- WASHINGTON, DC -- The Bush-Cheney
war drive continues unabated, despite hurricane Katrina. The US government
continues to operate under Cheney's order to prepare in the short term
for the nuclear bombing of Iran in the wake of a new 9/11 of state sponsored,
false flag synthetic terrorism, as revealed in late July by Philip Giraldi
in The American Conservative.
-
- But Iran is not the only possible target in the wake
of a new 9/11. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, speaking at the United
Nations this past week, formally accused the US of preparing an unprovoked
aggression against his country as well. Chavez promised a hundred years,
war to beat back such an invasion.
-
- Bush had pledged to the German CDU-CSU opposition that
there would be no attack on Iran before today's German election. The result
of the German voting indicates that Gerhard Schroeder of the SPD may well
be able to remain in power as the chancellor of an independent Germany.
Schroeder has pledged that he will not take part in a US-led attack on
Iran. His challenger, Angelika Merkel, is a neocon and far too weak to
be able to resist orders from Bush and Cheney to join in the planned suicidal
adventure. This was sensed by German voters, who declined to give Merkel
a mandate to rule.
-
- The most immediate war signal is a 180-degree policy
reversal by the British government, with an announcement that the long-touted
pullout of UK troops from Iraq will not occur. Instead, one of the British
elite units, the 7th Armoured Brigade, will arrive in Iraq in October:
-
- "Secret plans by the Government to reduce troop
numbers in Iraq have been shelved - and there is now no official date for
the withdrawal of British soldiers, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.- "The
decision comes as ministers prepare to announce an unexpected redeployment
of up to 6,000 members of the 7th Armoured Brigade - the renowned Desert
Rats - in the conflict zone next month. This follows growing concerns that
Iraq is heading into full-scale civil war. Under the original withdrawal
plans of John Reid, the Defence Secretary, up to 8,500 troops should have
returned to Britain by next month with the rest coming home by the middle
of next year.- (Sunday Telegraph, September 18, 2005)
-
- It is necessary abandon any illusions that the Bush-Cheney
disaster relief and civil defense debacle in the wake of hurricane Katrina
will do anything to avoid or even postpone the war mobilization on the
part of the US. Do not be deceived by the ostentatious presence, for the
moment, of parts of the US 82nd Airborne Division in New Orleans. On Sept.
2, the Washington Post announced that the US military had discarded its
plans to boost the troop presence in Iran during the October 15 to December
15 period, the time of the Iraqi constitutional referendum and the parliamentary
elections. Defending these elections is the obvious cover story for a US
buildup targeting Iran. General John Vines in Baghdad suggested that there
would be only an increase of 2,000 soldiers over and above the current
level of just under 140,000. (Washington Post, September 3, 2002) The Pentagon
had earlier suggested that the level would have to be increased to 160,000
for the election period. What would the impact of the New Orleans situation
be?
-
- Rumsfeld and Meyers, in a Sept. 6 press conference at
the Pentagon, told reporters that the "plus-up- was going to proceed
on schedule, thus giving the US the extra capability needed for the type
of raids into Iran that are now being contemplated:
-
- Asked whether the military's response to the Katrina
disaster had been hindered by the Iraq deployment, Rumsfeld shot back:
"It's just flat wrong. Anyone who's saying that doesn't understand
the situation." Myers concurred, pointing to the decision to bring
back the Louisiana and Mississippi guard units as evidence of the military's
flexibility.,
-
- In addition to the ground forces, there is also evidence
of a naval buildup, part of which was revealed by the following incident:
-
- US submarine collides with cargo ship in Gulf
-
- DUBAI - A US Navy submarine collided with a Turkish cargo
ship in the Gulf in the dark hours of Monday morning, the US Navy reported.
No one was hurt on either vessel. The USS Philadelphia was traveling on
the surface of the Gulf when it slammed into the Turkish-flagged M/V Yaso
Aysen at around 2:00 a.m. local time (2200 GMT Sunday), the US Navy 5th
Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain reported in a statement. (AP, 5 September
2005)
-
- The position of this sub was the optimal one for firing
conventional or atomic cruise missiles at Iran. A seasoned Israeli observer,
Amir Oren, noted as much in his column in Haaretz, September 11, 2005:
-
- "If there was a fateful report this week, it did
not come either from Gaza or from New Orleans, where Katrina seemed to
threaten to become George Bush's Monica. The report from the Persian Gulf
about the collision of the U.S. nuclear submarine Philadelphia with a Turkish
freighter north of Bahrain, with Tehran within range of the sub's Tomahawk
missiles, showed that the Americans are preparing seriously for the next
confrontation, to which Israel will probably not be able to remain indifferent."
