Rumsfeld Surrounding Iran
With New US Bases

By Joel Skousen
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 going underground.
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



This Site Served by TheHostPros