golden age” of Islam as an afterglow or abortion of what might have been had Iran continued its developmental trajectory as an Aryan nation. After all, the vast majority of scientists and engineers who were forced to write in Arabic under the Caliphate were ethnic Iranians whose mother tongue was Persian. In every respect, from Science and Technology, to Literature, Music, Art, and Architecture, so-called ‘Islamic Civilization’ acted as a parasite misappropriating a truly glorious Iranian Civilization that was already 2,000 years old before the Arab–Muslim invasion imposed Islam, and the genocidal Mongols cemented it (by crushing the Persian insurgencies in Azerbaijan, on the Caspian coast, and in Khorasan).

The Iranian Renaissance is based on the revival of ancient principles and ideals, many of which Iran shares with Europe both through their common Caucasian ancestry and through extensive intercultural exchange. This included the deep penetration of the Iranian Alans, Scythians, and Sarmatians into the European continent, and their eventual integration with the Goths in “Goth-Alania” (Catalonia) and the Celts in “Erin” (a cognate of “Iran”). Their introduction of the culture of knightly chivalry (Javanmardi) and grail mysticism into Europe left as deep an impact on the “Faustian” ethos of the West as the “Promethean” (really, Zoroastrian) ideals of the worship of Wisdom and innovative industriousness, which were introduced to Greece through centuries of Persian colonization.

The civilizational barrier between Iran and Europe has been very porous – on both sides. After the Hellenization of Iran during the Alexandrian period, Europe was almost Persianized through the adoption of Mithraism as the state religion of Rome. Partly as a consequence of the machinations of the Parthian dynasty and their black ops Navy in the Mediterranean, this was imminent by the time Constantine institutionalized Christianity – probably as a bulwark against Iran.

So it should not come as a surprise that many of the core elements of the ethos of the Iranian Renaissance seem strikingly European: the reverence for Wisdom and the pursuit of knowledge above all else; consequently, also an emphasis on industrious innovation leading to a utopian beautification and perfection of this world; a cultivation of chivalrous free-spiritedness, charitable humanitarianism, and broadminded tolerance; a political order that is based on Natural Right, wherein slavery is considered unjust and strong women are greatly respected.

But one must remember that to the extent that Iranshahr extended far eastward into Asia, these values were once also characteristic of Eastern Aryan culture – especially Mahayana Buddhism, which was created by the Iranian Kushans. Iran colonized northern India five times and the entire Silk Route into what is now Northwestern China was populated by Caucasian-looking Iranians until Turkic and Mongol conquests in the 11^th and 12^th centuries.

While the Iranian Renaissance wants to “Make Iran Great Again” by reviving this Indo-European legacy, and even by territorially reconstituting what people in our movement call “Greater Iran” (Irâné Bozorg), rootless globalists, Arab oil sheikhs, and their Islamist collaborators in Turkey and Pakistan want to erase Iran from the map altogether. Evidently this is not lost on the hundreds of thousands of Iranian nationalists who gathered at the tomb of Cyrus the Great on October 29^th 2016 to chant the slogan “We are Aryans, we don’t worship Arabs!” The slogan is as blatantly anti-Islamic as possible within the limits of the law in the Islamic Republic. The prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali were, of course, Arabs, so the point is quite clear. It is also clear who these young people consider their true messenger, since the other most widely chanted slogan was, “Our Aryan Cyrus, you are our honor!”

Since the brutally crushed uprising of 2009, almost all Iranians have rejected the Islamic Republic. Many of them, especially the youth, are convinced that Islam itself is the problem. They have clandestinely converted to a Neo-Zoroastrianism that is indistinguishable from Iranian ultra-nationalism. Zarathustra in a winged disc, symbolizing the evolutionary perfection of the soul, known as the “Farvahar” is everywhere: on pendants, rings, and even tattoos (despite the fact that tattoos, which were ubiquitous among the Scythians, were banned by orthodox Zoroastrianism). Now even key elements within the regime, especially the Revolutionary Guard, are reading treatises on “the political thought of Aryan Imperium” that are extremely critical of Islam while glorifying ancient Iran.

