The angloamericans were worried about a collaboration between the USSR Westgerrmany France Japan and OPEC.
The aim was to develop the poor countries by implementing a new financial instrument and Brezhnev and Helmut Schmidt had signed a common accord in 1978.
Iran wanted to collaborate with both East and West.
Nuclear power had begun to be implemented.
If the development plans had proceeded several unwanted consequences for the US/UK were expected.
It was intended to lead to extensive use of nuclear power for industrialisation in the third world instead of continued imperial looting.
OPECs condition for joining was that such a development would be a part of it.
Thus a competing petro-currency was in the cards.
Obviously this collaboration between the USSR and an important western group spelled the end of US/UKs hegemonical aims.
In the eyes of the burgeoning hegemons they were fortunately able to put an end to all those plans. The iranian revolution was entirely caused by deliberate actions from the US/UK.
And not only in 1953 like the CIA likes to confirm but also for ousting the shah just as they once had ousted his predecessor.
Khomeni, whose son in 2011 confirmed that the father's origin was obscure.
When Khomeini rose to power he immediately closed the nuclear power project.
But I believe that was shortly before the three mile island incident.
So apparently not a consequence of it.
Khomeine was a useful asset.
It was claimed he spoke only some 200 words of the language.
Officially he would have a father from India but some rumours suggest he was the son of a british spy who went native and lived like a muslim..
Be that as it may but the east-west collaboration against the critique of the British and those plans about developing the third world were one obvious reason why the US/UK saw it as a deadly threat to their dominance.
Hostage to Khomeini by Robert Dreyfuss from 1981 throws some light on this context. The economical accord was much discussed in the campaigner and Executive intelligence review at the time.
Last time I looked it was available at wlym.com and larouchepub.
Larouche and Dreyfuss were later accused of defamation of one iranian (presumably a coconspirator with the US)
Perhaps that has led to the whole thing being buried?
I believe Larouche all along wanted the US to join the collaboration.
Good Stuff! Not sure I fully buy the inside job/conspiracy angle as there was a lot of absolute stupidity on display as well. That said, it would have been useful to evaluate that formally as part of the investigation rather than just brush it off out of hand.
I think the idea that the reactor vessel was fine post TMI2 is unlikely. There are videos from the extraction and a LOT of people would have to be involved in a cover up like that, which makes it pretty unlikely. My dad worked at the company that designed the plant and they were all unbelievably frustrated by the whole TMI accident experience, so something would have come out during the investigation and disassembly as there were just too many parties involved to keep a conspiracy like that quiet.
You appear to be making a case for the use of nuclear energy. Nothing could be more stupid. It is the most pernicious form of energy. We are unable to master the technology which, in any case, is the most expensive form of energy. We currently have three ongoing chain reactions on the planet: Three Mile Island, Fukijima und Chernobyl. These reactions will continue for thousands of years and contribute towards the pollution of the planet. In the case of Fukijima (actual spelling may be different) millions of radioactive litres of water are released into the ocean on a daily basis and this will continue indefinitely. The ongoing damage to ocean life and the oceans as such is enormous and nothing can be done about it. This scenario will eventually apply to every nuclear power station on the earth, i.e. even when decommissioned they have to be maintained and monitored for hundreds/thousands of years. In Washington County an amount of 56 million gallons of radioactive uranium is being stored which cannot be treated or made harmless (and is being added to). It is not inert and will destroy the whole coast of North America should it explode one day. Anybody thinking that nuclear energy is "clean" energy should think again, Actually, it is exactly the opposite.
It is the best form of energy, and the talking points you're reciting were created to justify an entropic degrowth of the West while preventing the rest of the world from developing. Everything you said has been abandoned by the people that originally said it, because it no longer serves unipolar hegemony. Jane Fonda, Greta, U2, Michael Douglas, John Kerry all magically decided to contradict everything they've said about nuclear in the past, because the West is being threatened.
Read about the Bonn Moscow pact from 1978 in Campaigner special report 16 from 780513 and Hostage to Khomeini from 1981 by Robert Dreyfuss. The later will show you how much effort the angloamericans went to in order to prevent peace and development. Apart from Africa not just directed against Iran and the USSR but also against Europe. The AAs threatened to switch off the oil tap for Europe after they deliberately arranged the occupation of the embassy down there to get an excuse to intervene, thus making their threat credible. The sad thing none of the others were able to resist.
If you realise how much the AAs felt was at stake you will understand that the motive for a sabotage was strong.
Alex- I appreciate this coverage of the three-mile island, something I'm admittedly unfamiliar with. Hope you're well this week. Cheers, -Thalia
The angloamericans were worried about a collaboration between the USSR Westgerrmany France Japan and OPEC.
