Article: How the Pentagon Broke the Deadlock over the START Treaty & Iran's Nuclear Ambitions at John Wheeler's Exp...

[Trowbridge H. Ford]

The best evidence, in my opinion, is the unexpected suicide of Ali-reza Pahlavi on January 4, 2011 in Boston. He was much less interested than his older brother Reza in seeing the monarchy restored. He just wanted to see Iran become a democratic state which honored human rights.

I found it most intriguing when the writer of "The Suicide of Alireza Pahlavi: A Revolt Against Forced Exile" put these thoughts in the mind of the deceased:

"I'll do something that has nothing to do with me because the assumption is that I don't exist anymore. I could do something for the people for which I am suffering that would take me up to death."

So what did he do which led him to quietly take his own life?

I am working on the assumption that he somehow established a sting on Wheeler because of what he had done to his Iranian people. A meeting was arranged at the hotel in Wilmington on December 29th, I think, where Alireza's security guards got what they wanted after they drugged Wheeler when he arrived at the appointed roon, and stole his Blackberry, brief case, and mobile phone.

After they checked out their contents, they gained entry to his house, possibly with more assistance by Ali-reza, and after they got all the information they could from Wheeler, they killed him, and disposed of his body, thinking that it would never be found.

When it was found, Ali-reza, instead of enjoying some satisfaction for having gotten rid of Iran's worst tormentor, had to hurriedly commit suicide.

The reaction of Washington and Tehran to the suicide was most unexpected too.

More in the article I am now writing.

Mr. Ford, after some reflection I have decided to withdraw my word "purposefully" from my earlier post - for the time being. I think it was a rush to judgement and probably unfair.

The foregoing statement you made (in answer to Jan's post), in a nutshell explains my concerns, which I think now focuses on your lack of caveating your statements. For example, stating that Savak did it, based on entirely circumstantial evidence. The facts are that Pahlavi's suicide may have been connected to Wheeler's death. It may not have been. Wheeler may have been offed by "Savak". He may not have been.

We don't know.

I find the same lack of caveating in your claims that the NSA was responsible for the deaths of William Colby and Gareth Williams to be equally reckless. I also fundamentally disagree with your statements of fact that Amir was responsible for killing Yitzak Rabin with a single shot. The actual evidence is different to this. I am also dubious about your "whodunnit" re the assassination of Olaf Palme where your story caption states "Yugoslav assassin killed Olof Palme", which I find is a little too Tabloid in style for my tastes.

That would be an opinion, not a fact, in case you were wondering...

To be clear: I am all in favour of anyone advancing reasonably argued hypotheses about deep political events. This is what this forum is all about. But it behooves anyone making deductions to caveat those deductions as, well... deductions.

Not statements of fact.

I hope this is not too uncivil of me.

And speaking of that, I have to say that for someone who says he's former US Army Counter Intelligence Corp, you seem to me to have an unusually thin skin -- not to say an unusual way of "writing reports" that are fundamentally opinionated rather than factually detached.

As I say, there's no harm in that, it's just seems a bit strange (to this Brit anyway) given your professed former occupation.

I find your post totally worthless, where you take a most scatter-shot approach to my work, some of it totally erroneous and others debateable - though you never state what your position is - rather than say anything substantial about my claims regarding the assassination of John P. Wheeler, III.

This just happened, and any work on it cannot be carried on in the manner you require where you want proof - what only a court can supply - when most of these murders, especially this one, will apparently never supply any such proof as they often never even get to court. I do indicate, on occasion, that they are working hypothesis, subject to change upon further research.

You remind me so much of another Brit on The Local, Nomark, who is constantly demanding proof of everything, as most understanding of important assassinations only results in various conjectures.

You have obviously mistaken my work on the assassinations of Swedish politicians Olof Palme and Anna Lindh. I have never claimed in tabloid stye that "Yugoslav assassin killed Olof Palme."

I have always claimed that Captain Simon Hayward, Ops Officer of the 14 Intelligence Company's South Detachment (June 1985-March 1987) aka Captain James Rennie killed the Swedish statsminister when he was reassessing the performance of his bodyguards for former SAS Major David Walker's KMS firm when the the RMP were no longer able to do it.

It was Anna Lindh who had her guts cut out by Serbian Mijailo Mijailovic while he was programmed as a Manchurian Candidate by a nearby remote viewing squad to kill her in the name of Jesus.

Your making this vast mistake convinces me more that you are just set on discrediting me, as your wondering why I have such an allegedly thin skin while I was apparently an intelligence analyst with CIC. My service did not make me either more or less thin-skinned. I did not write reports, though, as you claim: I only tried to make enough sense of the reports that agents prepared so that they could be sent to headquarters in a readable fashion.

Your post, in short, is just building on your previous claim that I am an American
SMOM, playing games with fellow covert operators to muddy the waters about anything.