Meanwhile, the so-called ‘opposition’ in exile has been almost entirely corrupted and co-opted by those who wish to carve up what little is left of Iran. On the one hand you have the radical Leftists who actually handed Iran over to the Ayatollahs in 1979 before Khomeini turned on them, forcing those who escaped execution to go into exile. On the other hand you have the blindly loyal devotees of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, whose vision – or lack thereof – largely aligns with that of the leftists, at least insofar as it concerns the aims of the Globalists and Islamists.

Those in the Marxist and Maoist opposition to the Islamic Republic promote ethnic separatism, transplanting an anti-Colonialist discourse of “people’s liberation struggles” into an Iranian context where it does not belong. The Persians never lorded over anyone. We were humanitarian liberators. If anything, we were too humanitarian and too liberal.

Leftists speak of “the peoples of Iran” as if the Kurds and Baluch are not ethnically Iranian and as if a Turkic dialect were not imposed on the province of Azerbaijan, the Caucasian wellspring of Iran, by means of genocidal half-savage Asiatic conquerors. While claiming to be feminists and partisans of the proletarian revolution these leftists accept funding from Saudi Arabia, who wants to help them separate the partly Arabized oil-rich region of Khuzestan from Iran and turn it into the nation of Al-Ahwaz, with a considerable coastline on what they already refer to as “the Arabian Gulf.” Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Al-Ahwaz, Baluchistan: these microstates, ostensibly born of leftist “liberation movements”, would be easy for rootless global capitalists to control. In at least two cases, Al-Ahwaz and ‘Free Baluchistan’, they would also be breeding grounds for the further spread of Islamist terrorism. Finally, they would leave the Persians divested of almost all of Iran’s oil and natural gas resources, and contain the rising tide of Aryan Identitarianism within a rump state of ‘Persia.’

The most well-armed and well-organized of these leftist groups is the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK), which also goes by the aliases People’s Mojaheddin of Iran (PMOI) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Their armed guerrillas essentially put Khomeini and the clerical establishment to power before being branded as heretics. Their response was to swear allegiance to Saddam Hussein and put at his disposal a few military units that defected during the Iran-Iraq War. This means that they de-facto accepted the Iraqi occupation of Khuzestan. Later, when they were forced to relocate to Iraqi Kurdistan, they made promises to the Kurds to support Kurdish secession from Iran. A whole host of prominent politicians in the United States and the European Union have been bribed into pledging their support for the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, including John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and the NeoCons.

The majority of the Iranian people view the MEK as traitors, and the fact that they are essentially a cult whose members – or captives – are as forcibly closed off from the outer world as North Koreans does not help either. While this means that they would never be able to effectively govern Iran, the MEK could be used as a catalytic agent of de-stabilization during a war against the Islamic Republic.

Here is where Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi comes in, together with his wing of the exiled Iranian ‘opposition.’ The globalist cabal and their Arab allies in the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE) intend to create a problem to which he is the solution. He is in their pocket.

At a CFR meeting in Dallas in early 2016, which I exposed in a notorious interview with the Sweden-based independent journalist Omid Dana of Roodast (“the Persian Alex Jones”), Reza Pahlavi mocked the allegedly “overblown nationalist rhetoric” about the genocidal Arab-Muslim Conquest of Iran. He referred to this incomparable historical tragedy as something that, if it happened at all, is unimportant because it happened long ago. Really, he sees it as an obstacle to good neighborly relations with the Arab states of “the Gulf”. Oh yes, in interviews with Arab media he has referred to the Forever Persian Gulf as “the Gulf” so as to appease his wealthy Arab benefactors. Reza Pahlavi has also allowed representatives in his official media outlets to repeatedly do the same. He has even used the term in a context that implies Iran might surrender several islands in “the Gulf” with a view to better neighborly relations. (As if his father’s relinquishing of Bahrain was not bad enough!)

In fact, he has suggested that Saudi Arabia and other inhumane Arab governments ought to invest in Iran’s economy to such an extent that Iran would be so dependent on them that waging war against these nations would become impossible. Relatedly, and very embarrassingly, the Crown Prince asserted that his future Iran should not have nuclear weapons because he would be afraid to sleep at night in his palace, since if Iran were to develop atomic arms other rival nations in the region would have the right to do so as well and would aim their missiles at Iran.

