Trending Topics:

Did Fox and Werritty meet 6 times with ambassador to Israel to plan ‘secret agenda for war’ with Iran?

on 20 Comments
British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, second from right, at meeting of Leeds Zionist organization

England’s Conservative government has lately offered frightening indications of its willingness to participate in an attack on Iran. And Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, is arguing at his site that British policy is being driven in an underhanded fashion by the Israel lobby.

Murray ties the British policy to the Fox-Werritty scandal.

In two important posts, he has raised questions about meetings between disgraced former Defence Minister Liam Fox and Fox’s friend/adviser Adam Werritty, who was backed financially by Israel lobbyists, and Matthew Gould, the British ambassador to Israel (who the Jerusalem Post describes as a Zionist).

First post:

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..

…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.

Today Murray follows up with these questions:

When did Gould first meet Werritty?
How many times did Gould meet Werritty without Fox present?
How many communications of all sorts have there ever been between Gould and Werritty?

Where precisely was the “Pre-posting briefing meeting” for Gould with Werritty and Fox held?
Why was it not held in the Secretary of State’s office?
Why was no MOD official present?

Who paid for the “Private dinner” between Fox, Gould and Werritty and “Senior Israelis” in Tel Aviv in February 2011?
Who was present?
Was any note subsequently made of the discussion?

Who paid for the “social engagement” to which Fox invited Gould and Werritty in summer 2010?
Who was present?

Was the possibility of an attack on Iran discussed in any of the above meetings, events or communications?

These really are very simple questions and I will happily report any answer in full. Every media outlet should be asking these questions. Remember Werritty had no security clearance. It is therefore not possible that the answers to these questions is classified information.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

20 Responses

  1. Shunra on November 15, 2011, 3:16 pm

    Thanks for running this story (which the UK media rejected, to a man) – I think it’s important.

    Gould’s posting in the US and the possibility of ties between the (now-defunct) UK charity Atlantic Bridge and the US entity (Atlantic Bridge Inc.) and the Israeli entity (Atlantic Forum, initiated by Uzi Arad after a stint at the Hudson Institute) seems well-worth investigating.

    Could it be a vast and treasonous conspiracy?

  2. DICKERSON3870 on November 15, 2011, 5:30 pm

    RE: “Was the possibility of an attack on Iran discussed in any of the above meetings, events or communications?” ~ Craig Murray

    ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION: Where are those two loose Israeli nukes that were sold on the black market?
    SEE: Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran, By Craig Murray, 11/14/11
    COMMENT BY “MJ”, 11/14/11:

    …In 1980, British PM Cameron (then a mere researcher) and David Kelly were involved in sorting out the destiny of nine nuclear warheads that Israel had supplied to south Africa. The south Africans wanted to get rid of them before the ANC took over. The US took six and Thatcher agreed to take the remaining three. To cut a long story short, Britain was double-crossed by a shady arms dealer who sold the three warheads on the black market. North Korea detonated one of them a couple of years ago, the other two remain missing…

    SOURCE –

  3. on November 15, 2011, 7:00 pm

    Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:
    The following is a glimpse into the Israeli Hasbara’s/Mossad’s/Sayanim’s operation in the UK. It explains how Israel and its agents manage to dominate news coverage in Britain and beyond.
    It seems from the following leaked email as if BICOM (British Israel Communication & research Centre) runs the News desk for the BBC, Sky and the FT.
    I guess that last week the Guardian also joined the party. It is now an offical Israeli propaganda outlet.
    Shockingly enough, not a single British paper was brave enough to report the story or publish the leaked email. Surely they know who their masters are.
    The message is pretty clear. BRITISH PRESS IS NOT trustworthy.
    It is as Zionised as our political system.

    Bicom ’embarrassed’ by misdirected email
    Rest is in here…………..

    • dahoit on November 16, 2011, 10:58 am

      Yep,the Guardian(Independent too) is a fully made member of the WOT Israeli obfuscation and disinformation train.Look at their recent treatment of Assange,and Wikileaks.Remember that Julian exposed the machinations of the editors in their dealings with the exposes that Wikileaks put forth,and his mention of their tribal ties to Zionism.And recently we had Al Jazeera commit seppeku with their total support for the destruction of Libya and Khaddafis murder.A worldwide lock on MSM information.

  4. annie on November 15, 2011, 7:16 pm

    thanks for posting about this phil, i was just reading about it yesterday, directed by a poster (sorry, who is slipping my mind) mentioning that craig murray has asked for any and everyone to feel free to post all of the report. i thought one of the most important features was the fact Matthew Gould had previously been stationed in Iran, that he had a previous relationship (or perhaps more extensive relationship) with werritty and the strangeness that o’donnel seemed to be complicit in not getting to the botton of it.

    the fact gould was a ‘private dinner’ with what appears to be members of mossad, and they are not telling what was discussed. he seems to be acting outside his authority unless he has been authorized by higher ups and this has not been shared w/all the appropriate people in parliament, and in some of the meeting happened prior to the conservatives taking office and the info was not shared with the opposition which is against the rules.

    some very fishy stuff.

