The CIA And The Ayatollahs: A Match Made In Hell

 

Two down, many more to go.

Related: 

Reminder: Washington Had A Hand In The Creation of The Islamic Republic.

A Rigged Revolution: How The Shadow CIA-MI6 Network Put Khomeini And Militant Islamists in Power.

An Epic Deception: America's Overthrow of The Shah And The Secret Quest For A One World Government.

The British And U.S. Governments Installed Khomeini Into Power In 1979.

Hostage To False Flag Terror: The Link Between The October Surprise And The September Surprise. 

The Myth of Khomeini.

Why The West Created The Islamic Republic of Iran, And Why It Wants To Destroy It Now.

The Shadow CIA: A State Within A State Within A State.

The Shadow CIA Was Instrumental In The Taking of American Hostages In Iran.

A Divine Drama: The Esoteric Agenda Behind World War III.

The Anglo-Americans And The Ayatollahs.

The Halloween Massacre And The CIA's Revenge.

An excerpt from, "Iranian Ulama & the CIA: The Key Alliance Behind the 1953 Iranian Coup D’état" by Anthony Lucey, History In The Making, Vol. 12, Article 8, January 2019:

It is August 19, 1953 in Iran’s capital city of Tehran. Demonstrators are in the streets looting, rioting, chanting, and protesting. Beautiful mosques, main government and office buildings are being demolished and a local Tudeh (Iran’s Communist Party) theater and office equipment are burned to the ground. The demonstrators continue their march and attack local newspaper offices, leaving them in ruins. Trucks and buses now arrive flooding the streets with local tribesmen from surrounding areas who join the madness. The will of the people becomes too much, and soon the occupying army units join the movement. Civilians and soldiers, side by side, proceed to take over the main squares of the city and ultimately seize the broadcasting facilities of Radio Tehran. This historic Persian city has officially erupted into total chaos. Tremendous fear from local families caught in the fray fills the air. The demonstrations seem to have taken on a life of their own as they continuously grow in size. The mob moves on to take over the telegraph office, the foreign ministry, press and propaganda bureau, the police and army headquarters. Finally, they come to the home of the man who is the ostensible cause for all of the mayhem, their Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. A battle breaks out between Mossadeq's supporters and the anti Mossadeq crowds, leaving hundreds of people dead on the streets. The overthrow is now complete, and later the same day Army General Fazlollah Zahedi announces that he is Iran’s new Prime Minister and that his forces now control the city. At the time, and for many years following the coup d’état which overthrew Prime Minister Mossadeq almost no one, outside of British and US intelligence and their Iranian operatives and collaborators, would have ever dreamed that this horrific scene was entirely fabricated, designed, and orchestrated by a new world power—the United States of America and their top intelligence agency, the CIA. Hard to believe as it might be, this is no movie scene, but a sad narrative that lies at the heart of modern US-Iranian relations. 

This research seeks to shed light on the relationship between the CIA and prominent Islamic religious figures and their participation in the 1953 Iranian coup. This work will draw much of its information from declassified CIA documents like CIA Operative Dr. Donald Wilber’s contemporary historical account titled “Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November 1952 – August 1953,” CIA Historian Claud Corrigan’s “The Battle for Iran,” CIA Staff Historian Steve Koch’s more recent CIA history titled “Zendebad Shah!,” as well as the newly declassified British memorandums titled “Persia: Political Review of the Recent Crisis,” which provides key information regarding the payoffs of Iranian clerics by the CIA as well the expectations the CIA held for those clerics in return for said payoffs, the actions taken by both the CIA and key members of the Ulama, and the roles played by prominent groups and individuals throughout the major sectors of Iranian society. This research aims to deepen and enhance our understanding of the inner workings of the CIA, their role within the unfortunate tale of the 1953 coup, the motivating factors behind the CIA involvement, as well as the contributions of Iran’s own religious elites towards the toppling of Dr. Mossadeq.  

The first portion of this research will provide a deep historical context of the events leading up to the ousting of Prime Minister Mossadeq from office with the aim of providing sufficient background to facilitate the understanding required to make sense of this complicated course of events. First, it is necessary to return to the beginning in1901 with the notorious D’Arcy oil concession of Iranian oil rights to the British, continue into the early 1950s with the nationalization of Iranian oil, and conclude with the unfolding of the coup itself. The second portion of this study will focus on Mohammad Mossadeq himself, providing a background on the type of man he was and the positions he stood so strongly for. In this section we will also look into why the US and Britain both wanted to remove Mossadeq and their motivations for conducting the coup. This segment also aims to cover the regional and economic goals desired from the removal of Mossadeq and the consequences that followed. The third section of this paper will provide a background on the ulama, their role within Iranian society, and possible motivations for their participation in the coup. Section four will inquire into the relationship between the CIA and members of the Ulama as well as their direct involvement through forming and implementing anti-Mossadeq street demonstrations, by using their influence in the political realm in Iran, in exchange for bribes in the form of cash as well as potential backing for power positions within the Iranian government, and by filtering “black” and “gray” propaganda through the mosques and their religious circles in hopes of toppling Mossadeq. This research will also help to show the inner workings of the CIA at this time and other activities they carried out in congruence with ulama networking and bribery that facilitated the coup. Lastly, I will introduce and analyze the primary source documents from the CIA and British Intelligence (MI6) that give context to the entire process of the coup as well as irrefutable, incriminating evidence of the CIA utilizing money to bribe influential Iranian clerics into participating in the 1953 Iranian coup.   