What is worse than all of this rhetoric is the Prince’s very concrete plan to put the question of a federalization of Iran to a popular vote or nationwide referendum. This is not merely a proposal. He meets with individuals and groups who are promoting separatism and the further territorial disintegration of Iran, with the first stage being “education in the mother tongue” (rather than Persian) and regional autonomy in the context of a federal system. At the same time, he denounced as “Fascists” the Iranian patriots who, at a risk of being imprisoned or killed, assembled at the tomb of Cyrus the Great on October 29^th of last year and chanted the slogan, “We are Aryans, we don’t worship Arabs!” This, despite the fact that some of the same protestors also chanted slogans congratulating the Crown Prince on his birthday – a mistake that they will never make again. He even made remarks that suggestively mocked supporters of the Persian Imperial Tradition.

Reza Pahlavi takes every opportunity to make it clear his real ideals are “liberal democracy” and “universal human rights”, Western concepts that he uncritically embraces without the least understanding of the fundamental problems with them as compared to our aristocratic Iranian political philosophy – which influenced, and is much more in line with, substantial Western political theories such as those of Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche.

While his embrace of democracy and human rights extends to a popular vote on a federalization that leads to regional autonomy and eventually secession of numerous provinces, it apparently does not protect criticism of Islam. Also under influence from his neo-liberal Western handlers, and the leftist PC police in the West, and totally out of line with the popular sentiment among the Iranian youth, he has asserted that if Islam is to be insulted or if there is to be ‘Islamophobia’ in the future Iran, then it would be better for the Islamic Republic to remain in power. He has the gall to say this while branding his critics as agents of the Islamic Republic. When tens of prominent patriotic monarchists signed a “Last Warning” (Akharin Hoshdâr) statement to him in July of 2016, some of whom were his father’s closest advisors, he accused all of us of being agents of the Islamic Republic who falsified his claims and manufactured evidence (which was itself a patently false and slanderous claim).

We were not agents of the Islamic Republic, nor will we ever be shills of a Shi’a theocracy in its present form. But given the crisis that we face now, we need to consider a radical alternative to both the secessionist traitors in the Paris-based leftist opposition and the Shahs of Sunset in Los Angeles who are all too happy to have their Prince of Persia reign over the rump state that is left of Iran after “regime change.” I propose a grand bargain, a Bonapartist preemption of the coming reign of Terror.

Those who have followed my writings and interviews know that there is no harsher critic of Islam, in all its forms, than yours truly. I have not yet published my really serious and rigorous critiques of Islam, including and especially my deconstruction of the Shi’a doctrine. Nothing that I am about to propose changes the fact that I have every intention of doing so within the next few years.

Nevertheless, we are entering into what Carl Schmitt called a “state of emergency”. In this exceptional situation, wherein we are presented with an existential threat to Iran, it is important to recognize the difference between ontological or epistemological questions and the kind of friend-enemy distinction that is definitive for political thought in the proper and fundamental sense. Iranian nationalists have friends within the system of the Islamic Republic, and Lord knows we have plenty of enemies outside of it.

That young Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) officer from Mashaad who recites Hafez while patrolling the Iraqi border and waiting to be murdered by Kurdish separatists, but whose own mother is a Kurd, and who goes with his Persian father to worship at the shrine of Imam Reza while wearing a Farvahar around his neck, is not only a friend he is the brother of every true Iranian patriot. It was not the Pasdaran who shot and butchered young Iranians to put down the revolt of 2009, it was paramilitary thugs beholden to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – who is now on his deathbed.

We need to think about the future. The very heart and soul of Zarathustra’s teaching was his futurism, his emphasis on evolutionary innovation. If he were alive today, he certainly would not be a Zoroastrian. Frankly, even if he had been alive during the Sassanian Empire, he would not have been a Zoroastrian in any orthodox sense.

