Washington has made tremendous
preparations for a military assault on Iran. There is speculation that
Washington has called off its two longest running wars--Iraq and Afghanistan--in
order to deploy forces against Iran.
Two of Washington’s fleets have been assigned to the Persian Gulf along
with NATO warships. Missiles have been spread amongst Washington’s Oil
Emirate and Middle Eastern puppet states. US troops have been deployed
in Israel and Kuwait.
Washington has presented Israel a gift from the hard-pressed american
taxpayers of an expensive missile defense system, money spent for Israel
when millions of unassisted americans have lost their homes. As no one
expects Iran to attack Israel, except in retaliation for an Israeli
attack on Iran, the purpose of the missile defense system is to protect
Israel from an Iranian response to Israeli aggression against Iran.
Juan Cole has posted on his blog a map showing 44 US military bases
In addition to the massive military preparations, there is the propaganda
war against Iran that has been ongoing since 1979 when Washington’s
puppet, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown by the Iranian revolution.
Iran is surrounded, but Washington and Israeli propaganda portray Iran
as a threatening aggressor nation. In fact, the aggressors are the Washington
and Tel Aviv governments which constantly threaten Iran with military
Neocon warmongers, such as David Goldman, compare the Iranian president
to Hitler and declare that only war can stop him.
Washington’s top military officials have created the impression that
an act of Israeli aggression against Iran is a done deal. On February
2 the Washington Post reported that Pentagon chief Leon Panetta believes
that Israel is likely to attack Iran in two to four months.
Also on February 2, Gareth Porter reported that General Martin Dempsey,
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed the Israeli government
that the US would not join Israel’s aggression against Iran unless Washington
had given prior approval for the attack.
Porter interprets Dempsey’s warning as a strong move by President Obama
to deter an attack that would involve Washington in a regional conflagration
with Iran. A different way to read Dempsey’s warning is that Obama wants
to hold off on attacking Iran until polls show him losing the presidential
election. It has generally been the case that the patriotic electorate
does not turn out a president who is at war.
On February 5, President Obama canceled Dempsey’s warning
to Israel when Obama declared that he was in “lockstep” with the Israeli
government. Obama is in lockstep with Israel despite the fact that Obama
told NBC that “we don’t see any evidence that they [Iran] have those
intentions [attacks on the US] or capabilities.” By being in lockstep
with Israel and simultaneously calling for a “diplomatic solution,”
Obama appeased both the Israel Lobby and Democratic peace groups, thus
upping his vote.
As I wrote previously, this spring is a prime time for attacking Iran,
because there is a good chance that Russia will be in turmoil because
of its March election. The Russian opposition to Putin is financed by
Washington and encouraged by Washington’s statements, especially those
of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Whether Putin wins or there is
an indecisive result and a run-off election, Washington’s money will
put tens of thousands of Russians into the streets, just as Washington’s
money created the “Green Revolution” in Iran to protest the presidential
On February 4 the former left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian,
reported a pre-election protest by 120,000 anti-Putin demonstrators
marching in Moscow and demanding “fair elections.” In other words,
Washington already has its minions declaring that a win by Putin in
March can only signify a stolen election. The problem for Obama is that
this spring is too early to tell whether his re-election is threatened
by a Republican candidate. Going to war prematurely, especially if the
result is a stiff rise in oil prices, is not an aid to re-election.
The willingness of peoples around the world to be Washington’s puppets
instead of loyal citizens of their own countries is why the West has
been able to dominate the world during the modern era. There seems to
be an infinite supply of foreign leaders who prefer Washington’s money
and favor to loyalty to their own countries’ interests.
As Karl Marx said, money turns everything into a commodity that can
be bought and sold. All other values are defeated--honor, integrity,
truth, justice, loyalty, even blood kin. Nothing remains but filthy
lucre. Money certainly turned UK prime minister Tony Blair into a political
The power of money was brought home to me many years ago. My Ph.D.
dissertation chairman found himself in the Nixon administration as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security affairs. He asked if
I would go to Vietnam to administer the aid programs. I was flattered
that he thought I had the strength of character to stand up to the corruption
that usually defeats the purpose of aid programs, but I declined the
The conversation was one I will never forget. Warren Nutter was an intelligent
person of integrity. He thought regardless of whether the war was necessary
that we had been led into it by deception. He thought democracy could
not live with deception, and he objected to government officials who
were not honest with the American people. Nutter’s position was that
a democratic government had to rely on persuasion, not on trickery.
Otherwise, the outcomes were not democratic.
As Nutter saw it, we were in a war, and we had involved the South Vietnamese.
Therefore, we had obligations to them. If we proved to be feckless,
the consequence would be to undermine commitments we had made
to other countries in our effort
to contain the Soviet Empire. The Soviet Union, unlike the “terrorist
threat” had the potential of being a real threat. People who have come
of age after the collapse of the Soviet Union don’t understand the cold
In the course of the conversation I asked how Washington got so many
other governments to do its bidding. He answered, “Money.”
I asked, “You mean foreign aid?”
He said, “No, bags of money. We buy the leaders.”
He didn’t approve of it, but there was nothing he could do about it.
Purchasing the leadership of their enemies or of potential threats was
the Roman way. Timothy H. Parsons in his book, The Rule of Empires,
describes the Romans as “deft practitioners of soft power.” Rome
preferred to rule the conquered and the potentially hostile through
“semiautonomous client kings which the Senate euphemistically termed
‘friends of the Roman people.’ Romans helped cooperative monarchs remain
in power with direct payments of coins and material goods. Acceptance
of these subsidies signified that an ally deferred to imperial authority,
and the Romans interpreted any defiance of their will as an overt revolt.
They also intervened freely in local succession disputes to replace
This is the way Washington rules. Washington’s way of ruling other countries
is why there is no “Egyptian Spring,” but a military dictatorship as
a replacement for Washington’s discarded puppet Hosni Mubarak, and why
European puppet states are fighting Washington’s wars of hegemony in
the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.
Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy funds non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that interfere in the internal affairs of other
countries. It is through the operations of NGOs that Washington added
the former Soviet Republic of Georgia to Washington’s empire, along
with the Baltic States, and Eastern European countries.
Because of the hostility of many Russians to their Soviet past, Russia
is vulnerable to Washington’s machinations.
As long as the dollar rules, Washington’s power will rule.
As Rome debased its silver denarius into lead, Rome’s power to purchase
compliance faded away. If “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke inflates away the
purchasing power of the dollar, Washington’s power will melt away also.