-
- The backdrop for all of this is the announcement, published
on the fourth anniversary of 9/11, of further US steps to render operative
the new military doctrine of nuclear sneak attack against even non-nuclear
states by which the US claims it feels threatened:
-
- "The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for
the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential
approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group
using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of
using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological
or chemical weapons.- (Washington Post, September 11, 2005)
-
- The new US sneak attack nuclear doctrine has been viewed
with alarm by Russian President Putin. This past week, Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Ivanov warned the United States about the new plans for
pre-emptive nuclear strikes: "Lowering the threshold for use of atomic
weapons is in itself dangerous. Such plans do not limit, but, in fact,
promote efforts by others to develop nuclear weapons." (Wire service
report, September 14)
-
- THREATS
-
- Ironically, the main accuser of Iran in the State Department
is none other than the discredit hack Robert Joseph, who was responsible
for the infamous 16 words about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons into Bush's
January 2002 State of the Union Address; these words played an important
role in setting up the attack on Iraq. Joseph's slide show is entitled
"A History of Concealment and Deception,- and alleges that Ian is
committed to developing nuclear weapons, although it offers no proof.
-
- Joining in the bluster is Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador
to Iraq. Khalilzad, a leading neocon in his own right, delivered a diatribe
against Syria from the podium of the State Department:
-
- "Our patience is running out with Syria. They need
to decide: Are they going to be with a successful Iraq or are they going
to be an obstacle to the success of Iraq? Iraq will succeed. Iraq will
succeed. Syria has to decide what price it's willing to pay in making Iraq
success difficult. And time is running out for Damascus to decide on this
issue.....- Special Briefing, Washington, September 12, 2005)
-
- A few days later, State Department spokesman Ada Ereli
repeated the same threats:
-
- "Syria, more and more, is being recognized as a
destabilizing element in the region." "It's not just about Iraq;
it's about Iraq, it's about Lebanon, it's about the Palestinian Authority.
Because there's a connection between Syria and terrorism and murder and
mayhem in each of these three different areas." (Associated Press,
17/09/2005)
-
- Are the neocons seriously proposing to attack both Iran
and Syria at the same time, in a double flight forward from their current
hopeless situation in Iraq? Or was this strategic deception, designed to
let Iranians think they might not be next?
-
- Bush himself, although nearer than ever to a nervous
breakdown as a result of wide criticism of the Katrina disaster, is still
on message, and the message is a new terror attack. On September 6, Bush
remarked:
-
- "What I intend to do is to lead an investigation
to find out what went right and what went wrong. And I'll tell you why:
It's very important for us to understand the relationship between the federal
government, the state government and the local government when it comes
to a major catastropheAnd the reason it's important is that we still live
in an unsettled world. We want to make sure that we can respond properly
if there's a WMD attack or another major storm. And so I'm going to find
out over time what went right and what went wrong." (September 6,
2005)
-
- A few days later, on Sept. 13, Bush specified that Iran
is the main target of the US, at least for the moment. Speaking of his
talks at the UN this past week, Bush stated that his main goal was to haul
Iran before the UN Security Council:
-
- "I will bring the subject up with leaders whom I'll
be meeting with today and tomorrow and later on this weekI will be speaking
candidly about Iran with the - Hu Jintao, as well as with President Putin,
for example. Just had a conversation with Tony Blair and the subject came
up.... It is very important for the world to understand that Iran with
a nuclear weapon will be incredibly destabilizing. And, therefore, we must
work together to prevent them from having the wherewithal to develop a
nuclear weapon.-
-
- WARNINGS
-
- Knowledgeable observers around the world are fully aware
of the slide towards an immensely wider war in the Middle East. At the
end of August, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the grand old man of the left wing
of the British Labour Party, warned that Bush might see the attack on Iran
as a
-
- "way to regain some of the political credibility
he has lost.What must be intended is a US airstrike, or airstrikes, on
Iranian nuclear installations, comparable to Israel's bombing of Iraq in
1981Some influential Americans appear to be convinced that the US will
attack Iranthe build-up to a new war is taking exactly the same form as
it did in 2002" against Iraq. While the US and UK talked of diplomatic
measures, leaked UK memos show that the decision to go to war had already
been taken long before. That may be the position now, and I fear that if
a US attack does take place, the prime minister will give it his full support.