. . .Claud H. Corrigan, member of the CIA’s History Staff provides the CIA’s most blatant admission of guilt to date in his detailed history of the 1953 coup in Iran titled The Battle for Iran where he states:  

“The point that the majority of these accounts miss is a key one: the military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government. It was not an aggressively simplistic solution, clandestinely arrived at but was instead an official admission by both the United States and United Kingdom that normal, rational methods of international communication and commerce had failed. TPAJAX was entered into as a last resort.”

Kermit Roosevelt, head of the CIA’s Near East and Africa Division and grandson of US President Theodore Roosevelt, was selected by President Eisenhower, CIA Director Dulles, as well as the British MI6 and given complete authority to command and carry out the overthrow and removal of Mossadeq in Tehran by any means necessary. Along with the British, and other US operatives, Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA used a plethora of techniques to influence Iran’s bureaucrats, clerics, merchants, workers, criminals, religious community, and the remainder of the masses, in an effort to shift their views regarding Mossadeq, in as negative a way as possible, in order to undermine the massive amount of power he held in Iran at the time. Long before Roosevelt and the CIA had arrived in Iran, the British had been building a large network of inside agents, including key figures such as the powerful Rashidyan Brothers, prominent businessmen and pro-British loyalists, who they could rely on for key intelligence information, to disseminate propaganda, and to help influence and mobilize the masses when needed.55 However, once the British had been ousted by Mossadeq in October 1952, they were forced to share the identities of their inside agents with the US and had to rely on the Americans to carry out the groundwork while Britain assisted behind the scenes. The CIA built some of their own relationships once in Iran but most of the key players that the CIA would utilize in the removal of Mossadeq were apart of Britain’s vast network of insiders. Many of the covert techniques and dealings that were used by the CIA can be found throughout Claud Corrigan’s Battle for Iran, CIA Historian and head coup propagandist Dr. Donald Wilber’s Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953, CIA History Staff member Scott A Koch’s “Zendebad, Shah!”:The Central Intelligence Agency and the Fall of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, August 1953, along with the newly declassified top-secret CIA documents and British Memorandums from the Foreign Relations of the United States 1952-1954, Iran, 1951-1954, Volume X, titled Persia: Political Review of the Recent Crisis," September 2, 1953 which lie at the heart of this core analysis.  

The main focus and foundation of my analysis will rely on Dr. Donald Wilber’s Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran which provides a contemporary first-hand account of the actions that were taken by the CIA, including its alliance with the ulama, the details regarding how many of those actions were carried out, as well as context for the thinking that motivated them. While Wilber’s work provides an abundance of important information regarding the 1953 coup in Iran, it must be understood that a good portion of the original text is still redacted, therefore we do not have all the details and certain aspects must be logically pieced together from information gathered from other primary documents and the many works of past scholars specializing in this field. Corrigan’s Battle for Iran and Koch’s Zenbedad Shah! will share the important role of helping to fill in any gaps found within Wilber’s work, as well as to help confirm or deny the details Wilber offers.  

Once the US government and the CIA had come to the conclusion that they would commit completely to Mossadeq’s removal by any means necessary, CIA Director Allen Dulles approved a $1,000,000 budget on April 4, 1953 “which could be used by the Tehran Station in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadeq.”56 According to Wilber, one of the very first aims of the CIA and ways in which they chose to allocate this money was to steadily intensify their anti-Mossadeq and pro-Shah propaganda. They wanted to saturate the country as quickly and effectively as possible through a multi-layered approach by targeting the population religiously, politically, economically and socially. “In Iran, CIA and SIS propaganda assets were to conduct an increasingly intensified propaganda effort through press, handbills, and the Tehran clergy in a campaign designed to weaken the Mossadeq government in any way possible.” The United States government then went on to have some of their high-ranking officials make public statements that made clear that American economic aid would not be given to Iran as long as Mossadeq was in power. This was done with the goal to diminish any confidence the people of Iran had in Mossadegh and to eliminate the idea that he was on good terms with the US and had the country’s support.

Wilber’s report continues on to explain how the CIA played a crucial role in choosing who was to replace Mossadeq once he was out of the way. General Fazlollah Zahedi, who had previously been a member of Mossadeq’s cabinet, was seen as the best choice to step in as Iran’s new Prime Minister. This was due to Zahedi being the only reputable figure in Iran who had consistently spoken out in opposition to Mossadeq and at the same time had a large enough following to permit his new upcoming position as prime minister.61 While supporting Zahedi had its faults, such as his a pro-German stance during WWII, he had a solid record as a leader and combat officer, was staunchly devoted to the Shah, and he had an “aggressive desire to change the course of his country’s destiny.”62 The CIA went on to approach Zahedi personally and explain their goal of implementing him as the new prime minister along with orders that he was to name a new military secretariat, at which point the CIA would provide a “detailed staff plan of action.”63 While the CIA had chosen the man they wished to place as Iran’s new Prime Minister, they also knew that this would not be possible without the cooperation of the Shah. The Shah’s support would provide two requisite actions that were necessary to carry out a smooth transition between Mossadeq and Zahedi: the first was to ensure the backing of the Tehran military garrisons, and the second was to provide for the legal succession of Zahedi as Prime Minister.64  The  only  glaring issue with this plan of action was that the Shah of Iran was an indecisive, timid, and fearful man who was deathly scared of the repercussions of a failed coup attempt that he was complicit in.

