Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran

by craig on November 14, 2011 12:03 pm in Uncategorized

This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.

On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.

Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.

The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..

This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.

Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.

Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.

I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.

I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.

But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.

This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.

Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?

The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was

“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”

O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that

“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”

All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.

For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.

O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:

“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”

So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?

The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.

Hague replied to Corbyn that:

“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”

Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.

This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.

That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.

My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.

O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:

“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”

There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.

I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.

Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.

Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.

I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.

I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.

This is the story I was given.

Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.

According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.

My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.

On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.

There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?

The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.

Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?

There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.

There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?

Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.

UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:

“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.

From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled.

Tweet this post

440 Comments

1 2 3 5

  1. Thanks for this, Craig.
    .
    There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq.
    .
    Well they ought to have resigned then, because they’ve just made themselves another Iraq. It’s called Libya. If anything it’ll be worse than Iraq.

  2. On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.

    Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.


    .
    And Craig Murray said, “Zionism is bullshit!” which is also unusual behaviour for a diplomat, so presumably it takes all kinds.

  3. This kind of intel is the sort of thing that makes people feel “suicidal”. Watch your back Craig–you know what I am talking about. Best of luck.

  4. Angrysobs

    I said that some years after I ceased to be a diplomat.

  5. Supporting detail:
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/195253#.TsEHR2-GVvA
    ” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.

  6. Keep up the good work Craig! And always remove the battery in your mobile phone when not in use!

  7. I can’t work out whether the press has got no backbone, no balls or no foreskin.

  8. Excellent Craig. You have the fullest support from all of us here – well nearly all of us. I am pleased that your recent visit to St Paul’s was productive.

  9. I would have thought that a British Ambassador to a foreign country would first and foremost have Britain’s interests paramount, and I would not have expected him/her to go around expressing unequivocal support for the regime in his/her now resident country. Seems very strange and aloof behavior to say the least. And I certainly would expect this ambassador to be recalled forthwith.

  10. Jonangus Mackay

    14 Nov, 2011 - 12:38 pm

    ‘You cannot do this job without being a passionate Zionist.’ — Britain’s new ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, tells the Manchester-based Jewish Telegraph.
    .
    As a friend of mine remarked when I pointed this out immediately following Fox’s resignation: What if Her Majesty’s Government had appointed a white supremacist as its ambassador to S. Africa? Or a Communist as its ambassador to Moscow?
.

    .
    http://tinyurl.com/64btlae
    .
    Gould, along with fellow Zionist & Lord Mayor of London Mike Bear, key figure in bankster campaign to remove the London Occupy camp from St Paul’s Cathedral, opening in June 2011, the Tel Aviv stock exchange:
    .
    http://tinyurl.com/6eedktv
    .

  11. Excellent piece Craig. And so important if we are to oppose the threat of perpetual war at the behest of Zionist-Neocon pressure groups. Excellent piece of journalism. Hague should resign.

  12. Antelope Grazer

    14 Nov, 2011 - 12:39 pm

    Not sure I follow the bit about six meetings. I must have lost count somewhere around four. Could you list them, for clarity?

    If the GOD report was only talking about meetings when Fox was a minister (is that correct?), how many of the six were during that period?

  13. Excellent and important piece, Craig.

    Going back to Blair and Iraq, can we ask, in light of the Fox scandal: Has the British state been infiltrated by an operationally effective neocon/zionist presence?

    Sound like an episode of ‘Spooks’!

    In any even, these fuckers want war. They have to be stopped.

  14. kickstar: “And I certainly would expect this ambassador to be recalled forthwith.”

    Hear, hear.

  15. Antelope Grazer

    Fox Gould Werritty tripartite meetings

    One while Fox was Shadow Defence Secretary, ie before May 2010 – source FCO spokesman 21 October

    Two a social engagement in Summer 2010 – source reply to Corbyn’s parliamentary question 31 October

    Three a “brieifng” meeting in the MOD September 2010 – source O’Donnell report

    Four Herzilya conference fed 2011 – source numerous press reports

    Five “Private Dinner” Tel Aviv Feb 6 2011 source O’Donnell report

    Six “We believe in Israel Conference” London May 2011 source foreign diplomat in London

  16. “There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?”

