Broken Promises

Broken Promises

How Governments Betray Their Citizens’ Interests

Robert Cibis

Betrayal

The historian Anton Chaitkin reminds us in his highly recommended blog that President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was in Tehran in 1943: “He introduced the Hurley Report, in which he called for the modernization of Iran. The president proposed that Iran should use its resources itself, rather than leaving control of Iranian oil to British Petroleum (BP). FDR died two years later.” His death in office is said to have been due to a stroke. That was quite convenient for some on Wall Street.

Chaitkin sees the first CIA director and former Wall Street lawyer Allen Dulles as a puppet of the world’s wealthy. The historian further explains that in 1951, the Iranian parliament followed FDR’s suggestion: “It nationalized the country’s oil reserves. August 1953 – Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, betrayed the interests of the United States and FDR’s legacy. Dulles worked with British intelligence to overthrow the elected government of Iran and gave Britain back control over Iranian oil. The globalists taught Iran that democracy and self-government in cooperation with the West are impossible.”

The most important thing about this statement is to note that we omit crucial levels of “interest balancing” if we only consider the interests of different nations. No, there are not simply the interests of the USA, Great Britain, Israel, or Iran. There are citizens of these countries with their interests, but also other power structures. Large companies like BP have “business intelligence” departments that can rival state intelligence agencies in their scope. They also have close ties to public structures, or can themselves act like public structures: If, for example, you look at BP’s monopoly in Iran, you have to ascribe to the company a state-like role. A company only comes to this point with military (and intelligence) support. Market economic processes play only a subordinate role in this. That is also not surprising. Because BP was majority-owned by the British state. Nevertheless, this company does not necessarily have the same interests as British citizens.

Distrust of the People

Intelligence agencies or the US military are strong instruments, but for whom do they work? In a democracy, the population decides what happens. A study from May 2025 by the University of Maryland shows that only 24 percent of Republicans and 5 percent of Democrats were fundamentally in favor of a military strike against Iran. An investigation from mid-June 2025 (page 46) found only 18 percent among 2024 Republican voters:

This is also understandable, because Trump presented himself as a peace president in the election campaign; no more wars, certainly no more “regime change wars,” and the war in Ukraine should also be ended within a day according to Trump… Here it is understandable that not only the vast majority of Americans, but especially Trump’s voters must be disappointed in him. This is just as much a slap in the face to his supporters as that of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, when he “loosened” the “debt brake” with the already deselected Bundestag on March 18, 2025.

Distrust in the US Government

To the delight of the opposition, these contradictions have also had a divisive effect within the CDU. Due to the seemingly reluctant election as chancellor, Alice Weidel called Friedrich Merz on May 14, 2025, the “chancellor of the second choice.”

It is no different in the US government. There is Robert Kennedy Jr., who disturbingly promotes personalized mRNA injections in connection with the “Stargate” project as well as the total surveillance of the population through wearable “health transmitters”—thus implementing the opposite of what his voters elected him for. Then there is Tulsi Gabbard. She wore a “No War With Iran” T-shirt during the 2020 campaign. She has become a publicly effective head of the intelligence agencies, because she is said to be an enemy of regime-change operations. She now probably has to decide whether to resign or turn from Paul into Saul in order to be included again by President Trump in important decision-making processes: “The Director of National Intelligence of the United States, Tulsi Gabbard (…) is being ‘excluded’ (…). Gabbard was excluded from internal government discussions about the conflict between Israel and Iran” and appears to have “fallen out of favor” with the president, according to sources speaking to NBC News on June 19.

Meanwhile, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications under President Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes, said on June 20, 2025, about the US relationship with Iran: “Every military war game leads to a regime change.” So is the head of the intelligence agencies opposed to all US military planning?

Aggressor Israel

Besides India, Pakistan, North Korea, and South Sudan, only Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and 190 other countries, on the other hand, have. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and various governments have been calling on Israel for years (see also the NYT here) to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. Israel refuses to do so, citing the protection of its strategic interests.

As Bloomberg reports, the IAEA has been using Palantir’s Mosaic platform since 2015 to “monitor” Iran’s nuclear weapons program. On June 12, 2025, documents were published showing that IAEA chief Rafael Grossi works directly with Israel: According to correspondence intercepted and published by Iranian intelligence, the Israeli government gives Mr. Grossi direct instructions. An indication of this is that just a few days before Israel’s attack on Iran, on June 12, 2025, the IAEA published a statement reinforcing a narrative about a dangerous Iranian nuclear weapons program. Thus, the illegal war of aggression against Iran is given a veneer of approval by the international community. Even if all criticism of Iran were justified, this timing already raises the suspicion that the IAEA and Israel are acting in coordination against Iran.

Even the Israel-friendly broadcaster CNN has now produced an informative compilation showing how long Iran has been attacked with this narrative:

And Netanyahu has apparently been telling this story since 1992. In 2018, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif commented:

But the war between Israel and Iran was and is much more than an information war. It is being fought on all levels. Just as the “civil war” in Syria from 2011 to 2024 can be regarded as a proxy war between Russia and the USA, it can also be seen as a proxy war between Israel and Iran. In 2018, for example, Foreign Policy provided evidence that Syrian rebel groups were financially and militarily supported by the Israeli government. At the same time, Assad’s Syria was massively supported by Iran in a variety of ways—including militarily (see here, here, and here).

