The Shadow Game

Pawns ... Meant to Be Sacrificed

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

---

This is a follow-up to Clowns in America and School of Assassins and Dictators, an introduction into the seedy origins of the CIA.

…

Shall we play a game?

This Q post is talking about the CIA. The link is about the CIA doing everything they can to prevent the “public exposure” of their treason, through declassification of the evidence.

Self preservation.

Self preservation is the most important thing to the CIA. They will do whatever it takes to “prevent public exposure of the truth.”

“Buck the system?”

The CIA will not tolerate any attempt by anybody to “buck the system” that they have set up to control things.

What is the “Shadow Game”?

To the global cabal of elites, everything is just a game. They don’t value human life at all. Wealth and power are all that matters to them.

The CIA is often referred to by Q as the “shadow agency.” They have been engaged in a “shadow game” of war, to create a “shadow government,” that controls the entire country in order to control the world. All of it is outside of constitutional restrictions. George H.W. Bush was at the center of it all.

But this shadow government that Bush was creating when he became head of the CIA back in 1976 was about to face someone who would try to “buck the system.”

Who was it?

The answer may surprise you. This person is the very reason that Iran-Contra would become a scandal and expose the “shadow government.”

The person who tried to “buck the system” was President Jimmy Carter.

Carter had done several things, that went directly against the shadow government Bush was creating.

I don’t think anybody remembers them.

What was the first big thing Carter did?

According to The Intercept:

Bush only lasted a year as CIA director. Ford — who ended up choosing Bob Dole as his running mate — was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. Bush tried to convince Carter to keep him on as CIA director, but Carter’s vice president was Walter Mondale, who had been a leading member of the Church Committee and had already won a commitment from Carter to try to implement many of the committee’s recommendations for reforming the intelligence community.

Carter refused to keep Bush on as head of the CIA. That was a big blow to Bush and I really don’t think he expected it.

What else did Carter do?

He ended the use of the CIA training manuals at the School of Americas (SOA) that taught assassination and torture of civilians, because it went against human civil rights. I talked about that in my last article.

What was the third thing Carter did that went against the shadow government?

It was something that directly led to the Iran-Contra scandal.

He cut off funding for the Somoza regime in Nicaragua because of its human rights violations. This was a huge deal. This weakened and helped to topple the Somoza dictatorship controlled by the CIA; That’s how the Sandanista’s were able to take control of Nicaragua. This would lead to the Iran-Contra operation designed to fund and arm a rebel army to take back power.

Carter was trying to “buck the system,” and used the power of the presidency to do it.

Bush couldn’t let Carter win a second term. That would derail, or at least hamper the shadow government and global drug trafficking operations he had worked hard to establish over the last several decades. Bush decided to run for president himself. He clearly wasn’t popular, and lost the nomination to Ronald Reagan who was tricked into choosing Bush as his running mate. I talked about that in my last article too.

As Reagan’s Vice Presidential candidate, Bush would be in a position to entrench the shadow government permanently.

How could Bush ensure that Carter would lose the election?

The Iranian Revolution became the perfect opportunity.

When the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Americans were taken hostage, it made President Carter look weak on the national stage.

Bush would use this to his advantage.

But let’s go back in history first.

The Iranian revolutionary government that overthrew the Shah of Iran was now being portrayed as a “new enemy.”

But similar to the story in Nicaragua, nobody ever talks about the evil dictator that was removed by the revolution.

It’s all the same CIA pattern.

Have you ever heard of the SAVAK?

What is it?

According to AP News:

The SAVAK, a Farsi acronym for the Organization of Intelligence and Security of the Nation, was formed in 1957. The agency, created with the help of the CIA and Israel’s Mossad, initially targeted communists and leftists in the wake of the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh.

Over time, however, its scope was widened drastically. Torture became widespread, as shown in the museum’s exhibits.

Can you see the pattern?

According to International Business News:

SAVAK basically served as an intelligence agency with unlimited police powers -- and a very effective deterrent to any opposition to the Shah. Officers of the organization could spy on or arrest almost anybody at will and frequently used torture to gain information or to simply intimidate the populace.

SAVAK’s presence deepened in the 1960s and 1970s, when it arrested, tortured and killed untold thousands of Iranians – anyone who was perceived to be a threat to the Shah’s one-party rule.