    I agree and they should continue to be asked. I don’t think you have proved that this amounts to a plan to attack Iran (although I daresay others here will see it as such) – the discussions may have, for example, been about sanctions or other methods which stop short of an attack, or they may have been meetings to get a better understanding of the Israeli position (which isn’t as striaghtforward as some may assume).

    They do demonstrate that Gould has a case to answer as to whether he has stepped over the line in being over partisan to Israel – but again without knowing what he said in the various meetings or what was actaully being discussed – we do not know that he has. And I for one believe that their should be due process before getting rid of disciplining public servants.

    As to why the story wasn’t accepted – may I suggest that moving from a “charitable explanation” to accusing O’Donnell of being “deceitful” may have had something to do with it as well as the other explanations provided.

    I know you may not like my analysis Craig – but it is honestly felt on my part.

  17. One point I will make, Craig, is that the piece doesn’t read like a “hard” newspaper article. There are also a lot of unnamed sources, which is quite understandable, but might have put a lot of news editors off; the former can easily be addressed if you sit down with a hack and go over the text.

    The info is all there — and it’s pretty devastating.

  18. Nearly 8000 results already for ‘craig murray matthew gould the plot to attack iran’ in under an hour since posting.
    12.56 GMT

  19. So!! Good tradecraft there Craig. Did you once work for SIS? Nice story.

  20. All readers should download this article: one never knows when when Craig’s website might suffer “problems”………….

  21. Absolutely agree with kickstar and Mike, an excellent work ‘Sherlock’, I hope that those journalistically minded amongst us have got it all already on their FB sites and that those you met for this info, are safe.

    Also do sent it to your MPs, show them we know what they don’t know, it riles them into action.

    I’m sure that EU embassies hearing of this will get a little frustrated with the current economic blame being put on their countries, they will be spitting dice to see that Bicom has more influence on our foreing policy resolve than the EU or NATO.

    Watch your steps Craig, you know what they are like, although MI6 who warned off Werrity should really focus on the issue rather than mauling the messenger, hope I’m right.

  22. Stephen, may I suggest you read Quelcrime’s and Komodo’s links to Hague and Gould and you will see that it is not just Craig’s postulations that show a definite trend to attack Iran. Add to this the fact that it has been on the US agenda for nine years to attack Iran. You should be trying to avert any such illegal actions, not trying to find excuses.

  23. While there is a great deal of information here there are two things missing.

    i) substantive evidence
    ii) context

    I understand how hard it is to obtain evidence when focusing on issues where there is so much at stake and you are dealing with the intelligence services. So this is not such a big deal.

    However, the absence of context here is somewhat concerning.

    While it would be folly for me to assume I know what the political class’ real aims and objectives are in respect of Iran, I would hope that substantial planning and preparation has been, and remains, underway to deal with the Iran’s apparent determination to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

    Iran represents a genuine threat to stability in the middle east. The world must not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. that has shown consistent hostility to Israel and has already used Hezbollah as a proxy to bring about conflict

  24. Janus, Kickstar: Hear, hear, get Gould back where he will less of a danger to world peace.

  25. COMMENT POSTED IN DAILY TELEGRAPH HOPE YOU DO NOT MIND.
    We now seem to have a British Ambassador in Israel volunteering our services to go to war with Iran whether we like it or not.
    Matthew Gould the first Jewish British Ambassador to Israel has wasted no time in declaring his unswerving support for Israel, Matthew Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met former defence chief Liam Fox and friend Adam Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel.
    I cannot understand why this mans appointment Not just as an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.
    I further cannot understand with all the information that has been outed about him, why this ambassador still holds that post ?

  26. Is Werrity MI6? Would explain his attendance at all these meetings, especially the Mossad chats.

  27. Autonomous Mind. The only country to have used nuclear weapons has been the US. I believe that if the USSR had not developed nuclear weapons the US would have continued using them. While I do not agree with any country developing such weapons Iran is much lower down on my list of fears than the US or Israel.