It was no secret to the CIA or US government that the Shah would not be so easily persuaded to go along with the coup due to this specific set of character traits. Therefore, the CIA took it upon themselves to call on the Shah’s much more confident and aggressive twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, for some assistance in coercing her brother to fall in line with the joint US-British plans. The Princess was brought in reluctantly from Europe back to Tehran to push the Shah towards the removal of Mossadeq as prime minister and to make clear that she had been communicating with the US and the British who had requested her support on this matter. The Central Intelligence officials also decided to try to persuade the Shah into participation by setting up a visit from General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who the Shah knew personally and had grown to like and respect. It was Schwarzkopf’s job to explain the upcoming plans of the CIA and to guide the Shah towards signing three firmans (royal decrees), which would provide the needed legal basis for the new change in government.65 66 The first firman was meant to dismiss Mossadeq from office, the second was to appoint General Zahedi as his successor, and the third to call for the Army to stay loyal to the Shah. Through their agents in the Tehran military, the CIA made as certain as possible, the support of the Army for the Shah and for the acceptance of General Zahedi as prime minister.67 However, Corrigan’s history shows that Kermit Roosevelt lowered the number of firmans to be signed by the Shah from three to two. The first to dismiss Mossadeq from his position as Prime Minister and the second would name Zahedi as his successor. The information in the paragraph following this section has been completely redacted.

. . .It was not until the beginning of July 1, 1953 that the Director of the MI6, the British Foreign Secretary, and the British Prime Minister signed off on the official operation plans for  the coup. Then, finally on July 11, 1953 the Director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, and President Eisenhower approved the final plans which was an action based on National Security Council Report 136/1 “U.S. Policy Regarding the Present Situation in Iran.” Prior to this official authorization however, the Tehran station was continuing it’s covert activities and gained authorization to spend one million rials per week, which at the time was at a rate of 1 US dollar for every 90 rials ($90,000 USD), in order to purchase the support and cooperation of the members of the Majlis. Around this same time one of the two main groups within the CIA, who were working together but on different areas on the project of the coup, put together an exhaustive military plan, which was given to Zahedi and his military secretariat, providing them a detailed roadmap for action. In fact, the CIA was so well prepared that they had three separate plans of actions depending on the different scenarios that could potentially play out. The second group within the CIA, which was headed by Dr. Donald Wilber (the author of this document), was given the responsibility of carrying out the psychological warfare portion of the plan.

To further degrade the level of respect and trust the people of Iran felt towards Mossadeq, the US government orchestrated a series of three publications and speeches that were meant to diminish his public standing. The first of this series of publications, released July 9, 1953, was a copy of President Eisenhower’s letter written to Dr. Mossadeq on June 29, 1953 which made it explicit that increased economic aid for Iran would not be provided to help with the loss of Iran’s oil sales due to British blockades. The second publication came from the Secretary of State’s press conference on July 28, 1953, where the US stated that the growth and toleration of the activities of Iran’s Communist Tudeh Party made it almost impossible for any further US aid or assistance.76 This was intended negatively affect US public opinion regarding Mossadeq as well as to shape international views of the situation. Finally, President Eisenhower gave a speech in Seattle at the Governor’s convention where he stated that, “the United States would not sit by and see Asian countries fall behind the Iron Curtain.”77 This speech would prove to have a significant effect on the situation in Iran. The CIA, in cooperation with the Department of State, created and published several articles in major American newspapers and magazines, which they knew would be reproduced in Iran. The reproduction of these scripted articles would carry heavy influence over the opinions of Iran’s population and would help to slightly loosen the grip Mohammad Mossadeq held over his people.

The Catatonic Presidency, The Zombie Regime, And The Bossman

Netanyahu at Graham's funeral.

The America-Israel-Iran conflict is one of the strangest wars in history. The on-and-off nature of it means it is not a Great War. 

These aren't great powers fighting against each other, but a declining empire that's being controlled by a small parasitic state and an aspiring regional power that until a year ago hasn't won a war in five hundred years. We're not talking heavyweights here, okay.

Historians of war and the Middle East are not going to be writing books about this war generations from now, parsing every detail, trying to decipher every goofy Pentagon operation and IRGC plot. 

When I think of Great Wars I think of Great Leaders and Great Speeches. Napoleon. Hitler with his dramatic and theatrical performances. Churchill was a psychopath, but even psychopaths can make great speeches.

Woodrow Wilson had his 14 points speech. Bush came out with his bullhorn and promised to fight the terrorists over there on the still burnt ashes of the victims of 9/11.

These guys stepped up to the podium and spoke. 

When was the last time the leaders of these countries involved in this war gave a speech outlining why they're fighting and why their peoples should support them?

They're nowhere to be seen. 

Netanyahu was hiding for a majority of the war. Don't get me wrong, he is still sharp as a tack. During the missile onslaught on Israel earlier this year we all assumed he had been killed after his week long disappearing act. I thought he was dead. But, credit the man, he knows how to survive. 

At Graham's funeral he was directing everyone in the Trump administration like he was the bossman.

Trump is the pretend boss. He's in control of nothing.

