- What was the purpose of Donald Rumsfeld's visits to Azerbaijan
and Kyrgyzstan last week? According to Alex Jones's news service, "There
was no official statement on the agenda of the meetings with top Azerbaijan
government officials. But the very next day, the commander of NATO forces
in Europe, General Johns, issued a statement in the local press saying
that the U.S. planned to deploy military bases in the Caspian region in
order to ensure regional security.
- "Azerbaijan is seen as one of the launch pads for
launching an attack on Iran, which some see coming as early as June. Local
analysts say that the deal was already all but tied up and Rumsfeld's visit
was simply part of the finalization process."
- The US has been quietly expanding military bases all
over Central Asia, but particularly in the south surrounding Iran. We can
discount US denials that there is "no intention to attack Iran"
as strangely reminiscent of George Bush's denials that he had no intention
of invading Iraq. My Israeli sources say that the IDF is preparing against
a multi-nation Arab attack on Israel in 2006. The US intervention in Iran
and Syria may be either fomenting that conflict or attempting to cut both
countries down to size beforehand.
- It does appear that US and British black operations are
trying to cause social unrest in Iran, in order to destabilize the country
and provide an excuse to intervene. Al Jazeera has been banned from the
country for supposedly publishing inflammatory material leading to the
recent riots in Iran among the country's Arab minority. According to various
reports, three people have died in ethnic clashes in Iran's southwestern
Khuzestan province over the past few days. What al Jazeera actually did
was become the first to broadcast the news of the demonstrations, thus
alerting the rest of the Arab world to the growing unrest in Iran's Khuzestan
region. But it also called upon other Arabs to join in "peaceful"
demonstrations to act in solidarity with others. The Iranians feel this
is provocative. It might well be, despite the fact that Arabs make up only
3% of the population of Iran. Keep in mind that al Jazeera has roots in
a BBC outfit from London that was known to be a front for British intelligence.
- US Hypocrisy: I must continually point out to my readers
the huge gap in consistency between the US policies toward Iran and North
Korea. As the AP commented, "The United States has repeatedly said
it has no intention to attack the North, and has sought to convince Pyongyang
to return to international disarmament talks that have been on hold since
last June." Why the double standard? Iran isn't anywhere near as dangerous
to the world as North Korea, which already has missiles capable of reaching
parts of the US.
- In point of fact, North Korea continually flaunts its
claims of increasing production of nuclear weapons, and still the US pledges
not to intervene. But for some reason, the North Koreans are bargaining
for something more than US verbal assurance of non-aggression. The AP story
continues, "North Korea said Thursday that the international standoff
over its nuclear ambitions could be resolved if the United States gives
up what Pyongyang alleges are its plans to overthrow the communist regime
by a nuclear attack."
- Apparently, it hasn't been lost on the Pyongyang that
Cuba secretly received such written assurances from the US that Cuba would
not be attacked or undermined politically. North Korea wants the same thing
in writing. The US is probably unwilling to give such a guarantee, not
because it actually intends to attack, but because it fears Kim Yong Il
can't be trusted not to wave that piece of paper before the world and expose
the Bush administration for the hypocrite it is.
- The larger question: A question I am often asked about
a US attack on Iran is how Russia, an ally of Iran, would react to such
an attack. My answer is to remember Russia's betrayal of Iraq, of which
it was also an ally. I think Russia will sacrifice Iran and/or Syria as
well. Doing so furthers Russia's long range goal of painting the US as
the "bully of the world," eventually justifying Russia's long-planned
pre-emptive nuclear strike on America-that will forever change the world's
balance of power. The only reason Russia might react otherwise is if it
intends for a larger Middle East war to serve as a flash point for the
Russia/China attack on the West and the ensuing World War III. In that
case, we would see the Iran/Syria/Egypt coalition strike back with missiles
both at US forces in Iraq and at Israel. I think, however, that it is still
too early for the big war. Watch out during the next decade, when China
will reach mega-power status.
- RICE IN RUSSIA-PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE Sec. of State
Condoleezza Rice put out dozens of mixed signals concerning Russia during
her two-day visit to the country, voicing concerns and provocations on
one hand, and calming words on the other.
- Reuters reported, "Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice on Tuesday called the Kremlin's tight grip on power and the media
'very worrying' and urged Russian President Vladimir Putin not to cling
on to power beyond his present term." Of course, the latter caution
is a red herring, as neither Putin nor Yeltsin before him are the real
leaders in Russia. They cover for "former" Communist leaders
like Boris Berezovsky and other wealthy "exiles" who made themselves
wealthy by signing over large blocs of Russian industry to themselves before
- Rice continued: "The centralization of state power
in the presidency at the expense of countervailing institutions like the
Duma (parliament lower house) or an independent judiciary is clearly very
worrying." Savvy Russia watchers have always known, however, that
the majority of "opposition" parties in Russia are also controlled
entities, like Solidarity was in Poland. Real dissidents are relegated
to small parties that are never allowed to gain a large following.
- Then, when Russia reacted with feigned offense at the
Secretary's remarks, she responded with soothing words. The AP quoted her
as saying that "there is a considerable amount of individual freedom"
in Russia nowadays. "One can't imagine reverting back to Soviet times,"
Rice declared. She went even further, according to Reuters, claiming that
"despite serious setbacks to Russian democracy, there is no sign that
the country is poised to return to its totalitarian past." No sign?
What world does she live in? There are, in fact, no signs of real democracy
in Russia. Worse, the US seems to be not-so-subtly sowing the seeds of
future unrest within most of the former Soviet States still under the yoke
of Russia's euphemistically named "Commonwealth of Independent States."
Look at the Ukraine, and now Belarus.
- As the Washington Times reported, "The United States
and its NATO allies ventured into the former Soviet Union yesterday, where
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice clashed with her Russian counterpart
at the close of a tough trip that contrasted sharply with her February
visit to Europe. With the alliance holding its first high-level meeting
on ex-Soviet soil, Miss Rice took time to meet with opposition leaders
of Belarus (one of the ex-Soviet states that has a rabid Communist as leader),
a nation heavily dependent on Russian economic aid.
- "'While it may be difficult and long and at times
even far away, there will be a road to democracy in Belarus. We admire
your courage, and we admire your dedication and we want you all to know
you are in our thoughts,' Miss Rice told a group of seven dissidents who
drove from the Belorussian capital of Minsk for the meeting." That's
no small provocation to Russia, even though almost all "dissidents"
the US chooses to meet with are plants provided by Moscow-like Vaclav Havel
turned out to be in the phony "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia.
Once again, despite the soothing words, it appears as if there is a globalist
strategy to antagonize Russia into someday striking out at the West, and
simultaneously facilitating that strike.
- At this same NATO meeting, Russia and NATO signed an
agreement that allows Russia access to transit routes for transporting
troops and military equipment through NATO countries. The signing in Vilnius,
Lithuania of the Status of Forces Agreement by Russia and NATO comes at
the alliance's first-ever ministerial meeting on the soil of a former Soviet
republic. This symbolism is meant to give a powerful message of accommodation
with Russia, while sending signals that the US is intervening in CIS internal
affairs-which gives Russia an excuse for eventual pre-emptive retaliation
against the US.
- World Affairs Brief
- Copyright 2005 Joel M. Skousen
- Partial quotations with attribution permitted
- Cite sources as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
- at www.WorldAffairsBrief.com.