  28. Brilliant work, Craig. Good on you! I shall spread this widely, internationally.

  29. Thanks Craig – nothing like a good dose of Rage Against the Machine on a Monday morning. Can’t say I’m at all surprised by this – rage and despair are all that’s left. Keep on digging and watch your back.

  30. (Sorry, I accidentally posted while editing my previous comment. I’ll try again)

    While there is a great deal of information here there are two things missing.

    i) substantive evidence
    ii) context

    I understand how hard it is to obtain evidence when focusing on issues where there is so much at stake and you are dealing with the intelligence services. So this is not such a big deal.

    However, the absence of context here is somewhat concerning.

    While it would be folly for me to assume I know what the political class’ real aims and objectives are in respect of Iran, I would hope that substantial planning and preparation has been, and remains, underway to deal with the Iran’s apparent determination to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

    Iran represents a genuine threat to stability in the middle east. The world must not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that has shown consistent hostility to Israel, is led by a fanatical and unpredictable regime, and has already used Hezbollah as a proxy to bring about conflict in southern Lebanon.

    While I do not want to see another war, I believe that a failure of diplomacy in preventing Iran developing nuclear weapons would make it a necessary evil. I also believe the responsible course of action is for the government to ensure it is ready to act if the situation demands it. Surely that is all that Craig is describing here.

  31. One has got to wonder – why have Private Eye or the Grauniad not picked this up yet? The others I can understand but I’m surprised by the silence from these two.

  32. North by Stringvest

    14 Nov, 2011 - 1:16 pm

    Autonomous M:
    .
    Iran represents a genuine threat to stability in the middle east. The world must not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that has shown consistent hostility to Israel, is led by a fanatical and unpredictable regime, and has already used Hezbollah as a proxy to bring about conflict in southern Lebanon.
    .
    Israel represents a genuine threat to stability in the middle east. The world must not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons. Israel is a country that has shown consistent hostility to Iran, is led by a fanatical and unpredictable regime, and has already used the USA as a proxy to bring about conflict in Iraq and elsewhere.

  33. Private Eye only comes out fortnightly: Guardian has been (I personally believe) subverted by recent cash injection from Israel-linked private equity firm. I posted details on other threads.

  34. Around about when was Gould writing speeches for the unfortunate Robin Cook? With friends like MG who needs enemies. What a snake!

  35. It’s interesting to read your comments about the pro-Israeli bias in the MSM. A few months ago, I said hello to Jon Snow after his interview of Gideon Levy at the Frontline Club in London. Simply to remind him who I was, I said I had sent him, pre-publication in 2008, my 7,000-word interview for Third Way of Khalid Mish’al of Hamas: http://bit.ly/lqxb6O. I thought Jon might say, at best, “Yeah, I vaguely remember that; but I didn’t have time to read it.” Instead, he looked slightly embarrassed and said, “I’m sorry we didn’t do anything with it, but – believe it or not – my editor thinks the viewers are bored with stories about Israel/Palestine and will just switch over to another channel.” The director of research/former head of the Middle East programme at Chatham House had told me that the interview was “very interesting” and its timing “could not be better, given the Israeli-Hamas truce” – but still it was completely ignored by the MSM.

  36. craig

    11th November 2011
    Stephen,

    I used to think you were a friendly and interesting commentator putting forward a different view, but now I realise you are just a troll. Of course the article is properly sourced, and it follows proper journalistic ethics, ie those criticised have been asked for their viewpoint. As I plainly stated, several national newspapers have fact-checked it and the facts are fine.

    Do you see a single querying of fact in the above exchanges? If there is a fear of libel – and nobody has ever sued me for libel, unlike for example convicted libellers Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes – the newspaper calls you in to go through it with the lawyer. I have been there many times before.

    This is nothing to do with libel or with doubted facts. Now stop being an obvious arse.

  37. The only concrete indication that an attack on Iran was on the agenda of any of these meetings, which clearly did take place, is obtained in a tent outside St Paul’s. Newspapers would want to know that person’s name and address, and would want a sworn statement. Being in with the neo-cons is a way of keeping in with the Americans, and Fox probably thought Werrity’s activities were keeping him in with them. Gould probably thought he had a better chance of being promoted if he kept in with Fox. But actually Werrity is a weirdo and it was all a souffle of piffle. It’s not conspiracy, it’s cock-up. Very interesting article, but it’s not taken me anywhere. And Werrity is still a mystery.