If a man can't control his bowels he can't control anything.

For the last decade, the most powerful country of our time, the empire of the age, has been led by braindead pedophiles and catatonic retards cosplaying as presidents.

That's where America is at politically. And this might not be rock bottom. 

As for the Islamic Republic of Iran, I think it's a zombie regime at this point. Who is the voice of the government? There isn't one. 

Netanyahu is the only one of these leaders who is making some type of consistent and coherent communication. He's a liar, sure, and he has zero charisma, but at least the man is making speeches. 

John Dee And The Prophets

An excerpt from, "John Dee's Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature" by Deborah E. Harkness, Cambridge University Press, 1999, Pg. 144 - 148:

Despite excellent reasons for the "Reformation of tyme," Elizabeth I and her council rejected Dee's calendar, and Dee grieved that "her Matie will not reforme it in the best terms of Veritie." The angels encouraged him to turn from Elizabeth I and her court, and to focus on other potential patrons in Europe who would be more receptive to his reformatory aims. Dee's angel conversations were poised between apocalypse and eschatology, and their delicately balanced position had far-reaching consequences for his reception in the courts of Europe. By 1582 Dee was moving away from the interpretation of eschatological signs and toward a deeper and more dangerous role in the unfolding of the final days: the role of a prophet proclaiming revealed wisdom.

Dee's faith in his angelic protectors gave him the confidence to record and voice their divine revelations, which made him unlike other eschatologists in Protestant countries during the sixteenth century. While many Protestants claimed to speak to God through prayer - a foundation of Reformation theology - few received messages in return through multitudes of angels. Intermediaries, both saints and angels, were a feature of Catholic theology, and Protestant theologians tried valiantly, if vainly, to dissuade their congregations from relying on "popish" intercessors like priests or inhabitants of the celestial spheres. In fact, not many Protestants in the sixteenth century claimed to have heard God speak to them in any fashion, direct or otherwise: although claims of direct revelatory experience became widespread in the seventeenth century, Protestants had not yet embraced this possibility in Dee's lifetime. Instead, sixteenth-century Protestants relied on interpreting ancient biblical revelations and prophecies, and deploring the prophecies of contemporary Catholic mystics.

The Catholic church proved equally reluctant to endorse those who claimed to have received direct revelations. Though some mystics were tolerated and even supported, most of these were in holy orders, like Saint Teresa of Avila or Saint Iohn of the Cross, and firmly enmeshed in the institutional hierarchies of the church. Ecclesiastical authorities were experienced in handling wayward and outspoken clerics like Joachim of Fiore and Savonarola: they launched inquisitorial proceedings against them and often preferred to execute them for heresy rather than to support their revelatory claims. Dee was obviously not in holy orders, and his marital state, as the Catholic authorities in Prague pointed out, made him an unlikely candidate for receiving revelations.

The content of the angels' revelations to Dee must Catholic authorities in their specificity and unabashed criticism of sixteenth-century life, religion, and government. While other eschatologists talked vaguely about great astrological occurrences and their posible ramifications, Dee claimed to know, with divine certainty, the precise month and year in which miraculous events would occur. Nor did the angels limit themselves to religious matters such as the details of the Second Coming, the end of the world, and the establishment of the new Jerusalem. In remarks that would have been treasonable in most countries, the angels shared prophecies about the death of Queen Mary of Scotland; several invasions soon to face England; the deaths of Philip II, Rudolf II, and Elizabeth I; and the ascension of Dee's patrons Albert Laski, Stephen of Poland, and Count Willem Rozmberk to greater positions of power. Political prophecies had the potential to set off popular revolts, and even the most daring eschatological commentators knew better than to include clear predictions of their own sovereign's demise - though predications about the death of rival monarchs were often ignored. Dee should have known better from personal experience than to mix predictions with matters of state, as he had once been imprisoned for casting Queen Mary of England's horoscope.

In the final days, Dee's role was to be increasingly prophetic. The angel Uriel explained: "The Lord hath chosen you to be Witnesses, through his mercy and sufferance ... in. the offices and dignities of the Prophets .. . wherein you do exceed the Temples of the earth: wherein you are become separated from the world. . . ." Dee's prophetic role went hand-in-hand with his increased powers to see and judge the decay of the Book of Nature. The angels encouraged him to verbalize and publicize his insights outside the tight circle of the colloquia, and scolded him when they thought he should have made "a more ample declaration" of their remarks. The angels dictated that Kelly, though also touched with the powers of prophecy, should limit himself to seeing visions in the showstone rather than sharing his visions with a wider audience - a wise course given Kelly's volatility. While the angels promised to make Kelly "a great Seer: Such an one as shall judge the circle of things in nature," they also told him that "heavenly understanding, and spiritual knowledge shall be sealed up from thee in this world."

