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.

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

1 2 3 4 5 15
  • John Goss

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

  • craig Post author


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


  • MJ

    “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.

  • Rob

    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.
    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.

  • Clark

    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.

  • Sophia

    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!

  • Komodo

    Cited here:
    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.”

  • craig Post author


    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.

  • Jonangus Mackay

    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’:

  • Jon

    I’ve submitted this to Indymedia 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.

  • Clark

    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!

  • Jon

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

  • Jon

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

  • Peter Bryce

    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.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    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.

  • Ruth

    ‘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.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    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!

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    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.
    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.

  • pmr9

    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.

  • 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.

  • passerby

    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.

    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.

  • larry Levin

    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?

  • Carmen Havana Giraffe

    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.

  • Komodo

    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….

1 2 3 4 5 15

Comments are closed.