    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.

    but here’s where murray gets explosive:

    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.

    • annie on November 15, 2011, 7:21 pm

      and there’s even more! iow, it gets wilder. i highly recommend

      • jewishgoyim on November 15, 2011, 8:30 pm

        I’m a at a loss. How could that turn in anything seriously incriminating? Am I missing something?

  5. on November 15, 2011, 7:22 pm

    Zionism is like a big, successful corporation that operates in a “franchising” way.
    “Franchising is the practice of using another firm’s successful business model.
    Businesses, for which franchising work best, have one or several of the following characteristics: (they use them all)
    A good track record of profitability. (yes)
    Easily duplicated. (very much so, greasing palms always works)
    Detailed systems, processes and procedures (controlled by main headquaters )
    Around a unique or unusual concept. ( managed mainly by rabbis)
    Broad geographic appeal. (oh, they are everwhere)
    Relatively easy to operate. (now , with an invention of internet tough times are coming)
    Relatively inexpensive to operate. ” ( money was never a problem)
    Zionism is organized better than McDonald, Burger King, Pizza Hut and Starbucks combined.
    British franchised chapter is very well maintained, with many sub-franchised outlets. Usually public figures (politicians and such) and major media owners are in charge (on top) of those franchised zionistic “companies”.
    It is a very well organised and run business.
    So now it looks like this “franchised, zionistic corporation ” wants to do another , BIG business ; starting the war with IRAN. So all sub-franchised sections from “broad geografic areas” have to unite to make this BIG business to become reality.

    • American on November 16, 2011, 12:05 am

      Actually it’s more like a boiler room stock scam operation.

      • American on November 16, 2011, 12:49 am

        Or maybe like the ‘fake’ trading floor Enron used to show stock analyst around and make them think there was actually a legitmate department working there. That was one of the funniest things, if you can call it funny, in the Enron mess. The largest energy company in the country building and furnishing a completely fake department that had no employees and did no work just to fool stock analyst.

  6. on November 15, 2011, 9:31 pm

    It looks like a Polish chapter of “franchised zionistic corporation” is hard a work as well. Some known Polish public officials started talking loudly, about our country’s support of the ISRA /USA Corporation LLC “preventive attack ” on Iran .
    This Corporation LLC is worried that “hostile ” Iran maybe a threat to them in spreading their “peaceful mission” , which everbody is able to see.
    We suppose to support what this Corporation is doing, since their mission is always a “peaceful mission”.
    They love to spread their idea of ” peace” through the usage of military forces.
    And everybody, every country better support it. Or else?
    They are the ones ,on the list of experiencing a”peaceful mision”.

  7. on November 15, 2011, 9:39 pm

    “Eh?” questions another patron, “You asked him to prove that he didn’t have what he didn’t have?”
    The bouncer insists, “That’s right, it’s called ‘pre-emptive’ challenges, leading to pre-emptive strikes, leading to pre-emptive elimination of pre-emptive dangers.”
    Another patron chimes in, “Now that you’ve eliminated the pre-emptive danger, where’s the weapon that led to your pre-emptive strike?”
    Becoming even more upset with the challenging questions of the patrons, the bouncer declares, “It doesn’t matter. He has a bad reputation for using weapons, and he could do it again in the future.”
    Tell us who’s the bouncer with the clever justification for pre-emptive action by insisting that one must prove that he doesn’t have what he doesn’t have?

    My friend, there are many bouncers. One of them, Condoleezza Rice appeared on Jon Stewart’s show a week or so ago and tried to convince an audience of dunces that the bouncer rationale was justification for the war on Iraq.”

  8. ToivoS on November 15, 2011, 10:26 pm

    When that story appeared in the Guardian a few weeks back outlining British plans to work with the US in an attack on Iran I was very skeptical. Why would they do such a crazy thing? I guess that article was accurate and quite consistent with what Craig Murray is reporting here. This Gould character really does appear to be involved in planning for such an event. It is still hard to believe, but if the Tories placed an avowed Zionist as their Israeli ambassador it all sort of makes sense.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort on November 16, 2011, 1:40 pm

      You can count on Canada, as well, with Jon Allen, that country’s third Jewish ambassador to Israel. Taken together with Gould and the US with its equally avowed Zionist, Daniel Shapiro, representing the Obama administration, this delivers to Israel the ambassadorships of three of the four major English speaking countries.

      I would like those who occasionally post here and who insist that the US support for Israel is in its national interest, both militarily and for commercial reasons, and that Washington is calling the shots in the relationship, to explain the reasons that both the UK and Canada also genuflect to the dictates of the Jewish state.

      • lareineblanche on November 17, 2011, 8:24 am

        You’re absolutely right, but how on Earth could any of Washington’s activity be described as in the “national interests”, any more than Tel Aviv’s is? This confuses me.

  9. American on November 16, 2011, 12:32 am

    Evidently all their meetings didn’t work.