In the eyes of the Iranian public (and especially to those who engineered the 1979 revolution that finally toppled the Shah from the throne), SAVAK was viewed as inseparable from Western interference in Iran’s affairs and the Tehran government’s repressive control.

The CIA overthrew the elected leader of Iran in a coup, and then installed their puppet, the Shah of Iran.

The CIA then helped train the SAVAK.

This intelligence and security force for the Shah, “over time, became known for widespread torture.” It sure sounds a lot like the Phoenix Program in Vietnam and the training given to Latin American dictators at the School of Americas. (SOA)

But why did the CIA want to remove the elected leader of Iran in order to replace him with the Shah?

What was the one thing that made him a threat?

According to Wikipedia:

After the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the United States and the United Kingdom removed Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was originally focused on nationalizing Iran's oil industry

Nationalizing Iran’s oil industry?

Any “elected” leader who goes against the cabal is going to be removed and replaced. When you try to remove the cabal-controlled corporations, who own your country’s resources, you become a threat. The CIA removed him in a coup and installed a dictator puppet, who then controlled his population by terrorizing them.

The Bush family has longstanding ties to the oil industry and so did the CIA. It’s not a coincidence.

(More on the oil connections in coming articles.)

Guess who had a hand in training the SAVAK?

More from Wikipedia:

A U.S. Army colonel working for the CIA was sent to Persia in September 1953 to work with General Teymur Bakhtiar, who was appointed military governor of Tehran in December 1953 and immediately began to assemble the nucleus of a new intelligence organization.

In March 1955, the Army colonel was "replaced with a more permanent team of five career CIA officers, including specialists in covert operations, intelligence analysis, and counterintelligence, including Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf who "trained virtually all of the first generation of SAVAK personnel."

Does that name sound familiar?

Are you surprised to hear that Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf was training the Iranian intelligence agency that was killing and torturing its own population?

This was the ‘father’ of General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., who years later, would be called on by Bush to lead Desert Shield and Desert Storm in order to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein and remove his invading forces from Kuwait.

Coincidence?

General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. also played a part in the invasion of Grenada under Reagan and Panama under Bush to remove Manuel Noriega.

He rose to the top of the United States military under George H.W. Bush.

His family were members of the “club.”

Shadow Government.

If you play the cabal game, you get promoted to a position of power and become a more valuable puppet.

As Q said in post #350

This was always the promise made to those who played the game (willingly or otherwise) (i.e., they would never lose power). Power of the (3) letter agencies. Power over the US Military (WW dominance to push against other nations and install like-kind).

The Shah of Iran was a CIA puppet and the SAVAK was trained to terrorize the population in order to maintain control of the oil supply. The Iranian Revolution removed the CIA dictator just like what had happened in Nicaragua when the Sandanista’s had ousted Somoza.

This is the important backdrop of the Iran-Contra scandal that seems to be forgotten. Our history is never the full truth.

So how was Bush going to prevent Carter from winning re-election?

Hostages and ‘The October Surprise.’

When the Iranians took control of the American embassy and took hostages after overthrowing the Shah in 1979, it created a narrative that the CIA and Bush would exploit. Carter looked weak on the international stage in what was becoming a more dangerous world. That was the narrative constantly portrayed in the media. The CIA-controlled media, were literally keeping track of the number of days the hostages were held captive.

But unbeknownst to most people, Carter was in the process of negotiating a release of the hostages. He was hoping that this big story, would propel him to victory in his re-election and it most likely would have. Bush knew about the negotiations and couldn’t let that happen.

George H.W. Bush’s ties to Iran.

The very first Bush and CIA ties to the current Iranian government happened way back in 1980. This would be the beginning of a relationship that would build the Iranian government, along with Hezbollah, into the threat they are today.

According to the New York Times:

The fate of the hostages was a pivotal issue in the 1980 election. They were taken prisoner when followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's revolutionary Government, seized the United States Embassy in Teheran in November 1979. A military operation to rescue them failed in the Iranian desert in April 1980. The Carter Administration hoped that it might obtain their release either through negotiations or a second rescue mission before Election Day, and Reagan campaign officials were concerned that the return of the hostages could swing the election to Mr. Carter.

