Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran 440

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.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

440 thoughts on “Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran

1 13 14 15
  • Mary

    Similarly, if the mainstream media prides itself on reporting the facts, I have found too many problems with what does or does not get to be a fact — or what rises to the level of a fact they believe to be worth reporting — to be part of such a machine. Going forward, I want to take responsibility for my voice and the facts that I choose and relay. I want them to instigate change.
    Breitbart, Beck and friends are correct in saying I’m more than just a journalist. They are wrong in saying I’m an activist – that means something specific, in my mind. But if by “more” they mean I am a journalist in agreement with those across the country who think “Fuck this shit” when it comes to a system upholding inequality and alienation for all but a few, then they are right. This — and my proclivity for dropping “F-bombs,” once again — is the reason the mainstream media and I have parted ways.
    Natasha Lennard

  • Stephen

    “I hope you won’t think me churlish in suggesting that my point to Stephen was solely to indicate to his goodself that the idea was not of marxist manufacture, and a variety of opinions could agree to its veracity without demur.”

    If that was what I said – then it would be fine, but it wasn’t what I said.

  • Stephen

    I read parts of C Wright Mills many years ago – and it is interesting in the genesis of the idea. However, even if you were to accept the idea then might I suggest that it needs some updating since 1956 as things may have well changed since then. On the other hand some might want to push ideas which are set in aspic.

  • Anders

    Totally as expected!!!

    Too much democracy! Embarrassed by the success of e-petitions, senior MPs want to make it harder for YOU to have your say

    They have discussed raising the threshold for the number of signatures needed before e-petitions can be considered for discussion in the House of Commons.
    Comments (140)
    Add to My Stories

  • Anders

    I hear what you say about Drudge, half of them are just to annoy the bastards. Have also slipped the link into 3 stories at Guido Fawkes, which IS read by the “great and good”…

  • Tiwo

    Seems the festivities are well under way.

    Report: Iran blames Israel for deadly blast

    Senior Iranian source says deadly explosion at military base outside Tehran that killed 17 people ‘part of covert war against Iran, led by Israel’,7340,L-4148322,00.html

    Reverse-denial from Tel-Aviv.

    Iran officials: Israel not behind deadly military base explosion
    Iran parliament speaker Ali Larijani denies press speculation about Israeli involvement in blast near Tehran that killed high-ranking Revolutionary Guard commander, calling it ‘fiction.’

  • OldMark

    ‘I read parts of C Wright Mills many years ago – and it is interesting in the genesis of the idea. However, even if you were to accept the idea then might I suggest that it needs some updating since 1956 as things may have well changed since then.’

    Power structure research, as pioneered by C Wright Mills, has for pretty obvious reasons not received as much funding as trendier ‘sexier’ areas such as gender studies, multiculturalism, and the vapid management speak extruded by the likes of Rob Whiteman, now creating havoc at the UK Home Office. A good primer on this phenomenon is here-

    However C Wright Mills does have a few worthy successors who have updated his insights for the current century, Kevin Phillips, for example. See here-

  • Rocki

    Craig if the Olympics 2012 is to be used as an excuse to invade Iran and a ‘spectacular’ on the agenda I believe I may have found the venue – Royal Artillery Barracks Woolwich.

    No children are allowed to attend firearm displays which means no mums and dads will be present, less civilian damage !

    Goverment already talking missiles and over one thousand FBI agent’s on the ground. A military strike on the barracks in Woolwich placing the blame at the feet of Iran !

  • Mary

    More on Israel’s manipulation of the media, this time the American film industry. The word ‘conflict’ is used in this report to describe the Occupation and the resistance against it.
    Hollywood groups visit Israel and PA to learn about conflict
    Actors, directors and studio execs find out the script is complex; group to meet President Shimon Peres today.
    By Ruta Kupfer
    Two delegations from Hollywood are visiting Israel to learn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one comprised of actors and another mainly featuring directors.
    Today, both groups will meet with President Shimon Peres. The actors’ delegation is also slated to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the coming days, after having met with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Tuesday
    I note the PA stooge Fayyad is involved in the charade.

  • Rocki

    Good morning Craig, if you would please take a look at the last five or six links on this blog you will see the ‘nuclear issue’ with Iran is a smoke screen .