The aim was to develop the poor countries by implementing a new financial instrument and Brezhnev and Helmut Schmidt had signed a common accord in 1978.
Iran wanted to collaborate with both East and West.
Nuclear power had begun to be implemented.
If the development plans had proceeded several unwanted consequences for the US/UK were expected.
It was intended to lead to extensive use of nuclear power for industrialisation in the third world instead of continued imperial looting.
OPECs condition for joining was that such a development would be a part of it.
Thus a competing petro-currency was in the cards.
Obviously this collaboration between the USSR and an important western group spelled the end of US/UKs hegemonical aims.
In the eyes of the burgeoning hegemons they were fortunately able to put an end to all those plans. The iranian revolution was entirely caused by deliberate actions from the US/UK.
And not only in 1953 like the CIA likes to confirm but also for ousting the shah just as they once had ousted his predecessor.
Khomeni, whose son in 2011 confirmed that the father's origin was obscure.
When Khomeini rose to power he immediately closed the nuclear power project.
But I believe that was shortly before the three mile island incident.
So apparently not a consequence of it.
Khomeine was a useful asset.
It was claimed he spoke only some 200 words of the language.
Officially he would have a father from India but some rumours suggest he was the son of a british spy who went native and lived like a muslim..
Be that as it may but the east-west collaboration against the critique of the British and those plans about developing the third world were one obvious reason why the US/UK saw it as a deadly threat to their dominance.
Hostage to Khomeini by Robert Dreyfuss from 1981 throws some light on this context. The economical accord was much discussed in the campaigner and Executive intelligence review at the time.
Last time I looked it was available at wlym.com and larouchepub.
Larouche and Dreyfuss were later accused of defamation of one iranian (presumably a coconspirator with the US)
Perhaps that has led to the whole thing being buried?
I believe Larouche all along wanted the US to join the collaboration.
Another brilliant deep dive! Wonderful weapons for the fight for truth that you guys are creating
Good Stuff! Not sure I fully buy the inside job/conspiracy angle as there was a lot of absolute stupidity on display as well. That said, it would have been useful to evaluate that formally as part of the investigation rather than just brush it off out of hand.
I think the idea that the reactor vessel was fine post TMI2 is unlikely. There are videos from the extraction and a LOT of people would have to be involved in a cover up like that, which makes it pretty unlikely. My dad worked at the company that designed the plant and they were all unbelievably frustrated by the whole TMI accident experience, so something would have come out during the investigation and disassembly as there were just too many parties involved to keep a conspiracy like that quiet.
You appear to be making a case for the use of nuclear energy. Nothing could be more stupid. It is the most pernicious form of energy. We are unable to master the technology which, in any case, is the most expensive form of energy. We currently have three ongoing chain reactions on the planet: Three Mile Island, Fukijima und Chernobyl. These reactions will continue for thousands of years and contribute towards the pollution of the planet. In the case of Fukijima (actual spelling may be different) millions of radioactive litres of water are released into the ocean on a daily basis and this will continue indefinitely. The ongoing damage to ocean life and the oceans as such is enormous and nothing can be done about it. This scenario will eventually apply to every nuclear power station on the earth, i.e. even when decommissioned they have to be maintained and monitored for hundreds/thousands of years. In Washington County an amount of 56 million gallons of radioactive uranium is being stored which cannot be treated or made harmless (and is being added to). It is not inert and will destroy the whole coast of North America should it explode one day. Anybody thinking that nuclear energy is "clean" energy should think again, Actually, it is exactly the opposite.
It is the best form of energy, and the talking points you're reciting were created to justify an entropic degrowth of the West while preventing the rest of the world from developing. Everything you said has been abandoned by the people that originally said it, because it no longer serves unipolar hegemony. Jane Fonda, Greta, U2, Michael Douglas, John Kerry all magically decided to contradict everything they've said about nuclear in the past, because the West is being threatened.
It is definitely not the best form of energy; it is the most pernicious form of it. Unfortunately, I am not sure whether we agree or disagree.
Read about the Bonn Moscow pact from 1978 in Campaigner special report 16 from 780513 and Hostage to Khomeini from 1981 by Robert Dreyfuss. The later will show you how much effort the angloamericans went to in order to prevent peace and development. Apart from Africa not just directed against Iran and the USSR but also against Europe. The AAs threatened to switch off the oil tap for Europe after they deliberately arranged the occupation of the embassy down there to get an excuse to intervene, thus making their threat credible. The sad thing none of the others were able to resist.
If you realise how much the AAs felt was at stake you will understand that the motive for a sabotage was strong.