  38. Thank you for keeping these things uncovered and being honest.
    War is first and foremost about deception, and amidst all the information and disinformation, sometimes it is difficult to tell what is exactly going on.

    THIS :
    “And always remove the battery in your mobile phone when not in use!”

  39. “You should be trying to avert any such illegal actions, not trying to find excuses.”

    Perhaps one way of averting miltary action against Iran is not to be so blind to the deficiencies of the regime in that country and seek to use other mechanisms – sanctions etc. to deal with them. On the other hand – you could just take the view that Iran is doing nothing wrong at all and that all the evil is on the part of the US, Israel, UK, Freemasonry etc. – and the result will be that those who want war will have no effective alternative been proposed to gross violations of human rights will win the argument.

  40. Rather than accepting that Craig has written a superb article of investigative journalism this blog is becoming infested with apologists. Is this genuine personal commentary or a concerted effort to try to demolish the truth. I was expecting it. The truth hurts.

  41. “But actually Werrity is a weirdo and it was all a souffle of piffle.”

    So it would have been much easier for GOD to say so instead of restricting his “enquiry” to areas free of awkward questions, no?
    The police were going to interview Werritty re. possible fraud charges. Not a peep. Not a peep from or about Werritty…gone to ground, and the only person who now appears to have known him is Fox. The BICOM backers of the fraudulent charity set up by Fox and Werritty are running in all directions. If the government wants to end interest in this, all it has to do is be transparent (!), on your assessment. Meanwhile, people are going to pay close attention to the holes in a very incoherent narrative, and wonder what’s been cut out.

  42. North,
    I left a comment on your Oxus issues on another thread.

  43. Excellent article as usual, thanks.
    .

    I was particularly interested in the notion that political correctness made it OK to send a Jewish ambassador to Israel and a Catholic to the Vatican. Political correctness, of course, began to spread at exactly the same time as the massive upscaling of deregulation of the banks and development of globalisation. All of these things encourage uniformity.
    .

    There is probably something to be said for political correctness, but it assumes the correctness of a single viewpoint and seeks to force it on others if we are not careful.

  44. “And always remove the battery in your mobile phone when not in use!”
    .
    Am I correct in saying that it can not only be used to track you, but it can be used to listen to you?

  45. Someone here asks why The Guardian wasn’t on to the story a while back?

    After all, Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian was present at the “We Believe in Israel” conference in May 2011, at which Fox and Gould were present. Pity his ‘journalistic radar’ wasn’t switched on.

  46. “Werrity is a weirdo and it was all a souffle of piffle. It’s not conspiracy, it’s cock-up”
    .
    Do you have a source for this bombshell – you know, names addresses and sworn statements?

  47. And I mean listen to what you’re saying in the room (not only when you’re using the phone.)

  48. Brave man, Craig. Sadly none of the exposed facts about that trio surprise me. I hope you gain widespread coverage.

    …currently reading ‘Working in the silence’: Maurice Hopper. An account of human rights witness in the West Bank.(2003) One photo is of a banner hanging in the Ultra Orthodox Mea Shearim district of Jerusalem. It reads…
    “Jews are not Zionists. Zionists are not Jews only racists. Judaism & Zionism are diametrically opposed. We pray to G-D for an immediate end of Zionism and their occupation”

    Admittedly they are waiting for the Messiah, then it will be no holds barred!

  49. Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?

    You bet there is. First up Gove. An openly and fully paid up neocon when he was writing for the neocon Murdoch Times faithfully parroting the Wolfowitz-Perle gaenda in the early days of the Bush Administration.

    Second Hague who is more discrete than Gove and Fox.

    They are all following the Thatcher, Major and Blair line that slavishly following the US assures a comfortable post UK politics retirement. Major didn’t have a pot to piss-in when he left office but eventually Bush41 got him a sinecure with Carlyle Group flogging arms to the Middle East.

    In addition, yesterday Sir David Richards mentioned on TV they had war plans for Syria and Iran, should they become necessary.