Dee embarked upon his potentially dangerous prophetic activity because he believed himself heir to the prophetic biblical tradition of Enoch, Elias, Esdras, and John the Divine. The mention of these prophets in Dee's angel conversations gave his revelations a greater sense of authority and the prophecies concerning the final days a greater urgency. Each prophet enjoyed privileged communication with God or angels that resulted in a certain knowledge of the world as it was, or the world as it was to be after God's last judgment. Each prophet had served as a "divine scribe," obediently recording the information received from God and the angels in books of wisdom. Though Esdras and John were important models for Dee, he found Elias and Enoch more fascinating. His interest in these two mysterious prophets was shared by other contemporary natural philosophers, including Guillaume Postel and Paracelsus.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Enoch's important position was based on a few lines in Genesis and Ecclesiasticus that related how Enoch "walked with God" and then "was no more, for God took him" (Genesis 5:2I-24; Ecclesiasticus 44:16). Texts attributed to Enoch circulated in the early Christian centuries before disappearing. Even with the loss of these precious texts, Christian commentators were quick to expand upon the references to Enoch, thereby bolstering his profile. The angels shared their knowledge of Enoch with Dee, information which happily corresponded to early modern perceptions of the prophet. To Dee, the greatest knowledge that Enoch possessed was his special, post-lapsarian ability to read the Book of Nature. Enoch's eyes, according to the angels, were opened by the Lord so "that he might see and judge the earth, which was unknown unto his Parents, by reason of their fall. In addition, Enoch was shown "the use of the earth" and was "full of the spirit of wisdom." As Dee longed for mastery over the Book of Nature, it is not surprising that he was eager to discuss Enoch with the angels. Enoch's mysterious departure from the earth was equally intriguing. Most of Dee's contemporaries believed that God took the prophet to Paradise or heaven, where he lived free from sin in full knowledge of God. Since such communion with divinity was thought to occur only after death, Enoch's acceptance into God's grace more extraordinary.

According to scripture, Enoch was joined in Paradise by another figure prominent in the angel conversations: the prophet Elias (also known as Eliiah), whose story was told in Kings I7-19. Elias, like Enoch, was transported to heaven prior to death. He was especially revered in the Jewish tradition, because references in Malachi 4:5-6 suggested that Elias would return from heaven before the Final Judgment to bring the Israelites to repentance. Elias's association with the final days also meant that his return was one of the eagerly awaited signs that the eschaton was near. His imminent return was confrmed by the angels, who told Dee that soon the "Prophets of the Lord shall descend from Heaven." Dee connected this remark to Elias immediately, noting in the margins of his angel diaries that the prophets were "in Paradise, they were carried upward, especially Elias."

Elias was an important figure in works concerned with the occult sciences as well as early modern eschatologies. Paracelsus (1493?-154I), the alchemical physician whose works appeared frequently in Dee's library, referred to Elias in his writings. Paracelsus drew on biblical ideas and commentaries to create Elias artista, who would return to the world and reveal occult aspects of the Book of Nature. Paracelsus linked the figure of Elias artista to his belief in a utopian future for the world that would restore both the Book of Nature and humanity. Before utopia could be achieved, however, Elias artista must return so that, through him, God could "reveal much that is strange, much that has not yet been uncovered and revealed to us, things of which we are all ignorant." Paracelsus's fascination with Elias artista's knowledge secret helped to ensure that alchemists and occultists kept the tradition of Elias alive. 

Wikipedia: 

In 1 Kings 18, Elijah defended the worship of the Hebrew deity Yahweh over that of the Canaanite deity Baal. God also performed many miracles through Elijah, including resurrection, bringing fire down from the sky, and ascending to heaven alive. He is also portrayed as leading a school of prophets known as "the sons of the prophets". Following Elijah's ascension, his disciple and devoted assistant Elisha took over as leader of this school. The Book of Malachi prophesies Elijah's return "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD", making him a harbinger of the Messiah and of the eschaton in various faiths that revere the Hebrew Bible. References to Elijah appear in Sirach, the New Testament, the Mishnah and Talmud, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and Baháʼí writings. Scholars generally agree that a historical figure named Elijah existed in ancient Israel, though the biblical accounts of his life are considered more legendary and theologically reflective than historically accurate.

. . .No background for the person of Elijah is given except for his brief characterization as a Tishbite. His name in Hebrew means "My God is Jah", and may be a title applied to him because of his challenge to worship of Baal.

. . .Elijah is mentioned four more times in the New Testament: in Luke, Romans, Hebrews, and James. In Luke 4:24–27, Jesus uses Elijah as an example of rejected prophets. Jesus says, "No prophet is accepted in his own country", and then mentions Elijah, saying that there were many widows in Israel, but Elijah was sent to one in Phoenicia. In Romans 11:1–6, Paul cites Elijah as an example of God's never forsaking his people (the Israelites). Hebrews 11:35 ("Women received their dead raised to life again...") refers to both Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarephath and Elisha raising the son of the woman of Shunem, citing both Elijah and Elisha as Old Testament examples of faith. In James 5:16–18, James says, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much", and then cites Elijah's prayers which started and ended the famine in Israel as examples.

. . .Elijah has been venerated as the patron saint of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 26 August 1752, replacing George of Lydda at the request of Bishop Pavao Dragičević. The reasons for the replacement are unclear, but a theory is that Elijah is an important figure for all three of the country's main religious groups—Catholics, Muslims and Orthodox Christians. Pope Benedict XIV is said to have approved Bishop Dragičević's request with the remark that a wild nation deserved a wild patron.

. . .Starting in the fifth century, Elias is often connected with Helios, the Sun. The two words have very similar pronunciations in Postclassical Greek; Elijah rode in his chariot of fire to heaven just as Helios drove the chariot of the sun across the sky; and the holocaust sacrifice offered by Elijah and burned by fire from heaven corresponds to the sun warming the earth.

