The former officer made the comments in a letter to prominent opposition activist Mohammad Nourizad. Identified only by his initials, the general says that he and a number of his colleagues were threatened with execution for disloyalty and later dismissed “because we refused to participate in the betrayals and the crimes committed by our seniors.”

“I'm writing this letter to you to tell our people that there are still many generals and members of staff within the Revolutionary Guards who are opposed to these crimes and are waiting to join the people,” the letter, quoted by the Guardian, reads. The report noted that in the aftermath of the fiercely disputed 2009 elections, several dozen Revolutionary Guards generals, as well as senior figures in the informal voluntary Basij militia, were replaced for refusing to use violence against unarmed protesters.

“The inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency are fooling themselves if they believe that the nuclear facilities on and under the ground are only for peaceful purposes," he writes. “The leader said [in a fatwa] that Iran has only peaceful intentions with its nuclear activities. This is a sheer lie.”

The plans to extend the controversial Human Rights Act to cover so-called socio-economic rights sparked fury last night. Politicians and campaigners hit out at the hare-brained scheme that could cost hard working taxpayers billions. Judges could even have the power to declare British laws invalid if they clash with European human rights legislation under the suggestions made by the Commission on a Bill of Rights.

Tory MP Dominic Raab said: “The commission risks being hijacked by the human rights lobby. “It is supposed to be looking at how to scale back the compensation culture that has undermined law enforcement, democratic accountability and personal responsibility.”

“Instead it has churned out proposals for even more human rights. That would give judges enormous power to set social policy without proper democratic accountability and cost the taxpayer a fortune.” Earlier this week a report suggested a family of four needed an income of almost £37,000 to have a satisfactory lifestyle. The Government has imposed a £26,000-a-year benefits cap. Making up that shortfall could cost billions.

The euro has plunged to multi-year lows against a range of currencies on fears of a deepening slump in Italy and Spain, and ugly disputes between eurozone leaders. It tumbled to 0.7882 against sterling today, the lowest since late 2008, overpowering efforts by the Bank of England to weaken the pound with its latest £50 billion burst of quantitative easing.

Against the dollar it fell below $1.22. “We’re on the brink of a very bearish turn for the euro: if we break the 2010 low of $1.19, we’re going to see a big move down,” said Ian Stannard from Morgan Stanley. “The global growth picture is really worrying markets so people are retreating to the safe-haven of the dollar.”

Finland’s premier Jyrki Katainen said “the situation is dangerous, very dangerous. All countries are mentally preparing for the case where, for whatever reason, everything falls apart.” Finland will not contribute to any more EMU rescues. Meanwhile Germany’s top court has delayed the new bail-out fund (ESM), and Berlin has back-pedalled on the EU summit deal.

The silver lining is that a super-low euro is exactly what is needed to halt the downward spiral in southern Europe and revive France’s flagging industry. “Only a much weaker euro can reduce break-up risk and significantly reduce the incentive for any country to exit. A weaker euro can save the euro in the end,” said Bank of America.

At the height of the euro crisis, I met a high-level civil servant of the European Commission. He described his professional situation this way: since the election of François Hollande to the French presidency, the Commission has finally regained a little power. Previously, "Merkozy," the duo formed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, systematically placed the rest of the European apparatus before a fait accompli. But with François Hollande, Germany and France quarrelled and the Commission had to be called in to mediate. This is how one of the world's three largest economies is governed in times of acute crisis.

What is diplomatically called a "democratic deficit" – the fact that we, EUROPEAN CITIZENS, DO NOT CHOOSE THOSE THAT RUN THE EUROPEAN UNION, as well as the fact that THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE to us – is now so flagrant that it is embarrassingly troublesome.

The major countries – in practice, two countries – hold the levers. Decisions are made behind closed doors. Political leaders elected to national functions govern all Europeans. None of them is invested with a mandate to speak in the name of Europe. That is why what was once wishful thinking is today becoming a demand from the people as well as a political necessity: Europe must be able to choose its leader through direct universal suffrage. The primary function of a democracy is undoubtedly the ability to sack, via the ballot box, an unwanted leader and to elect a new one instead.

Market players in fast-paced financial centers like London, New York, Frankfurt and Paris spent hours staring at their screens, with mounting confusion and increasingly glazed eyes, waiting for news from a 10-hour hearing held by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court that could determine the fate of Europe's currency.

All they wanted was a quick yes or no from the court, which convened to weigh a request from plaintiffs that it pass a temporary injunction barring a German law on the permanent euro rescue fund and the EU's fiscal pact from coming into effect, pending the court's final decision on the matter. The court didn't oblige, and indicated that it might take up to three months, rather than the expected three weeks, to rule on whether to impose the injunction.

The plaintiffs, including the opposition far-left Left Party and a group called "More Democracy" representing 23,000 signatories, argue that by signing up to the €500 billion ($610 billion) European Stability Mechanism and the fiscal pact enforcing debt reductions, Germany will jettison too much sovereignty and undermine the power of its democratically elected parliament to determine what happens with taxpayers' money. If the Germans were now to be prevented by their constitutional court from doing so, Europe would face an economic disaster that would engulf even the biggest euro member country.

A handful of state attorneys general said they are looking into whether they have jurisdiction over the banks, and are starting preliminary discussions to determine what kind of impact the conduct involving the Libor rate may have had in their states. "Our office is aware of the allegations around the manipulation of the Libor, and we are working with other state agencies to determine whether Massachusetts has suffered any losses as a result," a spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

A spokesman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said his office is aware of the recent settlement reached by British bank Barclays with US and UK authorities and "will look at the case to the extent that our office might have any jurisdiction in the matter." Barclays last month agreed to pay $453 million to settle charges that it manipulated Libor - the London interbank offered rate, which is compiled from estimates by large international banks of how much they believe they have to pay to borrow from each other.

LIBOR IS USED FOR $550 TRILLION OF INTEREST RATE DERIVATIVES CONTRACTS, as well as influencing rates on mortgages, student loans and credit cards.