  50. Rhisiart Gwilym

    14 Nov, 2011 - 2:04 pm

    Respect Craig. Pretty soon you’ll be getting the Prix Pilger for honest amateurs who show the spineless corporate media hacks how to do their job.

    Brilliant piece of work here. Exemplary of what real investigative journalism giving vital information to a — genuinely — free people should be.

    Many thanks! And yes, do watch out for the Kelly Supposed-Suicide Syndrome — what with your tendency to fall into depression fits and all…

    There are some very big global realpolitikal issues at stake here, and some of the world’s worst premier league hard-faced ruthless bastards in play. They think nothing of snuffing out inconvenient people, wholesale or retail.

  51. [Aside: “After a Iranian weapons depot mysteriously exploded on Saturday, a “Western intelligence source” told Time what many observers already believed to be true — that Israel was behind it. {http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/11/did-israel-blow-irans-missile-base/44931/}
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099376,00.html ]

  52. Nuid, not just listen to you, phone conversations and general conversations, but if it has a camera what you are watching someone else can be watching, and even when you are not watching anything someone else can be.

  53. From the TWITter page of a Con MP’s assistant.
    .
    henryjamiesonHenry Jamieson
    Why can’t the press understand that no Con MP (esp Hammond) or Dr Fox will comment until after the CS’s report?It will be thorough and open.
    .
    http://twitter.com/#!/henryjamieson

  54. Scouse Billy

    14 Nov, 2011 - 2:07 pm

    Craig, I will post to Wayne Madsen and Webster Terpley – hope you don’t mind 😉

  55. Nuid, that link is frightening. It’s like a Muckden incident. No wonder they did not want to publish Craig’s article if this was on their agenda.

  56. Can I send a copy to my MP George Osborne?????

  57. Thanks John. Gave me the willies when I read something about that recently. Apparently turning it off is not enough. You must remove the battery. (I hope Craig is conscious of this.)

  58. Pee, it’s up to us to ensure Craig gets widespread coverage. Post it to everyone you know, every blog, every political commentary, everywhere.

  59. Nuid,

    I told people that in Murder in Samarkand! Please everyone do repost this article wherever you can. Anyone know how to get it on WhatReallyHappened.com?

    Craig

  60. I think I posted this comment elsewhere.

    Thanks for the courage.

    You might consider al-akhbar English, a widely read Lebanese daily which is pro-government (current government)

    http://english.al-akhbar.com/

  61. “do watch out for the Kelly Supposed-Suicide Syndrome — what with your tendency to fall into depression fits and all…”
    .
    Unfortunately, this is true. With this research Craig may have ceased to be a nuisance and become something more threatening. I suspect that the real problem here is that the evidence is starting to point inexorably towards Cameron, just like the Murdoch stuff. Cameron of course has a very colourful past when it comes to Israel, missing nuclear missiles and David Kelly.

  62. nuid :
    No, they cannot “listen” to anything if you’re not using the phone. It is possible to track phones for location, however, even when they are not being used as long as the battery is inside and it is emitting a signal.
    https://ssd.eff.org/wire/protect/cell-tracking
    As for those objecting to the “conspiratorial” nature of these accusations, the problem with conspiracies is that sometimes they are true. We shouldn’t let the tinfoil hat accusations get in the way of ascertaining what is probable and factual or not. If the past has taught us anything, especially in these matters, it is that the truth is sometimes very strange, and that government officials lie repeatedly.
    I’m willing to entertain some unsubstantiated claims if it is in the service of avoiding another stupid war which will benefit a minority of individuals. The benefits outweigh the costs.

  63. Nuid, yes, most mobiles can transmit whatever the mic is picking up, and can be activated remotely. The FBI (I think) have presented evidence obtained this way in court.
    .
    A mobile phone is a little computer with excellent characteristics for surveillance – microphone, camera, radio transceiver (for voice and data), memory, and an internal power source. It is voluntarily carried, charged and serviced by the target. Crucially, it’s programmable; whoever supplies its software controls its behaviour. Most modern phones update their software over the cell network, so the software can be modified remotely at any time.
    .
    The only handset system I believe to be under full control of the user is the OpenMoko running fully open-source Replicant software.