The Iranian Renaissance holds up the Sassanian period as the zenith of Iran’s history, “the climax before the dramatic decline.” But the two greatest heretics, from the standpoint of Zoroastrian Orthodoxy, had the backing of the Sassanian state. Shapur I was the patron of Mani, who created a syncretic world religion in which Gautama Buddha and the Gnostic Christ were seen as Saoshyants (Zoroastrian World Saviors) and the legitimate successors of Zarathustra. Manichaeism spread all the way to southern France in the West, where it sparked the Holy Inquisition as a reaction against it, and China in the East, where Mani was referred to as “the Buddha of Light” and his teaching influenced the development of Mahayana Buddhism. The libertine esotericist Mazdak, whose socialist revolution I would classify more as national-bolshevist than Communist, was given the full backing of the Sassanian Persian Emperor Kavad I. Even Khosrow Anushiravan, who crushed the Mazdakite movement, was not any kind of Orthodox Zoroastrian. He was a Neo-Platonist, who invited the remains of the Academy to take refuge at Iranian libraries and laboratories such as Gondeshapur after Justinian closed Europe’s last universities.

Moreover, the evolution of the Iranian spiritual tradition founded by Zarathustra did not end with the Islamic Conquest. The Iranian Renaissance condemns Mazdak unequivocally, and yet Babak Khorrdamdin is regarded as a hero of nationalist resistance to the Arabian Caliphate. But the Khorramdin partisans of Azerbaijan were Mazdakites! A clear line can be drawn from the Mazdakite movement, through the Khorramdin, and into esoteric Shi’a groups such as the Nizari Ismailis or Order of “Assassins” as they are widely known in the West. Fighting against both the Caliphate and the Crusaders simultaneously, there has never been a greater champion of Iranian freedom and independence than Hassan Sabbah. Nor did his brand of Shi’a esotericism decline with the Sevener or Ismaili sect.

There are still, in Iran today, putatively Shi’a clergy who owe more to Suhrawardi, via Mullah Sadra, than they do to anything that Imam Ali actually preached. By the time of the Sixth Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, the Shi’a faith was co-opted by Iranian partisans struggling against the Sunni Caliphate. The kind of Shi’a doctrine that some of Ayatollah Khomeini’s colleagues attempted to impose on Iran in 1979 represented a radical reconstruction of early Arab Shi’ism, not the kind of Shi’a esotericism that birthed the Safavid Dynasty. The latter allowed Iran to reemerge as a distinct political state set apart from, and against, the Sunni Ottoman Caliphate and a Mughal Empire that had also declined into Islamic fundamentalism after Akbar’s Persianate literature and philosophy proved an insufficient bulwark against this. Some of these Persianate Shi’a are at the highest levels in the power structure of the Islamic Republic. They need to be welcomed into the fold of Iranian nationalism, even into the fold of the Iranian Renaissance.

The Italian Renaissance reached back to Pagan Rome for the sake of a civilizational revitalization, but it did not abolish Christianity. Neither did Benito Mussolini when he adopted, as his explicit aim, a second Italian Renaissance and a revival of the Roman Empire. Rather, Il Duce recruited Roman Catholicism as a reliable ally in his valiant struggle against rootless capitalism, because he knew that Roman Catholics were “Roman” – even in Argentina.

Likewise, today, Shi’a are somehow culturally Iranian, even in Turkic northern Azerbaijan, Arabic-speaking Iraq and Bahrain, not to mention northwestern Afghanistan, where Persian remains the lingua franca. If Neo-Zoroastrians, both in Iran and in the parts of Kurdistan currently outside of Iran’s borders, were to ally with Persianate Shi’a it would do more than shore up Iran’s territorial integrity. It would establish a new Persian Empire, providing central Iran with numerous Shi’a buffer zones and forward positions while, on the basis of Iranian nationalism, also reincorporating areas that are ethno-linguistically Iranian but not Shi’a – such as greater Kurdistan and Tajikistan (including Samarkand and Bukhara).

What I am proposing is more than a military coup within the Islamic Republic. The label of “Bonapartist” is only partly accurate. We need a group of officers in the Pasdaran who recognize that Timocracy, as Plato called it, is only the second best form of government and that their rule will need to be legitimated by a philosopher king and a council of Magi with the intellect and depth of soul to use state power to forward the Iranian Renaissance that is already underway. Ironically, if we separate the political form of the Islamic Republic from its content – as a good Platonist would – the regime’s anti-democratic and illiberal core structures are strikingly Iranian. The Guardian Council (Shorâye Negahbân) is the Assembly of the Magi and the Guiding Jurisprudent (Velâyaté Faqih) is the Shâhanshâhé Dâdgar who has the farr – who is rightly guided by the divine glory of Wisdom. This should be no surprised since, after all, Ayatollah Khomeini borrowed these concepts from Al-Farabi, who is still, deep down, an Aryan.