The allegation that there were meetings between Mr. Casey, Mr. Reagan's campaign chairman, who went on to be the Director of Central Intelligence, and Hojatolislam Mehdi Karrubi, a representative of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has been reported for the first time by Mr. Sick.

Mr. Sick said he has become convinced that there were two meetings between Mr. Casey and Hojatolislam Karrubi in the Ritz Hotel in Madrid in late July 1980. Hojatolislam Karrubi is now the Speaker of the the Iranian Parliament.

Mr. Sick's principal source for the Madrid meetings is Jamshid Hashemi, an Iranian arms dealer who said that he and his brother, Cyrus, had helped arrange them. Attending, they said, were Mr. Casey, the Hashemi brothers and an unnamed American intelligence officer.

Gary Sick was a Middle East specialist and White House staffer in the Carter administration. He wrote a book in 1991 titled “October Surprise,” after discovering evidence of William Casey making a deal with the Iranians to prevent the release of the hostages before the election, thus preventing the re-election of Carter.

Is there any other corroborating evidence to the secret deal made by Bush and Casey?

According to the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — It has been more than four decades, but Ben Barnes said he remembers it vividly. His longtime political mentor invited him on a mission to the Middle East. What Mr. Barnes said he did not realize until later was the real purpose of the mission: to sabotage the re-election campaign of the president of the United States.

It was 1980 and Jimmy Carter was in the White House, bedeviled by a hostage crisis in Iran that had paralyzed his presidency and hampered his effort to win a second term. Mr. Carter’s best chance for victory was to free the 52 Americans held captive before Election Day.

What happened next Mr. Barnes has largely kept secret for nearly 43 years. Mr. Connally, he said, took him to one Middle Eastern capital after another that summer, meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal.

Then shortly after returning home, Mr. Barnes said, Mr. Connally reported to William J. Casey, the chairman of Mr. Reagan’s campaign and later director of the Central Intelligence Agency, briefing him about the trip in an airport lounge.

Mr. Barnes had made this tour of the Middle East with John Connally on behalf of Bush and Casey. Connally was a close associate of President Lyndon B. Johnson, and had also been the governor of Texas. He was riding in the limousine when Kennedy was assassinated.

This trip to the Middle East was meant to open the door to a possible deal with Iran. It led to the meetings that Casey would have later with Iranian representatives in Madrid.

Is there evidence that Barnes is telling the truth?

More from the New York Times:

Records at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum confirm part of Mr. Barnes’s story. An itinerary found this past week in Mr. Connally’s files indicated that he did, in fact, leave Houston on July 18, 1980, for a trip that would take him to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel before returning to Houston on Aug. 11. Mr. Barnes was listed as accompanying him.

Connally had been sent on a mission to the Middle East to get the word out to Iran that the Reagan administration would give Iran a better deal than Carter, so they should wait to release the hostages.

But what was the deal?

More from that New York Times article:

The term “October surprise” was originally used by the Reagan camp to describe its fears that Mr. Carter would manipulate the hostage crisis to effect a release just before the election.

To forestall such a scenario, Mr. Casey was alleged to have met with representatives of Iran in July and August 1980 in Madrid leading to a deal supposedly finalized in Paris in October in which a future Reagan administration would ship arms to Tehran through Israel in exchange for the hostages being held until after the election.

This is important to understand. This was a separate deal from the Iran-Contra scandal.

The first deal made to ship arms to Iran happened in 1980, and it wasn’t to free hostages, it was to delay freeing hostages. Bush and Casey now had a working relationship with Iran.

The Iranians took the deal and held the hostages till after the election. They released them on the very day Reagan was inaugurated, only minutes after he had concluded his inaugural address.

Coincidence?

This newfound relationship between Iran and a shadow government within the Reagan administration would later lead to the Iran-Contra scandal that would fill the headlines for several years.

What was the Iran-Contra operation?

Was it really about fighting communism?

The shadow government controlled by the CIA have always controlled the narrative on this story. They have constantly told us that it was an operation to combat communism in Nicaragua. While the entire media focused on whether or not it was “legal” to arm the Contras in order to fight communism, they completely ignored the real reason we were fighting this proxy war.

It was all a “red herring” argument.

Nicaragua was an important stop along the cocaine trail from Columbia to the United States. The Sandanista’s had removed the corrupt CIA-controlled Somoza regime, and the disruption of the drug flow was something the CIA could not let stand.