Aggressor USA

As with the attack on Iran, it is difficult to make a military distinction between the USA and Israel in the case of Syria. The direct attack by Israel and the USA on Iran in June 2025 had been years in the making and is nevertheless communicated in the media as a spontaneous act. During the attack on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, very special bombs are said to have been used. Ynetnews.com reports: “The main weapon used against the fortified facility at Fordow was the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). This 13.6-ton bunker-busting bomb was developed by the US Department of Defense for one specific purpose: the destruction of Fordow.”

The renowned analyst James Corbett asks in his podcast of June 24th: “If a bomb is developed specifically for a place, how likely is it that it will be used?” We must logically ask further: How likely is it that US involvement was only discussed at the last minute, that these bombs have not been part of the plan for this attack for years?

Ynetnews continues: “The MOP was heavier than the 10-ton MOAB (‘Mother of All Bombs’), which was used once in Afghanistan, and had never been used before this attack. Reports indicate that 12 MOPs were dropped on Fordow and two more on Natanz, consuming an estimated 70% of the US’s limited stockpile of about 20 such bombs.”

The MOP is said to penetrate up to 60 meters deep into concrete in a single strike. In addition, US submarines fired 30 Tomahawk missiles at Natanz and Isfahan. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain what was destroyed and what was not. But how important is that, really?

No one has ever proven that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The 2025 annual report of the 18 US intelligence agencies states on page 26: “We continue to assume that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and that Khamenei has not resumed the nuclear weapons program suspended in 2003.” And the enriched uranium? Because of the war, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can no longer monitor anything. The US government admits that it knows nothing about the whereabouts of the enriched uranium. The war has made IAEA inspections impossible.

This is also evidence that these attacks were not primarily directed against the alleged nuclear weapons program. Let’s compare this with the alleged weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the US’s illegal war of aggression against Iraq since March 2003. At that time, Iraq was accused of non-compliance with UN Resolution 1441. According to Wikipedia, “the UN Security Council condemned Iraq, among other things, for failing to meet its obligation to eliminate and control its weapons of mass destruction.” Are we seeing a similar construct here, with Israel instead of the USA, and the IAEA instead of the UN?

Gaslighting

In view of Trump’s obvious electoral fraud, he employs a dramatic trick: If you want to tell a story in which a character is supposed to be sympathetic despite behaving unpleasantly, the author places an even bigger villain next to them… And suddenly, the objectively bad guy appears sympathetic again.

In an attempt to restore his dignity, Trump exploded in anger at Israel after it used the last hours before the ceasefire to carry out a massive air offensive. “I’m not happy with Israel,” the President fumed as he left the White House on June 24. “If I say, okay, you have 12 hours, you don’t start in the first hour and just throw everything you have at them.” He continued: “We have basically two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they basically have no idea what the fuck they’re doing! You understand?” (spoken in English in the original)

Trump negotiates the ceasefire agreement, mediates between the conflicting parties, and at the same time communicates that he is proud of his soldiers who have just dropped the biggest bombs in the world on Iran. That is gaslighting.

And the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The claim that the Iraqi government posed a threat to the USA was already ridiculous in 2003. The narrative became a farce when, surprisingly, neither the USA with its 18 major intelligence agencies nor their allies took the trouble to place weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to keep the narrative of threatening WMD alive—even though the USA had control over the country. In Syria, however, they later did exactly that—according to the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of the United Nations (see here and here). The British intelligence service is said to have placed chemical weapons in Syria in order to create a pretext for Britain to become even more “involved” in the war against the Assad regime.

It is a form of subjugation when the deceived recognize lies as lies, but still have to act as if the statements are true.

The Power of Repetition

This also corresponds to the fact that shortly after the USA announced that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” (as President Trump put it), the head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, declared on June 29, 2025: “The Iranians could enrich uranium again ‘within months’ or even ‘less’ with some cascades of centrifuges.”

The ceasefire is therefore likely to be more of a transitional phase, as the Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir admitted when he explained: “The war is not over yet. A new phase is coming.” This means further assassinations and acts of sabotage, such as the explosions observed in April this year in the port of Shahid Rajaee in Iran…

In this context, it is already surprising how considerately Iran is acting towards the USA. In June 2025, Iran specifically warned the USA about the impact of Iranian missiles on US military bases near Iran. This is similar to what happened after the US assassination of General Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020. Back then, there were no deaths and no expensive equipment was hit when Iran attacked the Al Asad Airbase and the military base in Erbil, Iraq. One could almost think that the strikes came from the USA themselves to simulate a real confrontation. But it seems more likely that Iran simply wants to avoid an escalation of the war with Israel.

Against All Peoples

The vast majority of Americans were against this attack by the USA, and yet it took place. For several decades, the impression of a united intelligence and military structure of the Anglo-Saxons and Israel has been evident. Despite all the differences that probably exist, their cooperation works like a machine that is not so much influenced by the will of the population.

The historian Anton Chaitkin reminds us:

“December 1953—President Eisenhower declared before the United Nations that all countries should have access to enriched uranium so that the great power of nuclear energy could be available to all for peaceful purposes. Eisenhower’s ‘Atoms for Peace’ was the starting shot for the Iranian nuclear program.”

“1961–63—President Kennedy organized the mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency: to help all nations in the development of nuclear power plants.” (JFK also urged Israel to disclose its activities.)

“1963—The Dulles faction assassinated JFK.”