Sedulius writes poetically in the fifth century that the "bright path to glittering heaven" suits Elias both "in merits and name", as changing one letter makes his name "Helios"; but he does not identify the two. A homily entitled De ascensione Heliae, misattributed to Chrysostom, claims that poets and painters use the ascension of Elijah as a model for their depictions of the sun, and says that "Elijah is really Helios". Saint Patrick appears to conflate Helios and Elias. In modern times, much Greek folklore also connects Elias with the sun.

. . .The Jewish nation awaits the coming of Elijah to precede the coming of the Messiah.

For Christians, this prophecy was fulfilled in the gospel. After Elijah appears during the Transfiguration alongside Moses, Jesus explains to his disciples that John the Baptist, recently beheaded by Herod Antipas, 

had fulfilled Elijah's return. Commentators have said that Moses' appearance represented the law, while Elijah's appearance represented the prophets. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that Elijah returned on 3 April 1836 in an appearance to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, fulfilling the prophecy in Malachi.

The Baháʼí Faith believes Elijah returned as the biblical prophet John the Baptist and as the Báb who founded the Bábí Faith in 1844. Druze, like Baháʼí Faith believes, believe that Elijah came back as John the Baptist.

The American founded Nation of Islam believes Elijah returned as Elijah Muhammad, black separatist religious leader (who claimed to be a "messenger", not a prophet). This is considered less important than their belief that Allah himself showed up in the person of Fard Muhammad, the founder of the group. It differs notably from most beliefs about Elijah, in that his re-appearance is usually the precursor to a greater one's appearance, rather than an afterthought.

The European Information War In The Muslim World Prior To WWII

An excerpt from, "Europe and the Islamic World: A History" By John Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, and Henry Laurens; Translated by Jane Marie Todd, Princeton University Press, 2013, Pg. 385-86:

Although the Great War had given the Europeans a sense that their civilization might be mortal, the appeal of their culture remained strong in the Muslim world. The essential transformation in that period was that the European model was no longer unique. For a time, the prestige of the victors consolidated the image of the liberal institutions. For the mandates, such institutions remained the price of admission to the League of Nations and the most prominent sign of modernity.

But the crisis of liberal democracies was already perceptible in the 1920s. The Soviet Union had spread the watchword of anti-imperialist struggle, which the various Muslim nationalist movements adopted. Moscow, however, held little attraction during that period. The Sovietization of what were becoming the "Muslim republics" of the Soviet Union occurred with extreme violence and produced a new exodus of residents, who dispersed throughout the Middle East (a small current settled in Europe as well). Kemalist Turkey and Reza Shah's Iran maintained cautious relations with their powerful neighbor, who was still also their hereditary enemy. The first Turkish and Iranian Communists were considered traitors.

In the Arab East, the first Communists were recruited from among minorities (especially Jews and Armenians) and did not manage to make inroads in Muslim circles. The first labor unions were offshoots of the nationalist movements. Although some Muslim intellectuals had socialist leanings, they were more attracted to democratic socialism than to Bolshevism.

It was through the migration of Maghrebian labor to France that the Communists were able to reach the North African population. But relations between the French Communist Party and Étoile Nord-Africaine rapidly reached the point of collapse. Even as Messali Hadj radicalized his pro-independence discourse by giving it a more Islamic dimension, the Communists, in shifting toward anti-Fascism, found it indispensable to moderate their own anti-imperialist struggle in order to constitute popular fronts. Although some European intellectuals supported the anticolonial struggle, by far the majority current among the so-called progressive forces merely sought to correct the "abuses" of colonialism and not to abolish it. Only the North African settlers equated pro-independence nationalism with the international Communist movement.

European nationalism remained the most appealing element. Although the Italian nationalism of the Risorgimento had traditionally been a source of inspiration for the nationalist movements in the Arab world, there was considerable mistrust of Fascist Italy, because of its brutality in Libya and its proclaimed designs on the Mediterranean as a whole. Nazi Germany appeared more effective and less dangerous. In the Arab world, it was the beneficiary of the Germanophilia left behind by Wilhelm II's Germany. In the 1930s, the Fascist model seemed to be working much better than the tired liberal democracies in retreat all over Europe. Everywhere, nationalist youth movements adopted the garb of politicized European youth (blue or green shirts). But the borrowings remained superficial: above all, "the enemy of one's enemy" was seen as a potential "friend." The fact that, until the war, Nazism left the monopoly on Mediterranean policy to Fascist Italy fostered the mistrust.

In 1934, with the Arabic broadcasts of Radio Bari, Fascist Italy launched a propaganda war in the Arab world. In 1935 (the Italo-Ethiopian War), the attacks against British policy turned violent. In response, in January 1938 the BBC began to broadcast in Arabic as well. The network was particularly anxious to maintain its independence from the government. In March 1938, it was Nazi Germany's turn for Arabic broadcasts.

Fascist Italy sought primarily to exploit the Palestinian issue in order to embarrass the British. It succeeded in that respect, but without creating a particularly favorable climate for its own cause. By contrast, the German broadcasts on the eve of war were openly anti-Semitic (even though Berlin was simultaneously encouraging the Jewish emigration to Palestine), but within the broader context of identifying the Jews with liberal democracy (plutocracy) and proletarian internationalism.