  64. We should make everything possible to get the word out and to stop them making any additional nuisance, be it attacking individuals or waging another war.

    No Pasaran!

  65. Cited here:
    http://www.21stcenturyfix.org/
    Thoughtful commentary:
    “Personally, right now, I don’t think I’m inclined to get involved in the argument over whether Iran should be attacked or not. I’m not sure it’s a good idea the Iranians in particular should have their own nuclear arsenal – on the other hand, I’m not inclined to believe that anyone’s nuclear arsenals make our planet a better place for coexistence. Where the grim realities remain, of course, we must do what we must do. So there I really cannot offer any easy advice.

    Even as I just can’t help remembering those WMDs which were never found in Iraq.

    Nor properly disregard how we were so damnably and completely manipulated on the subject of their alleged reach and destination.

    But where I am of a mind to pursue Craig’s line of reasoning is in this apparent conflict of interests quite at the very heart of British government. And the covert – that is to say, anti-democratic – way in which these interests appear to have been pursued.

    We come back again to the question of acting in the interests of another state before the tighter and more homegrown needs of the United Kingdom itself. And whilst I’m not legally qualified to know if any of this borders on a treasonable mindset, it certainly doesn’t seem to be a case of lily-white allegiances.”

  66. Sophia,

    I need individuals with ideas of places that might run this, to take the initiative themselves and forward it on. Anyone can publish it for free. We can only break through the mainstream media blackout by decentralised people’s power.

  67. Jonangus Mackay

    14 Nov, 2011 - 2:28 pm

    The Magical Werritty Tour’s local coach driver details to fellow-Zionists his qualifications for the gig: Matthew Gould reminds them that he was in fact for a time Britain’s acting ambassador to Iran. Note the eager-teenager — less than diplomatic, in the popular sense of the word — tone in which he repeatedly uses the word ‘we’ to outline the route towards Tehran ‘interdict’:
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1w1jKDy6Q

  68. I’ve submitted this to Indymedia UK (www.indymedia.org.uk), who have permitted articles from here before (they normally insist on original material, but I think they will let it stand). Will appear in a few minutes, usually it takes a little while to trickle through.
    .
    I’ll get in touch with the Morning Star just now.

  69. Excellent, the Indymedia publishing system is quick today:
    .
    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/488512.html

  70. Oh, and I assume that the new touch screens can detect and record fingerprints. With an iPhone (“SpyPhone”), you can’t even take the battery out!

  71. I’ve sent a note to the Morning Star, maybe they will be interested.
    .
    Has anyone sent a note to Private Eye already?

  72. Probably a waste of time given its recent shift to the right, but New Statesman might be worth a go.

  73. A few lines as people have been talking about the security of mobile phones.There is a difference between being tracked via your phone and being located.All mobile phones, by virtue of them being mobile, “talk” to the nearest phone mast every hour or so, as a method of checking signal strength, you can actually hear this if you keep your phone next to a radio-alarm clock or computer with external speaker wires (which act as an arial).All mobile phones, even old ones can be “pinged”: that is to say, a silent signal is sent to the phone to which the phone responds, and its location can be found within 100 metres or so of the nearest mobile phone mast. Only modern, gps/internet connected phoned can be tracked, that is to say their movement over time logged.Even taking the battery out of a phone is not foolproof: many phones have small secondary power sources inside them to maintain certain functions (internal clocks, some types of memory etc..). The idea that phones can be turned – by an outside signal – into microphones in order to listen into a room has been much talked of but I am not aware of a proved incident of this being done: phones that are given to hostage-takers are modifed specifically to do this. The only secure method of isolating a mobile phone is to put it into a Faraday Cage, which blocks all signals both coming and going. You can buy a signal-blocking pouch for mobiles for a few quid on Ebay. These are a wise investment if you are concerned about the security of your phone.The downside is that you cannot receive calls while the phone is in the pouch.Buying a second-hand old style phone and using it with an unregistered, pay as you go sim card is not a bad idea, remembering only to top up the card with cash (if you top up using an ATM, the phone number will be linked to you bank account details). Of course, once the number you are using is associated with you, all the old problems arise.There isnt any such thing as truly secure communications.

