Article 1: "Iran-Gate".. When the "Great Satan" and the "Zionist Entity" Conspired with the Khomeini Regime
Introduction
In the world of politics, there are no permanent enemies or permanent friends, only permanent interests. The "Iran-Contra" scandal (Iran-Gate) is perhaps the best example of this rule. At the same time that the Khomeini regime was raising the slogan "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," Tehran was holding secret negotiations with top officials of the American administration, with Israeli mediation, to buy advanced weapons. In this article, we reveal the details of this scandal that shook the world in the 1980s.
Details of the Secret Deal
Iran's need for advanced weapons during its war with Iraq (1980-1988) was no secret. Most of its military arsenal was American-made, left to them by the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. After cutting ties with Washington, Iran found itself with no spare parts or ammunition. On the other hand, the administration of President Ronald Reagan was looking for a way out of the crisis of American hostages being held in Lebanon by factions loyal to Iran.
This is where Israel stepped in. It had maintained relations with Iran since the Shah's era and played the role of mediator. A secret deal was made to sell American-made weapons to Iran via Israel, in exchange for the release of American hostages in Lebanon.
Main Terms and Shipments of the Deal:
· The Founding Meeting: It took place in Paris between George H.W. Bush (Vice President to Reagan) and Iranian President Abolhassan Banisadr, with the presence of an Israeli Mossad officer.
· The Weapons: Included about 3,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, Hawk surface-to-air missiles, and spare parts for Phantom aircraft.
· Shipment Schedule:
· August 20, 1985: The first shipment (96 TOW missiles) from Israel to Iran.
· September 14, 1985: A second shipment (408 TOW missiles).
· November 1985: A shipment of Hawk missiles via Portugal and Israel.
· 1986: Weapons continued to flow in multiple batches, the last of which was in October 1986.
Conclusion
This deal was not just a commercial exchange. It was a clear violation of American law and the White House's declared policy, which described Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism" and encouraged the world to embargo arms sales to it. Most importantly, it proved false the official Iranian claims of absolute enmity towards America and Israel.
---
Article 2: From Tehran to Nicaragua.. The Journey of "Iran-Gate" Money and Exposing Political Hypocrisy
Introduction
While weapons trucks were heading from Israel to Iran, the money paid by the Iranian regime for these weapons was taking a different and very controversial path. On the other side of the world, in Nicaragua, the "Contras" were fighting to overthrow the leftist government. This part of the scandal is what made it known as "Iran-Contra," where the profits from the arms deal with Iran were funneled to fund armed groups, in a blatant violation of American law.
Scandal Details
· Funding the Contras: The U.S. Congress had passed the "Boland Amendment," which prohibited funding military activities in Nicaragua. However, the Reagan administration, through the National Security team (specifically Colonel Oliver North), devised a plan to bypass this law by using Iranian money to fund the Contras.
· Money Transfer: On April 4, 1986, North proposed transferring $12 million from the profits of the arms sales to Iran to Contra accounts in Switzerland. The price Iran paid to free American hostages was going to fund a proxy war in Central America.
· Scandal Exposure: On October 5, 1986, the Nicaraguan army shot down a plane carrying supplies to the Contras. The crew included Americans, which opened the door for investigations. A month later, on November 3, 1986, the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa revealed the details of the secret deal between America and Iran, and the scandal exploded in everyone's face.
Attempts at Cover-up and Lies:
When investigations began, White House officials rushed to shred official documents to hide the evidence. Oliver North later admitted that he lied to Congress in his testimony about his role in raising the funds.
Results and Consequences:
· The Tower Commission: President Reagan formed a commission to investigate. It released its report in February 1987, criticizing the performance of the National Security team but not definitively determining the degree of Reagan's involvement.
· Congressional Report: In November 1987, Congress released its final report, holding President Reagan "ultimately responsible" for the scandal and accusing his administration of contempt for law and deception.
Conclusion
The Iran-Contra scandal was not just a story of selling weapons; it was a lesson in international political hypocrisy. America sells weapons to an "enemy" and uses the money to fund an illegal war. But more importantly for our Arab and Islamic context, the Iranian regime was a key partner in this dirty game.