    I had not realized how far the TAPI and PI gas piplines had come.

    America trying to force Pakistan to go with TAPI leaving Iran out in the cold…If Iran is attacked Pakistan will have no choice but to go with TAPI…Israel of course are on board TAPI..(the reason for the Afghan war to stabilize the country ready for the gas pipline, Russia tried for ten year you may remember !)

    I still believe the Olympics will be the target !

  • Courtenay Barnett


    Point very well made and taken:-

    1. Courtenay
    2. One of the huge ironies of the 20th Century, is the Zionists, as “chosen people” turning round immediate post World War 11 to inflict sustained suffering on another people.
    As soon as the French were liberated from German occupation, they jumped on ships and went off to Vietnam, which had just declared independence after kicking out the Japanese (who had taken over from the French) in order to re-colonise the place.”

  • SBader

    A great read. Not only the article, but the comments too. As an Iranian I feel very isolated and it’s good to see the part of British political attitude which I grew to admire (’62 – ’72)still exists. Very few objectionable comments, all properly replied to. Leaves not much for me to say except to WIZ, “Americans” is not the neocons. Stephen there genuinely is no Iran problem, don’t kid yourself.

    My interest is not religious, G-D needs no defense, absolutely not. Naturally I have a nationalistic interest, but my concern is that at least semblance of genuine democracy which is threatened by an international alliance of groups, not nations. Neocon, zionist blah and etc have no need for democracy, they view it as passe with the demise of socialism.
    Most important, Nuid it can explode!

  • SBader

    Wiz, “Americans” is not neocons.
    Stephen, There is no Iran problem. There is a zionist + problem.
    Nuid, They EXPLODE

  • Apostate

    Isn’t this the same Craig Murray who insisted not long ago that Attorney General Goldsmith’s ethnicity was entirely irrelevant to his judgement that the war with Iraq was legal?

    Yes, I think so.

    Now calling himself in typically vainglorious fashion a “whistleblower” Murray has in the past branded most anti-Zionists anti-semitic conspiracy theorists.

    Anyone referring to the likelihood that there is a Zionist/British Israel plot to instigate WW3 has been labelled a Nazi on this website.

    Now Murray has stolen our clothes!

    Murray goes on about censorship but regularly censors deviants from the rigid centre left position he himself espouses here.

    Maybe Our Man in Samarkand has now realised he’s got nothing to thank Hollywood and the Zionist media for!

    Waiting for the scissors…………..

  • Freeborn

    The image of Murray trundling through a neighbour’s garden, then cycling, hitching and mini-cabbing to a meeting with his “intermediary” reminded me less of a detective story than of Alex Rider, Anthony Horowitz’s boy-spy.

    Murray never saw through the Wikileaks scam either-entirely overlooking the fact that Assange on his day in court was represented by the Rothschilds’ own lawyer.

    Bit of a give-away that. Like Alex Rider, Murray is liable to give his own name when on espionage missions (LMAO)!

  • nymphymbal

    Did the last speech Matthew Gould wrote for Robin Cook begin:

    “I’m just going to climb Ben Stack mountain………”?

    I doubt it was the speech re-Al Qaeda being a CIA mercenary database.

    Didn’t those Al Qaeda guys turn up in Libya recently?

    Oh, them. They run the post-Gadaffi government don’t they?

  • Rocki

    Have just placed this on Stumbleupon…six seconds and eight American stats , lets see how it goes through the day.

  • Ian Burr

    I’m quite willing to accept that, in an ideal world, it would be no bad thing if Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons were eliminated. What I can’t believe is that a British government, after the recent disastrous events in Iraq and Afghanistan, could possibly get away with ensuring that by participating in military action. My feeling is that Cameron and Co’s instinct for self-preservation will override any pressure from the Americans on this issue. The USA may or may not have the British government by the balls in terms of our own so called independent nuclear deterrent – but the electors are free to make their own judgments. Better a bit,even a lot,of testicular pain than political oblivion.

    So there are elements in the defence community and the Conservative Party that would like to manoeuvre us into another middle eastern war. So what. I won’t happen, because it can’t. The people won’t let them.

1 13 14 15

Comments are closed.