The Pan-Iranist Party, with its origins in the National-Socialist Workers Party (SUMKA) of early 1940s Iran, is a key element in this stratagem. Famous for its very vocal parliamentary opposition to Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s relinquishing of Bahrain in 1971, the ultra-nationalist (i.e. to the Right of the Shah) loyal opposition of the Pahlavi regime could become the loyal opposition of the Islamic Republic if it were legalized after a coup d’état by those within the Revolutionary Guard who understand the value of Iranian nationalism in confronting the imminent existential threat to Iran.

Unlike all of the other opposition parties, the Pan-Iranist Party’s underground subsistence has been just barely tolerated by the Islamic Republic. Although it is technically illegal, and cannot field candidates in elections, the regime has not crushed it either – because there is no question about the party’s loyalty to Iran. The party has extensive connections to both the intellectual leadership of the Iranian Renaissance and the more patriotic members of the Shi’a clergy. If it were the only legal opposition party, all Iranian nationalists would vote for it and, within a single election cycle, or two at most, the Pan-Iranists would secure a majority in parliament. Their first piece of legislation ought to be something with great symbolic power and little chance of backlash from the remaining military-industrial complex of the Islamic Republic: the return to the Lion and Sun as Iran’s legitimate national flag (one of the Party’s stated goals).

The Lion and Sun epitomizes the ambiguity of Iranian identity. Shi’a claim that it is a zoomorphic representation of Imam Ali, “the Lion of God” (Assadollâh) and that the sword wielded by the lion is the Zulfaqâr. The Islamic Republic replaced the symbol because its fundamentalist founders knew this to be false. The Lion and Sun is an exceedingly ancient Aryan standard, which probably represents Mithras or the Sun rising into the zodiacal house of Leo.

Moreover, Neo-Zoroastrians are wrong to think that the curved sword is an Islamic addition (and consequently that it ought to be replaced by a straightened sword). Rather, the lion’s sword is the harpe, which was the symbol of the fifth grade of initiation in Mithraism, known as Perses. Perses was the son of Perseus, the progenitor of the Persian Aryans. He severs the Gorgon’s head with a harpe sword. Gorgons were sacred to the Scythians, the tribal rival of the Persians within the Iranian world. Perseus holding the severed head of Medusa is a symbol of his having seized her power (her Shakti) while remaining human (without turning to stone). But yeah, sure, it’s Imam Ali.

In the new Iran, Neo-Zoroastrians are going to need to tolerate the mass mourning rituals of Moharram and Ashura, after all their true origins are in the ancient Iranian mourning processions for the martyrdom of Siyâvosh. Meanwhile, Shi’a are going to have to put up with Farvahar-tattooed Neo-Zoroastrian women who have been so antagonized by the Islamic Republic that they want to jump naked over Châhâr-Shanbeh Suri bonfires lit by burning Korans.

Unlike under Reza Shah Pahlavi II, and the proposed Arab Republic of Al-Ahwaz, there will be no criminalization of ‘Islamophobia’ in nationalist Iran. Actually, the Shi’a component of the new regime will serve to legitimate Iran’s alliance with European nationalists fighting the fifth column of the new Sunni Calipahte in Paris, London, Munich, and Dearborn. The hydra’s heads are in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Mithra’s Lioness will sever these heads with her harpe. For the first time since the Fatamid Dynasty of the Assassins, Mecca and Medina will be governed by Shi’a mystics. Persians will celebrate at Persepolis.

There is no doubt about it. The time has come for Bonapartist Iran – the Aryan-Islamic, Religious-Nationalist assassin’s fortress of resistance against the rootless globalists, where, “No-thing is true, and everything is permitted.” We are left with only one question, “Who is the Persian Napoleon?”