The CIA began to raise an army of rebels to overthrow the Sandanista government. Another “secret war,” similar to Laos. The only difference is, Congress wasn’t going to let us get into another Vietnam war. Congress had outlawed the use of tax payer money to arm the Contras’s with the Boland amendment because they feared an escalation. After Congress found out that the CIA had mined Nicaraguan harbors, they cut off all funding of any kind with the second Boland Amendment and forbid any government agency, including the CIA from aiding the Contras in any way.

It was illegal to sell weapons to the Contra rebels, but the law has never been a hindrance to the CIA. It’s more like a minor obstacle for them to overcome.

Bush and the shadow government were already arming the Contras and training the rebel soldiers way back in 1981, without consent from Congress. After Congress cut off the funding, they needed to come up with a new funding source. The funding was officially cut off by the Boland Amendments in 1984, which would trigger Bush to try and divert funding to the Contras through other means.

That’s where Iran came in.

Iran was now in a war with Iraq, who the CIA was helping with intel and weapons. Iran needed advanced weapons, and Bush was more than willing to sell them some. Our CIA was helping both sides in that war. Why? Because war is a great money maker for the cabal, and keeping us at war with each other prevents us from recognizing the real hidden enemy controlling the world. The cabal always funds both sides of war.

This war would lead to Irangate.

But it wasn’t just illegal to sell arms to the Contras; it was also illegal to sell arms to Iran. They were under an arms embargo because they were considered a terrorist state.

I am focusing on Iran in this article for a reason.

My next article will dive into the Iran-Contra scandal, but there is an important aspect to this Irangate operation that nobody knows about. It’s a story long forgotten and I believe is going to shock some people. There was something huge that happened “BEFORE” the Iran-Contra scandal that helps connect some dots and paint the bigger picture of what was actually happening and why.

It’s far worse than people know.

One event exposes it all and also reveals the ultimate plan, which is far bigger than just selling arms and running drugs.

It is centered around one man.

A man with a long history and direct ties to George H.W. Bush. A man who was at the center of the Iran-Contra scandal too and would walk away unpunished. He would later play a key role in another Cabal power grab during the presidency of George W. Bush. He is a free man today, and still involved in helping the shadow government.

Who is he?

John Poindexter.

This man is a key figure in exposing it all.

Do you remember how George H.W. Bush put the CIA in control of the Presidential Daily Brief, (PDB) which elevated the CIA inside the executive branch and gave the CIA control of the information flow to the president?

Well, that was just the beginning of the story.

Poindexter would do something much bigger. He would give the CIA control over all the information flowing to the entire executive branch, not just to the president.

But it would take a catalyst in order to make these big changes. Bush needed a reason to move into the next level of executive control. He needed a major event.

Remember what Q said?

Peace doesn’t sell.

War [fear] does.

How do you take the American peoples attention “off” of the death squads in Central America that were torturing and murdering their own people under the supervision of the CIA?

How do you take the American peoples attention “off” of the drug trafficking by the CIA-controlled dictators in Central America?

Peace doesn’t sell. War does.

Iran was now going to be made the centerpiece of the cabal’s new strategy.

What was it?

The war on terror.

Communism was no longer the threat that would sell wars to the American people. The CIA needed a new threat. They needed a new enemy. Iran was now going to be painted as the new enemy along with their proxy terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

How?

The shadow government needed an event that would get the American peoples attention.

Think way back to 1983. What huge event happened that year?

This single event would be the catalyst that the shadow government needed in order to increase their control over not only the presidency, but the entire executive branch.

Like most things, it’s been long forgotten. But as Q said, “news unlocks the past.”

Do you remember the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983?

Do you know the real story?

Was it really just a terrorist attack by Hezbollah, the proxy puppet of Iran? Or was it something far more sinister?

According to Wikipedia:

Early on a Sunday morning, October 23, 1983, two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut, Lebanon, housing American and French service members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon(MNF), a military peacekeeping operation during the Lebanese Civil War. The attack killed 307 people: 241 U.S. and 58 French military personnel, six civilians, and two attackers.

Lebanon was involved in a civil war for control of the country. The US had sent some Marines there as a “peace-keeping force,” along with several other countries. Hezbollah was fighting for control of the country, and the Marines were there to help prevent the bloodshed.

