Ruhollah Zam's statements from 8 years ago about the coup and America's cooperation with the Narmak (Qalibaf) group and the attack on Iran under the pretext of supporting the people and empowering the group have gone viral again. I used a popular AI tool to summarize because I have a toddler-level understanding of Farsi. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The "Narmak Circle" Plan and Ties to the U.S.: The video discusses a faction referred to as the "Narmak Circle," alleging that it had formulated plans for the post-Ali Khamenei era or in the event of a potential coup. The speaker claims that this group sought military and political support from the United States to ensure they could seize and maintain power. The "Third Way" and Political Change: Referring to remarks made by Mike Pompeo, the video suggests the possibility of a "third way"—covert U.S. support for a specific faction inside Iran that would align with Western interests. The speaker notes that this group purportedly promised reforms, such as free elections, general amnesty, limiting the powers of the Supreme Leader, and gender equality. The Role of Ghalibaf and Wealth Transfer: The content addresses allegations regarding Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and his alleged involvement in transferring and investing assets outside of Iran. It is claimed that these funds were intended to be injected back into the country to finance the administration of the government once the Narmak Circle assumed power. The video also mentions a perceived decline in trust toward him within certain political circles. Strategic Maneuvering within the Leader's Office: The speaker outlines the group's efforts to manipulate the inner workings of the Leader’s office (the "Bait", an Arabic reference), including attempts to influence the selection of a successor by focusing on Mojtaba Khamenei. Additionally, the video alleges that this faction made agreements with the U.S. to neutralize other opposition groups and share sensitive intelligence regarding military and leadership sites.

Denmark I love you.

I’ll be honest with you: until recently I didn’t know much about the Fabian Society. Maybe it’s because the English know how to be smooth – so correct me if I am getting something wrong. The Fabian Society was founded in London in 1884. Named after Quintus Fabius Maximus – the Roman general famous for defeating Hannibal not through direct confrontation but through patience, attrition, and the slow wearing down of the enemy. The name was chosen deliberately. It was the strategy. Their emblem was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They chose this themselves. It is worth sitting with that for a moment: an organization that selected, as its own symbol, the image of predatory intent disguised as harmless appearance – deception as the founding principle, the operational method, the thing they were most proud of. Not imposed by critics. Self-selected. They were proud of it. The strategy was simple and devastating: do not storm the institutions. Infiltrate them. Permeate them — their word — gradually, patiently, over generations, placing Fabian-trained people in positions of influence in government, academia, media, and the civil service, until the institutions produce Fabian outcomes without anyone having to announce a revolution. The revolution would happen – but slowly, invisibly, bureaucratically, democratically. By the time anyone noticed, the institutions would already have changed. They founded the London School of Economics in 1895 – the institution that trained generations of politicians, civil servants, economists, and journalists across the entire Commonwealth and beyond. They were instrumental in creating the Labour Party in 1900. They shaped the BBC. They designed the British welfare state. George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Keir Starmer – the list of Fabians who shaped British and global politics is not a footnote. It is the history of the twentieth century’s left, stated plainly. Starmer is not an accident or an evolution of Labour. He is the current expression of a project that has been running for a hundred and forty years – patient, institutional, and entirely consistent with the original strategy.