    Europe to Israel: Military strike on Iran nuclear program not an option
    By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / November 15, 2011

    A week after world leaders urged Israel to tone down its heated rhetoric on Iran, European leaders are again urging caution as Iran begins to react to the international community’s stern words and threats, led by Israel.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency last week released a report on Iran’s nuclear program that said intelligence indicated that the intentions of the program may not be entirely peaceful. The leak of the report was followed by a flurry of threats and warnings from Israel – and a concerted effort from world leaders to dial down the conversation.

    In a television interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Monday, Israeli President Shimon Peres called Iran a “morally corrupt” and “spoiled” country, saying that what was needed was an attack on the country’s “moral foundations,” Haaretz reports, quoting the CNN interview (which is not available on-line). Iran is “the only country that threatens to destroy another country, openly,” Mr. Peres said.

    But the military option is not Israel’s first option, he said, explaining that he would prefer to see stronger economic sanctions and political pressure before a military attack. He also reiterated Israel’s stance that Iran is a global threat, not merely an Israeli threat.

    In a commentary published today in The Times of London, opposition leader Tzipi Livni also called on the international community to do its part to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran, she wrote, “with its genocidal rhetoric and its growing military might, is not just a threat to the stability of our region. Its intentions run counter to the interests of the free world and its policies are an affront to the values of the free world.”

    Yesterday, European Union foreign ministers ruled out a military option for Iran. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that a strike on Iran would “drag the world into an ‘uncontrollable spiral’,” Agence France-Presse reports. The ministers opted to consider further sanctions instead, but a decision will not be reached until their next meeting, in December.

    Berlin’s representative, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, also refused to broach the possibility of a military operation, according to Reuters. “We are not taking part in the discussion on military intervention. We believe such discussions are counterproductive and we reject them,” he said.

    In a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the report did not reflect the “full extent” of Iran’s nuclear program and that “Iran is closer to getting an [atomic] bomb than is thought,” according to an Israeli official who spoke to Reuters. “Only things that could be proven were written [in the UN report], but in reality there are many other things that we see,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

    In response to the discussion of a military attack, hundreds of Iranian university students on Tuesday formed a human chain around an Iranian nuclear site to show that they would be willing to sacrifice their lives if Israel attacked nuclear sites, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports.

    After holding a noon prayer session in front of the plant’s main gate, students from Isfahan universities shouted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” They vowed to resist in the event of an attack.

    ???…” Shimon Peres called Iran a “morally corrupt” and “spoiled” country, saying that what was needed was an attack on the country’s “moral foundations”.
    If I were sitting in front of Peres it would be a toss up as to whether I would puke in his lap or knock him on his ass and stomp his windpipe. There is no country and no people more ‘spoiled’ and morally corrupt than Israel and Israelis.
    Never seen such hypocritical liars as these people. Never.

    • dahoit on November 16, 2011, 11:04 am

      It seems like they are trying to goad Iran into some sort of response to all these acts of war and then they will spew about Iran’s alleged bellicosity.
      Hopefully the Iranians know this and are not going to give the criminals ammunition.

  10. Avi_G. on November 16, 2011, 11:22 am

    What does it say about Britain that Zionist lobbies took a shortcut and went for the Ministers themselves, instead of wholesale buying representatives like they do in the US (and vice versa)?

    Yet William the Bloody Kristol had the audacity to criticize Saddam for calling Israel a cancer in the Middle East.

    No. Much like cancer, Zionism metastasizes and spreads, taking over entire governments and countries.

    But, the real threat is the spread of Islam, dontyaknow? Nice distraction.

  11. lareineblanche on November 17, 2011, 8:19 am

    Excellent, I was wondering when you were going to pick up on this, Craig needs all the help he can get.
    A commenter on his website has expressed concern that the article was picking up momentum on far-right circles – as is inevitable with any article which can be construed as laying out a vision of some kind of “Zionist world cabal” for anyone with a questionable agenda.
    This should not get in the way of examining the facts, however, especially when there is an obvious effort on the part of powerful individuals to pave the way to an open war with Iran (the covert one has been underway for some time, obviously).

  12. Jeffrey Blankfort on November 17, 2011, 12:50 pm

    If “the problem” had not been buried under piles of carpeting for years by liberals and the left it would not have become the “fresh meat” it has for the far right and the neo-Nazis. It was, after all. from the publication of the Inst. for Historical Review that I learned, back in 1987, that Roy Bullock, who had infiltrated our Labor Committee on the Middle East, and earlier the Bay Area chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the anti-apartheid Free Moses Mayekiso [a black So. African trade unionist] Committee, had been working as a spy for the Anti-Defamation League for the previous 25 years.

    I have no brief for Lyndon Larouche and his followers but on occasion, its Executive Intelligence Review has carried important information on this issue that was being ignored by the liberal and left alternative media. The internet has done a great deal to diffuse this problem, and MW in particular, but there is still a long way to go.

Leave a Reply