According to Foreign Policy:

(Reader note: All references to Foreign Policy are from this same article.)

In order to avoid being perceived as an occupying force, the Marines had been ordered to shelter in place on the south side of the airport. They built makeshift bunkers out of sandbags, which cast long shadows on the vast, open expanse of dirt and asphalt, providing easy marks for gunmen. The Marines’ rules of engagement, handed down from the Pentagon, said they must maintain a noncombat presence-that meant no heavily fortified bunkers, nothing more than concertina wire to mark their compound, and, in what struck so many of the men as sheer madness, no loaded weapons.

The rules of engagement handed down by the Pentagon prevented the Marines from not only fortifying bunkers for their protection in a war zone, but also required that none of them have loaded weapons, including the guards who were tasked with guarding the outpost.

Why?

Here’s where John Poindexter enters the picture.

More from Foreign Policy:

The ring of the secure phone at his home in suburban Maryland summoned Admiral John Poindexter, President Reagan’s deputy national security adviser, from slumber. He reached over to his bedside table and lifted the receiver. It was nearly 1:00 A.M.

A watch officer in the White House Situation Room relayed what he knew. A bombing at the Marine compound. Minutes later the French regiment also had been hit at their base, not far away. Near simultaneous attacks. Perhaps copycats of the embassy bombing. The final death count would reach 241. The last time the Marines had lost that many men in one day, they were storming the beaches of Iwo Jima.

A suicide bombing of our embassy in Beirut had happened earlier that year, in April, yet our Marines were still unarmed and “sitting ducks.”

Why?

How does the CIA-controlled shadow government move to the next level? How do they control information to the president and executive branch in a new digital age of information?

More from Foreign Policy:

Since arriving at the White House in 1981, as a military assistant, Poindexter had been trying to fix the shambles that was the early warning and crisis management system of the national security apparatus. Poindexter, an engineer by training, was given the intimidating task of upgrading the Situation Room, which was, despite popular notions, a technological backwater that lacked many of the basic necessities for keeping the president in touch with the world. Across the horizon, Poindexter and other officials saw threats for which the President had little advance warning–from the Soviets to socialist forces in Latin America and, now, suicidal terrorists.

Poindexter had made great strides in little time beefing up the government’s intelligence capabilities. The Situation Room was outfitted with modern communications equipment. And now he was putting the finishing touches on the new $14 million Crisis Management Center, a technological outpost in the Old Executive Office Building, the imposing Second Empire-style building next to the White House where the NSC staff kept their offices. Poindexter had installed video conferencing systems, large screens on the walls, and links to the systems that ran diplomatic, military, and intelligence cable traffic. He had even introduced the first, early versions of "e-mail" to the White House. This new nerve center-combining the Situation Room and the Crisis Management Center-represented a generational leap for the White House.

Did you catch that?

Poindexter was creating a new system that centered around the National Security Council (NSC,) where he and Oliver North played key roles, to “disseminate” information to the president on the Soviets, socialist forces in Latin America and now the new threat, terrorism.

Peace doesn’t sell. War and fear sell.

More from Foreign Policy:

Later investigations would show that there were many clues that had gone unnoticed, dots that the intelligence agencies and the White House never connected. Since May, U.S. intelligence agencies had received more than one hundred warnings of car bombs in Lebanon.

The military chain of command was regularly briefed about the widening threat to the Marines. But then, in Beirut, people were always making threats. The Pentagon never allowed the Marines to take more defensive positions and had essentially turned them into sitting ducks.

The intelligence agencies and the White House never connected the dots that would have warned them ahead of time about this attack. Was this just human error? Was it just mistakes made by well-intentioned members at the top of our government? Or was it going to be the excuse for more centralized power and control over the information flow to the executive branch?

It’s worse than you can imagine.

More from Foreign Policy:

Underneath the constant warnings lay a discernible sequence of events that led to the assault at the airport. After the embassy attack in the spring, FBI forensic investigators discovered that the bombers had laden their explosives with ordinary pressurized gas bottles, which magnified the force of the blast.

The fact that terrorists had not only set their sights on U.S. targets but were enhancing conventional explosives with everyday materials was never made known to the military commanders in Beirut. That’s because the FBI never disseminated its report; it stayed locked within the CIA and the State Department.