---
Article 3: The Israeli Role in "Iran-Gate".. Khomeini's Secret Ally
Introduction
Since the victory of the Iranian revolution in 1979, the regime raised the slogan "Israel is the number one enemy of Muslims," and "Quds Day" was established annually to promote this slogan. But the documents of the "Iran-Contra" scandal tell a completely different story. Without the Israeli role, this deal would never have seen the light of day. Israel was not just a mediator; it was an essential partner in arming the Khomeini regime.
Details
· The Historical Mediator: Despite the severance of diplomatic relations after the revolution, security and intelligence cooperation between Israel and Iran continued. Israel saw revolutionary Iran as a useful counterweight against Iraq (then Israel's arch-enemy) and the Arab world. Therefore, Israel was the one who initiated the idea of opening a communication channel between Iran and the U.S. administration.
· The Paris Meeting: At the meeting that brought together Americans and Iranians in Paris, an Israeli Mossad representative, Ari Ben-Menashe, was present to oversee the details of the arms transfers.
· The Transport Axis: Most of the arms transfer operations were conducted directly from Israel to Iran. In August 1985, a DC-8 cargo plane took off from Tel Aviv carrying 96 TOW missiles headed for Tehran.
Reactions:
When the scandal was exposed, both sides tried to disavow it. Israel denied its role, but U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese confirmed in a press conference that "Israel played the role of instigator and encourager" in the case.
Iranian Embarrassment:
The American hostages who were released were held by Lebanese Shia factions (Hezbollah) that took orders from Tehran. How could the Iranian regime sell weapons and free American hostages while simultaneously claiming to lead the axis of resistance? This contradiction embarrassed the regime internally, so much so that British reports mentioned that Khomeini himself had to intervene to prevent a parliamentary investigation into the matter to protect Rafsanjani and others involved.
Conclusion
The Iran-Contra scandal reveals the falsehood of the loud slogans. Behind the curtain, "Israel" was the secret ally that supplied the Iranian "enemy" with weapons to rescue the American president from a political predicament. The Iranian regime's interest in survival and expanding its influence was stronger than any creed or principle.
---
Article 4: Iran's Systematic Lies.. From "Iran-Gate" to Denying Attacks
Introduction
On March 15, 2026, with developments in the region, the spokesperson for the Iranian Armed Forces came out to deny any relation of his country to the attacks on neighboring countries, calling for the formation of joint investigation committees to find the "real perpetrators." This pattern of denial is not new. It is part of a long-standing Iranian approach that spans decades. Just as Iran lied about its relationship with Israel and America in the 1980s, today it denies what is undeniable. This article traces Iran's path of denial and lying.
Patterns of Iranian Denial Throughout History
1. Denying the Relationship with Israel:
After the Iran-Contra scandal, Iran tried to downplay the cooperation. Even in recent years, when reports emerge about secret relations, Tehran rushes to deny them. In 2024, Iran, through its "Interests Section in Cairo," strongly denied reports of a "secret relationship" with Israel, calling them "blatant lies," and affirming its "principled" position supporting the Palestinian cause. This is the same principled position that did not stop it from receiving Israeli El Al planes loaded with missiles in the 1980s.
2. Denying Proxy Attacks:
In February 2024, after Saudi Arabia announced it had shot down 10 drones targeting Riyadh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards quickly denied any relation to the attack. This denial fits a recurring pattern where Iran denies responsibility for attacks carried out by its proxies in the region, thus maintaining a political cover that allows it to avoid direct confrontation.
3. Denying Destabilization of Neighbors:
In 2025, Iran denied launching missiles towards Turkey and accused America and Israel of trying to destabilize relations between the two countries, saying that what happened "might be related to the malicious precedents" of the United States and the Zionist entity.
Analysis of the Pattern:
What unites these positions is:
· Total Denial: Despite overwhelming evidence, Iran's first reaction is always an outright denial.
· Shifting the Accusation: The accusation is immediately shifted to the "enemy" (America and Israel), which seeks to harm Iran's relations with its neighbors.
· Calling for Investigation: Requesting the formation of investigation committees (as happened with Saudi Arabia and Turkey) is a tactic to stall for time until the situation calms down.
Conclusion
Iran-Gate is not just a closed chapter from the 1980s; it is a model that reflects the nature of the Iranian political regime. It is a regime that deals with the "enemy" when it serves its interests and uses extreme rhetoric against the "Zionist entity" in public while coordinating with it in secret. This pattern of state behavior, combining tough tactics and sharp ideological rhetoric, makes dealing with it complex and makes believing its denials today extremely difficult.