People tuned in to these broadcasts primarily because they broke the monopoly on information that the Franco-British had held in the Middle East.

Ottoman-German Relations During WWI

 

"Victory at Gallipoli, 1915: The German-Ottoman Alliance in the First World War" by Klaus Wolf.

An excerpt from, "Victory at Gallipoli, 1915’ Book Review" Historynet, November 1, 2021:

Author Klaus Wolf’s military career in the Bundeswehr took him to Turkey on three NATO assignments, during which he researched the military cooperation between Turkey and Germany both before and during World War I. First published in 2008 and translated into English by the Gallipoli Association, this volume is lavishly illustrated with maps and photographs.

German involvement in the Ottoman empire dates from the mid–18th century, though its presence in the early 20th century proved key. Wolf profiles several pivotal figures from the period. Among the more complex was Field Marshal Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz, who reached Constantinople in 1909 and whom Wolf describes as “half scholar, half military, half German, half Turk, half aristocrat, half democrat, half general, half boy scout.” Arriving in May 1913 was Lt. Gen. Otto Liman von Sanders, “adroit and versatile in the art of war,” his task to reorganize the Turkish army. While more recent Turkish sources have downplayed the role the German military played in Gallipoli, their involvement was undeniably significant, from tactics to training, leadership and munitions.

An excerpt from, "German Soldiers in the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1918: Introductory Text" by Oliver Stein, Freie Universität Berlin:

To strengthen the allies, the Germans helped with the modernization of the Ottoman army. The small Ottoman air force, which had existed since 1911 in rudimentary form, was expanded with German personnel and material aide. The German Captain Erich Serno thus became the creator of a new Turkish air force that was based on the German model. Serno additionally designed the Ottoman aviator badges, which was the insignia for the flying personnel after 1914.

A large problem in the first year of war consisted in the provision of weapons and ammunition for the Ottoman army. During the most materially intensive combat in the Dardanelles, the Ottoman Empire did not possess its own armament industry and after the transport lines in the Balkans were blocked, they were also unable to receive the necessary amount of supplies from the Central Powers. For this reason, Germany sent many officers, engineers and other specialists to Constantinople in order to build ammunition factories. One of these specialists was Heinrich Frank, who, as the military operational manager of the Navy arsenals’ bullet factory, passed on his knowledge to the Turks. His two service IDs also visually testify to how the service for this group of Germans in the Ottoman Empire was work that straddled two cultures: his German-speaking identification shows him in German officer uniform while the photograph on his Ottoman document features him wearing a Turkish fez.

An excerpt from, "Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920, Volume I - The Ambassador in Turkey (Elkus) to the Secretary of State, Constantinople, November 17, 1916":

There is little, if any, system in administration and great delay about everything. To get a positive answer quickly to anything is an impossibility and almost so after weeks of negotiation. Delay . . . is the order as to everything. All the foreign powers find this true, and among the greatest complainants are the German and Austrian Ambassadors, who experience the same difficulties as the representatives of neutral powers.

As to military matters, it is stated that the Germans have a written agreement with the Turks, providing for the control by the German officers attached to the Turkish Army and that is the only instrument compelling obedience to German authority, although that is often thwarted

The change recently made in the German Embassy, here, is due to the fact that the former Ambassador stated he could do nothing with the Turks . . .

. . .For many years the Turks played off one foreign power against another. Usually the English against the French. Now there are indications of playing off the United States against Germany. The Germans know this and have suggested unofficially to me that we act in concert in such matters as we can agree upon. I have said, of course, submit what you wish to me and I will consult my government.

. . .Enver, at present, is the most powerful of the ruling triumvirate. He is the Germanophil member, with German military backing, and the ever present argument of military necessity to enforce such measures, ruinous in the opinion of many, to the country’s policy, as the general calling out of all the men up to the age of forty five.

But as a matter of fact, the Turks and Germans are not very good friends. . . . The Turks are already planning how they may best get rid of German supervision as soon as the war is over. But the likelihood is the Germans, if permitted by the Entente, will retain their control even after the war.

A movement against the Greeks of the Asia Minor littoral, similar to that against the Armenians, and a renewal of Armenian deportations is said to have begun with deportations into the interior. At Smyrna, the first deportation has been started, because of a revolutionary plot said to have been discovered by the Government. Three hundred Armenian families are reported as having been sent into the interior.

The food situation has grown worse. The price of bread has been raised again. All other food prices are being increased in proportion. Well-to-do people can still buy everything they need. But there is a distinct visible augmentation of misery among the poor.

An excerpt from, "Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920, Volume I - The Ambassador in Turkey (Elkus) to the Secretary of State, Constantinople, March 2, 1917":