The FBI investigation of the US embassy bombing earlier that year painted a picture of the danger the Marines were in. They were literally left as “sitting ducks” because this important information that would have warned them, was kept from the military commanders by the CIA and state department.

Why?

The answer is a terrible thought. Do you want to know the truth? The honest truth?

Our troops have been pawns and sacrificed around the world in instances just like this, along with wars, for the enrichment of a global cabal of elites that don’t value our lives at all and never have. That’s the truth.

There were more warnings that were never given to the military commanders.

More from Foreign Policy:

The most fateful signal came in late September. The National Security Agency, which intercepted radio and satellite communications around the globe, snatched a message from the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security to the Iranian ambassador in Syria. The ministry ordered the ambassador to get in touch with a man named Hussein Musawi, the head of an Islamic terrorist group called Amal. Musawi was to turn his sights on the multinational forces in Lebanon and was ordered to mount a "spectacular action against the United States Marines."

The Beirut airport was the only place to launch such a spectacular attack. The NSA intercept was the clearest indication yet that the Marines sat in the crosshairs. But owing to the cumbersome military chain of command and an inexplicable failure to grasp the "spectacular" urgency, the message wasn’t delivered to senior military officials until two days after the bombing.

They had definitive proof that Iran was behind the attack on the Marine barracks that killed 241 Americans.

Doesn’t that raise a huge question that nobody seems to be asking?

If we knew Iran was behind the killing of 241 Marines, why would we be negotiating to sell arms to them just one year later?

You know the answer.

It was far more important to protect the drug trade through Nicaragua than it was to protect our Marines. It was also far more important for the CIA to be allowed to control the information flowing to the entire executive branch.

They were sacrificed.

Why?

More from Foreign Policy:

In reaction to the Beirut attack, and a subsequent bombing of the new U.S. embassy nearly a year later, Poindexter led a massive reorganization of the government’s crisis management teams. He formed an alliance with his friend Bill Casey, the CIA Director. The two had developed an honest rapport, and Casey was one of the few senior officials Poindexter felt he could speak to frankly.

The CIA set up a secure hotline connecting the State Department, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the NSC staff with the CIA’s photographic intelligence center. This was the government’s primary resource for imagery analysis, and yet there had never been any data links into or out of it. That was about to change.

An alliance with Bill Casey, the head of the CIA? What a coincidence!

A secure hotline was set up by the CIA to funnel all information from every government agency involved with intelligence and security through the CIA filter.

The CIA and Bush now had control of both information to the president through the PDB and information to the entire executive branch when it came to intelligence and national security.

Mission accomplished!

More from Foreign Policy:

To lead them, Poindexter took over an existing NSC outfit called the Crisis-Pre Planning Group. He turned it into the engine of the government’s antiterrorism campaign, one that was powered–for the first time–by modern information technologies designed to capture information and get it to the people who needed it.

Looking back now, it’s clear that Poindexter was planting the seeds of a much broader, pervasive, and ultimately global system of information gathering. The government was getting a handle on what was in its own databases. It would be another two decades, after the 9/11 attacks, that the intelligence agencies turned their gaze toward the worlds of data held in private stores. On private individuals. Then, too, Poindexter would help lead those efforts, as the director of a Defense Department program called Total Information Awareness. It bore a striking resemblance to the global surveillance of the National Security Agency today, and that was no accident.

The CIA shadow government surveillance state was now entrenched, thanks to a suicide bombing that sacrificed 241 unarmed Marines.

Now let’s go back to the important question:

If we knew Iran was behind the killing of 241 Marines, why would we be negotiating to sell arms to them just one year later?

Clearly, the CIA and shadow government didn’t view Iran as the enemy. That was just the public narrative that would be pushed for a coming never-ending war on terrorism. They weren’t an enemy to Bush; they were actually a partner.

But Bush still needed an excuse to sell arms to Iran, one that would garner sympathy from both the American people and President Reagan.

What would be the reasoning?

It would become a CIA template that would be used many more times in the future in order to fund our enemies.

Hostages.

In my next article, I will dive deep into the Iran-Contra scandal, which was a massive money-laundering operation, and I will also reveal the untold part of the hostages story in Lebanon.

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at Joe Lange’s Substack.