Now that the US president has announced that he has not ruled out an attack
on Iran, if it does not abandon its nuclear programme, the Middle East
faces a crisis that could dwarf even the dangers arising from the war in
Iraq. Even a conventional weapon fired at a nuclear research centre --
whether or not a bomb was being made there -- would almost certainly release
radioactivity into the atmosphere, with consequences seen worldwide as
a mini-Hiroshima.- (Guardian, Aug. 31, 2005)
-
- George Galloway, on a book tour in the US, was alert
to importance of a new synthetic terrorist to furnish the pretext for the
coming attack. He told Alex Jones in a radio interview:
-
- "So you cannot discount some kind of provocation
being staged by those elements who want to propel the US into an even more
disastrous invasion.-
-
- As Alex Jones summed up the exchange, "Galloway
went on to suggest that it is not beyond the realm of imagination for a
situation to arise where the power hungry elite in the US uses staged provocation
to drag Iran into a geopolitical set-to, using Israel as the hammer. If
this were to happen, the consequences could be as far reaching as to start
a third world war which would be devastating for humanity. This would provide
the authorities with the perfect excuse to set up a police state domestically
to regulate the activities of everyone and have complete control.- (Prisonplanet.com,
September 13, 2005)
-
- COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
-
- Iran's new President Achmadinejad told the United Nations
on September 16:
-
- "A country which possesses the biggest nuclear arsenal,
embarks on proliferation of nuclear weapons in defiance of the safeguards
and threatens to use them against others, is not competent to comment on
peaceful use of nuclear know-how by other states. These countries should
be brought under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.-
(IRNA, September 16, 2005)
-
- The British International Institute for Strategic Studies
has in effect confirmed the finding of the CIA's latest National Intelligence
Estimate, which found that Iran was many years away from being able to
build atomic bombs. According to the French press, "It appears probable
that Iran does not have significant stocks of non-declared fissile material,
or that it is dissimulating the installations capable of producing such
material." (Le Monde, September 7, 2005)
-
- Retired Gen. Colin Powell told Barbara Walters of 20/20
that "there is no military solution for the problem with Iran.- Powell
recommended instead a creative diplomatic solution. (20/20, ABC television,
September 9, 2005)
-
- THE 9/11 FRONT
-
- New revelations from the Pentagon's Able Danger military
intelligence unit have, whatever the intentions of the leading actors,
tended to re-open the entire 9/11 question in ways which pose serious dangers
not only for Bush, but for the whole of the pro-war invisible government
faction. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) revealed on September 15 that "a
Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed
Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks.The employee is prepared
to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected
to name the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents.-
(Associated Press, September 15, 2005)
-
- SCENARIOS
-
- The usual suspects have continued to beat the drum for
a new 9/11. Joseph Farah offered the following terror scenario: "Raising
new concerns about the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists,
al-Qaeda is planning spectacular attacks next month against the U.S., Russia
and Europe in what it is calling the Great Ramadan Offensive., Ramadan,
the holiest period in the Muslim calendar, begins Oct. 4 this year and
lasts a month. (World Net Daily, September 8, 2005) Such an event would
be the immediate prelude to a move against Iran.
-
- An alleged America al-Qaeda has also been dredged up
with a histrionic tape threatening terror attacks against Los Angeles and
Melbourne, Australia.
-
- More to the point may be the following op-ed from Jim
Hoagland in the Washington Post:
-
- "Bush's informal minister of war, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps best captures this spirit. Think constantly and
urgently about 10/12, he reportedly tells Pentagon staffers in private
meetings - and what you will wish you had done to prevent it. The 10/12
reference is Rumsfeld's epigrammatic way, not of predicting the date of
a new terror attack, but of emphasizing that the horror of 9/11 is likely
to be repeated and augmented. It is a chilling symbol of the broad challenge
that Bush must confront.- (Jim Hoagland, "Cruel September,- Washington
Post, September 15, 2005)
-
- We might do well to take Rumsfeld quite seriously. As
already noted, the immediate window for an attack on Iran would appear
to be approximately the interval that spans the October 15 constitutional
referendum and the December 15 general elections in Iran. The US invisible
government might deliver a new 9/11 at any time within this interval, or
even sooner. We should at the same time bear in mind that the US timetable
for aggression will depend very heavily on surprise bombing attacks, with
limited use of special forces and paratroopers to seize and destroy key
labs, nuclear facilities, reactor sites, enrichment plants, and the like.
-
- As in Desert Storm and the March 2003 attack, it must
be expected that the US-UK bombers will prefer to go into action during
the dark of the moon, when planes are harder to locate. The new moons of
the last quarter of 2005 are as follows:
-
- October 3
- November 2
- December 1
-
- Everything points to one of these new moons as the period
of maximum danger of a US-UK sneak attack on Iran. Working backward, we
can assume that the new 9/11 provocation that must furnish the pretext
for this attack will have to take place several days to two weeks earlier,
in order to orchestrate public opinion and complete last-minute military
preparations. We have therefore already entered the danger zone for spectacular
terrorist events staged by the rogue network infesting the key departments
and agencies of the US government. It is time for a political mobilization
to stop these events from happening.
|