  74. Stephen, wrt MSM not taking the piece, yes, I thought that too wrt calling ‘GOD’ (!) a liar. However, that would simply be the subject on an agreed edit to a more acceptable form of words (eg. ‘This calls inot question ‘GOD’s statement that…’) b/w editor and writer, something newspapers do all day, every day. It would not normally be grounds to reject the whole piece.
    .
    Good piece, Craig. Well done, man! I will spread this piece widely – internationally.

  75. ‘Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?’

    No. There’s a government within the government (some people call it a permanent government) that formulates important policy and the government as we know carries it out.

    So Werrity must be a senior intelligence officer accountable to the permanent government.

  76. Craig,

    I will be writing to E-Intifada and Angry Arab. The latter is frequent contributor to Al-Akhbar Arabic and English.

  77. Odd, a previous, shorter, post of mine – the second paragraph of the one just above’s Ruth’s – appeared earlier this afternoon on this thread, then disappeared! Technical stuff. And yes, we all shall spread it widely. The cat is out of the bag. Whether its roar is heard is another matter. Let’s give it some amplification, people!

  78. Following your suggestion, fully reposted at http://log.jmce.eu/craig-murray-matthew-gould-and-the-plot-to-at (tempted to make a Portuguese translation one of these days…).

  79. Rob and Peter Bryce, cellphone “roving bug”:
    .
    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html

  80. For what it’s worth, I’ve sent it on to Private Eye too.

  81. It is hard for me to find the thread links to my relevant posts, but I have consistently reported here from my own sources a British/American/Israeli plot to attack Iran as a consequence of Iran’s involvement in Syria.
    .
    Craig’s whistle-blowing today coincides with America’s insistence that 1000 FBI and secret service agents should be stationed in the UK as security for the Olympic Games early next year.
    .
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/13/us-worried-london-olympics-security-2012
    .
    Already the Daily Mail has said:
    ‘The internal threat is growing more dangerous because some extremists are conducting non-lethal training without ever leaving the country. Should these extremists then decide to become suicide operatives, intelligence resources, eavesdropping and surveillance would be hard pressed to find them on any radar screen.’
    .
    According to the paper, MI5 says that the figure of 200 terrorists is a “conservative estimate”. In reality the threat is likely to be much greater.
    .
    My source is convinced that a false-flag attack is currently in the ‘exercise drill’ stage and a bunch of recent Iranian asylum seekers have been approached early this year by another group linked to British secret service called the Iranian Refugees Action Network.
    .
    I am convinced these Iranians will be ‘caught’ in a terrorist plot by the Olympic Games FBI/SS operatives shortly to be stationed in the UK and the main-stream media used to turn the British public against Iran in preparation for a vote in Parliament to assist in an American strike. I believe a high level meeting is planned on November 30th to green light this evil plan.

  82. One way to identify other members of the putative neocon cell is to look at who appointed (or influenced the appointment of) Gould from 2003 onwards to posts in Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv where he was in a key position to monitor or influence policies on Iran.

  83. “Nuid,
    I told people that in Murder in Samarkand!”
    .
    Sorry Craig, I’ve read the book but I had forgotten that bit. :)
    .
    “Please everyone do repost this article wherever you can”
    .
    Done the blog, done Twitter, just about to do Facebook, and then do an email to all contacts.

    ———-

    Clark and everyone else, thanks for the info on the phones. Aren’t we the eejits going around carrying those things? I’m tempted to revert to my old Nokia
    (not that I’m Craig Murray! or likely to be tracked/followed/listened to or anything else. It’s just creepy.)

    ———-

    John, I found it hard to believe that was an ‘accidental explosion’ at an ammunition depot. After all, we don’t often hear of such indidents elsewhere (US or Israel or UK for example) and we have no reason to imagine that the Revolutionary Guards are any more butter-fingered than anyone else.