As I have already telegraphed the Department, Talaat Pasha stated to me that he saw no reason why the friendly relations between Turkey and America should not continue, even if there was a rupture between America and Germany. Some days after that he told me that he had reported our conversation to the Sultan, and that His Imperial Majesty had thoroughly approved Talaat Pasha’s statements and said he deeply desired the continuation of the friendly relations between the two countries. But Djavid Bey, the new Minister of Finance, was much more outspoken than the Grand Vizier. In the course of a quiet after-dinner confidential conversation at the Embassy, he told me the other day that even if there was a war between Germany and America, Turkey would not break off relations with America. Djavid said that it was only after the war had ceased that people would realize what a calamity it had been. This country would be short of men, would be under the burden of a tremendous debt, the revenues decreased and would have to look outside of Turkey for financial assistance in order to begin the work of construction. “Turkey’s only hope is in the United States. The European countries will be unable or unwilling to help us financially.” “On the other hand,” he continued, “what can we expect to gain if we take part in a war against the United States? Absolutely nothing! I therefore guarantee 90% that if there is war between Germany and the United States, Turkey will stay out of it. At least that is our feeling and our intention to-day.” And he looks upon the above reasons put forward by him as logical and convincing. I asked him what the Turks would do in case the Germans insisted on Turkey performing her duty as an ally to declare war against America. He said Turkey would simply refuse and if Germany still insisted Turkey would ask her to send her 3 to 400,000 troops to do the fighting, as otherwise the Turks would be unable to fight alone. The cordiality now demonstrated by the Ministers may be genuine and sincere, or may be only assumed and serving for some ulterior purpose. . . . Future developments will show whether this demonstration is sincere or not. If not sincere it may serve one of the following two purposes: it may be intended to mislead us, and for the purpose of having America help Turkey now or hereafter,—a repetition under another form of the assurances given to the British Ambassador in 1914 that Turkey would remain neutral—or it may be intended for the edification of Germany, a kind of a warning, if not a threat, to the overbearing ally that she is not the only great power and that if she is not more considerate towards the weaker ally, the latter can find—had found—other friends! Some Turks, however, not friendly towards the Union and Progress Committee have quite a different interpretation for these demonstrations of cordiality. According to what they say the Union and Progress leaders are aware that they will be held responsible for dragging Turkey into this war, which has proved to be disastrous for the Empire; that they will also be held responsible for the Armenian massacres, the persecution of the other non-Turkish races and for endless other misdeeds. Therefore seeing the approach of the day of reckoning and having no confidence in the ability or the willingness of their German ally to help them in the hour of need, they desire to make friends with America now, in order to protect themselves or at least have a friend when that day of reckoning comes.

But it is curious to hear that some German officers here have stated that even if war should occur between America and Germany, Turkey should continue her diplomatic relations with America. These officers are further stated to have said it is not desirable to have a war between Germany and the United States.

It is rumored that both in Turkish and German military circles here there is an apprehension that should war ever be declared between the United States and Turkey, the former can at once send troops and ammunition from the Philippines to the Persian Gulf and thus help the British in Mesopotamia or Palestine.

. . .Turks state to me that Germany does not wish to see here an Ambassador of a great power like the United States, who is too friendly with the Turks, because they wish to impress on the Turks that they are the only power that can protect Turkey, and the only friend Turkey has. I am told on the other hand that the Turks wish to emancipate themselves from this German guardianship.

The feeling in the civilian Turkish circles is far from being friendly to the Germans. In a conversation with a Turkish Minister, the latter said,

“really speaking the Germans had no friends, their manner is such that they can have no friends, that they have a wonderful military organization, of which they are proud, and through their organization they have a strong discipline in their own country holding the people under a permanent guardianship and obedience, and they imagine that they have the same power over all the world. In diplomacy they are poor and what success they have had has been through threat. They think of nothing but themselves and their own interest. They never take into consideration the feelings and interests of others. We are their allies. In this war we have rendered them signal services, and have acted towards them as gentlemen. What have we seen? What are they doing for us. Nothing. In all our dealings with them they raise difficulties. If we have negotiations concerning a loan or anything else, there is not a small point that can be raised in their favor which they would fail to raise. We went into the war without thinking of loans, expenses or other details. Had we asked the Germans at that time to take upon themselves all our war expenses, Germany would have agreed to do so, but as we did not raise that question, to-day we are borrowing money from the Germans and we are indebted to them to the amount of 100,000,000 pounds sterling just for the war expenses. As allies of the Germans, of course, we desire to see Germany win in this war, but do not want to see Germany have such a victory as to become the dictator of the whole world. That would be a misfortune for all.”

I spoke to him about the food question in Germany, and whether the scarcity was such as to force the Germans to put down their arms. The Minister stated that according to his information the German Army was well fed; as to the civilian population, he believed, that through the wonderful organization which they have in Germany, it would be possible to feed them until the new crops. But in his opinion there was another question which was more serious for the Germans than that of the food supply. How long will the material for the manufacture of ammunition last? There is scarcity of coal and scarcity of copper.

These statements did not prevent him from saying that the way the Entente Powers had published their terms of peace was a most stupid piece of business. There were thousands of people in this country, who were against the war and longed for peace, and yet the Entente Governments say that they want to give Constantinople to Russia. All these people now want the continuation of the war.

He knew that there were no diplomats in Germany, that it was only through force that the Germans wanted to deal with every nation, but he had believed that in England and in France there were good diplomats. The way the latter acted in this matter showed him that there is a penury of statesmanship even in those countries.

While speaking of the friendly relations between Turkey and America, I told him that Turkey had many friends in America, but I added in order that these friends might in some way be able to be of any service to this country, there should be put an end to all Armenian massacres as well as Arab or Syrian or other persecutions. He at once stated that he agreed with me entirely. “These things should not have happened.” He said he hoped that very soon we would see an amelioration in the condition of the Armenians, who would be allowed to travel and do business within certain zones. What happened was a most deplorable thing and he said you can be sure that it will not be repeated.