  84. Craig, you are the man. Fantastic detective work, dog on you and may your zeal for truth be infectious, so that the rest of the ball less wonders occupying the lofty editorial desks hang their useless heads in shame.
    ,
    Guy I am impressed, especially with the part of getting “Billy Fourteen Pints” AKA Honourable Hague to come out with the nonsense that he has.
    ,
    ,
    ,
    Mary,

    The article was rejected, because of not using the right font, and it was sent on a day that was not starting with S, and the inauspicious hour that it was sent had a lot to do with its rejection too!
    ,
    Damn good answer there.

  85. at the age of 24 when cameron was in the thatcher government he travelled to racist south africa where he helped Israel to obtain 9 nuclear warheads

    Anyone want to know what causes dyslexia?

  86. Carmen Havana Giraffe

    14 Nov, 2011 - 3:07 pm

    Links added to various Wikipedia articles, but they’ll probably be taken down by psychos – worth keeping an eye.

    Adam Werritty
    Liam Fox
    Craig Murray
    Israel–United Kingdom relations

    I’m sure there are plenty more appropriate articles.

  87. To drop one warhead on its fuze at a military base may be regarded as a misfortune; to drop two looks like an act of external aggression….

  88. Nuid, I can’t understand why the explosion was not reported in the Sundays. I fluctuate between the Observer and Independent on Sunday and really used to like the Independent on Sunday, but there is so little world news these days, or even other notable news, I wonder if it’s worth getting a Sunday newspaper at all.

  89. Pony Chase John

    14 Nov, 2011 - 3:13 pm

    Who are those hungry freaks in the picture? That’s what’s got me scared. Gould looks quite the cleancut kid compared to the others.

  90. Dear Craig,

    I wrote to Electronic Intifada and Alain Gresh (monde diplomatique), as well as jadaliyya, on Twitter. I also wrote to Angry Arab asking him to publish on his site and in Al-Akhbar where he publishes regularly.

    I will still think of other places. I think you have to reach out to Walt and Mearsheimer. Did you try LRB? I felt they were tending too much to zionist lobby by publishing the lame Stephen Smith (who is no doubt a US agent) twice on Ivory Coast.

  91. Nuid, according to the Guardian it was an accident.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/14/iran-explosion-missile-expert

  92. Carmen Havana Giraffe

    14 Nov, 2011 - 3:25 pm

  93. But according to the Guardian, it wasn’t an accident…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/nov/14/iran-nuclear-weapons
    And the usual suspects are making the usual noises about more to come.
    Interestingly, the MEK has been named as participating in this alleged act of war. The MEK (strongly supported by Israel and the US in acts of terrorism against Iran) is virtually indistinguishable from the PKK (official terrorist organisation, strongly deprecated by US and shot at by Turkey)

  94. Good sleuthing Craig. Not conclusive , of course, but the stonewalling both you & Jeremy Corbyn encountered is likely indicative of something rotten that can’t stand further scrutiny.

    ‘the discussions may have, for example, been about sanctions or other methods which stop short of an attack, or they may have been meetings to get a better understanding of the Israeli position (which isn’t as striaghtforward as some may assume).’

    On whose authority, Stephen, is Werritty acting an an interlocutor between the UK & Israeli governments ? And to which of these parties is he ultimately answerable ?

  95. Nuid,
    Evidently you are getting tired of my “know it all attitude”, However to consider sabotage in any military barracks, is the stuff of mad fantasies, which evidently does not concern you.
    ,
    Further, the same line of “aggressive actions” was taken up by the BBC Persian division, immediately after the explosion whilst the palls of smoke were hanging in place (not an outfit to miss an opportunity for propaganda).
    ,
    Moral of of the story; given the article that we are in the thread of. In the current climate of hysterical “all out propaganda” against Iran, an accident that is probable in any barracks in any part of the world. Due to the explosive nature of their stock in trade. Somehow blowing a simple accident out of proportion, and cause worries, as well as setting markers in place, in the minds of the public at large, does not cross your mind.
    ,
    Google and see the number of accidents in ammunition depots across the world, why do you think transportation of explosives anywhere in the world entails a huge deal of regs, and edicts?

  96. I have emailed WhatReallyHappened.com. The addy is wrh@whatreallyhappened.com

  97. I’ve emailed the link to Richard Stallman for his ‘Political Notes’ page, I should think it will get listed.

1 2 3 5

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud