Impetus Towards War with Iran can Only be Explained in Terms of a Western Desire for Iraq-style Regime Change

Iran: Drumbeat of War has a Familiar Sound

By Simon Tisdall, guardian.co.uk
February 24, 2012

The drumbeat of war with Iran grows steadily more intense. Each day brings more defiant rhetoric from Tehran, another failed UN nuclear inspection, reports of western military preparations, an assassination, a missile test, or a dire warning that, once again, the world is sliding towards catastrophe. If this all feels familiar, that's because it is. For Iran, read Iraq in the countdown to the 2003 invasion.

A decisive moment may arrive when Barack Obama meets Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Washington on 5 March.

"The meeting … will be definitive," said Ari Shavit in Haaretz.

"If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees the US will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price after the 2012 [US] elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections."

If accurate, this is not much of a choice. It suggests military action by the US or Israel or both is unavoidable, the only question being one of timing. Objectively speaking, this is not actually the position. All concerned still have choices. The case against Iran's nuclear programme is far from proven. It is widely agreed that limited military strikes will not work; a more extensive, longer-lasting campaign would be required. And Obama in particular, having striven to end the Iraq and Afghan wars, is loath to start another.

But as with Iraq in 2003, the sense that war is inevitable and unstoppable is being energetically encouraged by political hardliners and their media accomplices on all sides, producing a momentum that even the un-bellicose Obama may find hard to resist.

A recent analysis of US public opinion revealed deeply ambivalent attitudes on Iran, with the majority of Americans apparently favouring diplomatic solutions. Yet as Republican presidential candidates exploit the issue, as the Israelis lobby America, and as Iranian factions manoeuvre ahead of parliamentary polls, the likelihood grows that doves and doubters will again be either converted or ignored.

In some key respects, the Iran crisis is distinctly different from that over Iraq in 2002-03. As matters stand, similarly strident warmongering surrounding Iran is thus hard to understand or explain – unless the ultimate, unstated objective is not to curb Iran's nuclear programme but, as in Iraq, to overthrow its rulers.

Bogeymen

George Bush and Tony Blair claimed a moral imperative in toppling the "monstrous" dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. But the much vilified Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, is no Saddam, and neither is the country's bumbling Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranian regime is repressive and sporadically brutal, but so too are many developing world governments. Unlike Saddam's Ba'athists, it has significant democratic and ideological underpinning. As a bogeyman whose depredations might justify international intervention, Ahmadinejad is a flop.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam, notoriously, had no deployable or usable WMD, but his overthrow was primarily justified by the mistaken belief that he did. The present western consensus is that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability, but does not have an atomic bomb and is not currently trying to build one. Khamenei said this week that nuclear weapons were "useless and harmful" and that possessing them was sinful . Netanyahu's belief that Israel faces an imminent, existential threat is visceral rather than fact-based. Israel's refusal to acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal, let alone contemplate its reduction, further undermines the case for action.

Terrorism

Plenty of evidence exists that Iran supports, or has supported, armed militants, jihadis, and anti-Israeli and anti-western armed groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, providing financial and political backing, arms and training. In this respect, its behaviour is more threatening to western interests than was that of Saddam's secular regime, no friend to Islamists. But limited or even protracted attacks on Iran's nuclear and/or military facilities would not end these links, unless there was a shift of political direction in Tehran.

Strategic power-games

Iraq was considered important for its strategic position at the heart of the Arab Middle East and its economic potential, especially its oil reserves. Similarly, there can be no doubt the US and Britain would like to see energy-rich Iran return to the western camp, as in the pre-revolution days of the Shah. Conversely, Iran's military is more powerful and more committed to the defence of the status quo, from which it benefits greatly, than was Iraq's. The potential disruption to oil supplies and western economies, not to mention the impact of asymmetric Iranian counter-attacks, makes a resort to war contingent on producing lasting dividends.

Political imperatives

In contrast to the splits over Iraq, the main western powers are united in their determination to bring Iran to heel. As well as Netanyahu, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama have all declared an Iranian bomb unacceptable. Their inflexibility thus makes war more rather than less likely should Iran refuse to back down. "

Having made the case for urgency and concerted action, it would be difficult for Obama to tell the world 'never mind' and shift to a strategy that accepts Iranian membership in the nuclear club," said Michael Gerson in the Washington Post.

In short, the Iranian crisis differs from that over Iraq in 2003 in key respects. But the current impetus towards war can only be explained in terms of a western desire for Iraq-style regime change – because only regime change may achieve the de-nuclearisation the west insists upon.

'Friends of Syria' Group Created after Russia and China Veto U.N. Draft Resolution to Pressure Syria's Assad to Step Down

As Syria Burns, Neighboring Lebanon Feels the Heat

Associated Press
February 11, 2012

The tensions between the two neighborhoods were building for days in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. On one side live Sunni Muslims who hate the Syrian regime. On the hill above are members of the Alawite sect, Bashar Assad's strongest backers.

Overnight, the tempers exploded. For hours, gunmen in the two districts traded automatic weapons fire and volleys of rocket-propelled grenades across the avenue that divides them, ironically named Syria Street.

By the time a shaky truce was reached Saturday, two people were dead — one from each side — and 12 people wounded, half of them soldiers trying to stop the clashes.

The fighting underscored how the bloodshed in Syria, where Assad's regime is cracking down on an 11-month-old uprising against his rule, is enflaming emotions in its tiny neighbor Lebanon. The already deep divisions between Lebanese are being strained, and many fear Syria's chaos will bleed over across the border.

Lebanon is sharply split along sectarian lines, with 18 religious sects. But it also has a fragile political faultline precisely over the issue of Syria.

There is an array of diehard pro-Syrian Lebanese parties and politicians, as well as support for the regime on the street level. There is an equally deep hatred of Assad among other Lebanese who fear Damascus is still calling the shots here. The two sides are the legacy of, and backlash against, Syria's virtual rule over Lebanon from 1976 to 2005 and its continued influence since.

Tempers between the two sides are high enough. But Syria opponents worry the regime may intentionally cause trouble.

"The Syrian regime holds a lot of cards in Lebanon, and the biggest fear is that as the Assad regime gets more desperate, it would decide to use them to create regional chaos," anti-Syrian politician Mustafa Alloush said.

Among those cards is Hezbollah, the Syrian and Iranian-backed Shiite militant group with an arsenal of weapons more powerful than that of the Lebanese army.

Already, any talk about Syria is potential cause for a fight.

On a political talk show on Al-Jazeera TV earlier this month, Lebanese writer and Syria supporter Joseph Abu Fadel flew into a rage over taunts from the other guest, a Syrian opposition member.

Abu Fadel leaped from his chair and charged around the table, fists clenched — and though the host got between them, he managed to land a slap on his rival's face.

An earlier show on Lebanese television turned into a brawl when Alloush called Syria's president a liar. His rival guest, Fayez Shukur, the head of the Lebanese branch of Syria's ruling party, hurled a glass of water in his face.

Northern Lebanon, in particular, is a potential powder keg.

It has a strong Sunni Muslim population, sympathetic to its sectarian brethren who have been the backbone of the Syrian uprising. But it also has pockets of Alawites, the Shiite offshoot that makes up the majority of the Syrian regime's leadership and to which Assad himself belongs.

The Friday-Saturday night clashes were between the mainly Sunni Bab Tabbaneh neighborhood and the adjacent, Alawite-majority Jabal Mohsen, on a hill overlooking its rival.

Short bouts of gunfire or grenade-throwing between them has been going on for years because of the sectarian tensions. But the violence has become more frequent as Syria worsens. Sunnis in Bab Tabbaneh resent their Alawite neighbors' backing of Assad, while Jabal Mohsen residents accuse their rivals of giving aid to the uprising.

In Beirut last week, hundreds of Lebanese demonstrators faced off outside the Russian Embassy after Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-backed resolution at the U.N. Security Council aimed at pressing Assad to step down. An army cordon separated the anti-Assad crowd from the president's supporters to prevent clashes.

"Bashar, we are your men!" supporters shouted unanimously.

"Come on, Bashar, leave!" opponents chanted back.

Many of Lebanon's Christians, meanwhile, have been laying low on the subject of Syria.

Their community is divided between pro- and anti-Syrian camps. Even some Christian opponents of Damascus are hesitant about backing an uprising they fear will bring Sunni fundamentalists to power in Syria.

Patriarch Bechara al-Rai, head of the Maronite Church, which had long been critical of Damascus, raised an uproar in September when he warned that the Christian presence in the Mideast could be threatened if Assad falls. He said Assad should be given a chance to reform.

The tensions come at a time when anti-Syrian parties in Lebanon, which once ran the government, are weakened. They were replaced in 2010 by a government dominated by Hezbollah and pro-Syrian allies. Prime Minister Najib Mikati, a personal friend of Assad, says he isn't taking sides in the crisis, adopting a policy of "disassociation."

Still, opponents accuse the government of complicity with Damascus.

Lebanon voted against suspending Syria from the Arab League in November and was the only member state that did not endorse a League plan calling on Assad to transfer powers to his vice president.

"The Lebanese government is cooperating with the Syrian regime, they are only using this policy of disassociation as a cover," Alloush said.

A longtime Syrian military presence in Lebanon ended after massive 2005 protests sparked by the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a car bombing. Many Lebanese accuse Syria of involvement in the assassination, a charge Damascus denies.

A Western-backed, anti-Syrian government was elected, but its stint in power was plagued by constant feuds with Hezbollah, until the Shiite movement succeeded in bringing it down and elevating pro-Syrians to power.

Writing in the leading An-Nahar daily, political analyst Abdelwahab Badrakhan warned that Syria could stir up trouble in Lebanon to intimidate the West and "settle scores" with Arabs it accuses of conspiring against it.

Anti-Syrian politicians say they fear possible assassinations, recalling a string of unsolved killings of Lebanese critics of Syria in 2006. Last week, media reported that legislator Sami Gemayel had been warned by a security chief to take precautions because of a threat.

Alloush, the anti-Syrian politician, said he takes the warnings seriously.

"The Syrian regime is in trouble and as it goes down, the concern is that it will try to bring everyone down with it."

Arab League Wants UN Peacekeepers in Syria

Associated Press
February 13, 2012

The Arab League called Sunday for the U.N. Security Council to create a joint peacekeeping force for Syria and urged Arab states to sever all diplomatic contact with President Bashar Assad's regime, the League's latest effort to bring an end to the violence that has killed more than 5,000 people.

Syria immediately rejected the moves, spelled out in a resolution adopted by League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal conveyed the 22-nation League's deep frustration with Syria, telling delegates that it was no longer appropriate to stand by and watch the bloodshed.

"Until when will we remain spectators?" he said. The bloodshed in Syria "is a disgrace for us as Muslims and Arabs to accept."

Syria's state news agency said the regime rejected the Arab League decisions, which were taken without a Syrian representative present. Syria's ambassador to the Arab League, Ahmed Youssef, was quoted as saying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were "living in a state of hysteria after their last failure at the U.N. Security Council to call for outside interference in Syria's affairs and to impose sanctions on the Syrian people."

The Arab League has been at the forefront of regional efforts to end 11 months of bloodshed in Syria. The group put forward a plan that Assad agreed to in December, then sent in monitors to check whether he was complying. When it became clear that Assad's regime was flouting the terms of the agreement and the killings were continuing, the League pulled out the observers last month.

"The time has come for a decisive action to stop the bloodshed suffered by the Syrian people since the start of last year," Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby told the Arab foreign ministers. "We must move quickly in all directions ... to end or break the ongoing cycle of violence in Syria."

The League called for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution that provides for an immediate cease-fire in Syria, the protection of civilians and overseeing a humanitarian effort for victims of the violence. It demanded that regime forces lift the siege on neighborhoods and villages and pull troops and their heavy weapons back to their barracks.

It urged Syrian opposition groups to unite ahead of a Feb. 24 meeting in Tunisia of the "Friends of Syria" group, which includes the United States, its European allies and Arab nations working to end the uprising against Assad's authoritarian rule.

The group was created after last weekend's veto at the U.N. by Russia and China of a Western and Arab draft resolution that would have pressured Assad to step down. That resolution also would have demanded that Assad halt the crackdown on dissent and implement the Arab League peace plan that calls for him to hand over power to his vice president and allow creation of a unity government to clear the way for elections.

Elaraby told the Cairo meeting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote him a letter Saturday saying Russia would agree to a joint U.N.-Arab League peacekeeping force.

The League also said it wanted to provide Syrian opposition groups with political and material support. It called for a halt to all diplomatic contacts with Syria and for referring officials responsible for crimes against the Syrian people to international criminal tribunals. It urged a tightening of trade sanctions previously adopted by the League that have not been fully implemented.

The foreign ministers were also expected to consider a proposal by Gulf states to expel Syrian ambassadors from Arab capitals, but the resolution made no mention of that.

Meanwhile, Washington piled more pressure on Syria.

President Barack Obama's chief of staff, Jacob Lew, said it was only a matter of time before Assad's regime collapsed.

"The brutality of the Assad regime is unacceptable and has to end," Lew told "Fox News Sunday." The U.S. is pursuing "all avenues that we can" and "there is no question that this regime will come to an end. The only question is when," he said.

Late Saturday, al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahri threw the terror network's support behind Syrian rebels trying to topple President Bashar Assad, raising fears that Islamic extremists are exploiting the uprising that began peacefully but is quickly transforming into an armed insurgency.

The regime has long blamed terrorists for the revolt, and al-Qaida's endorsement creates new difficulties for Western and Arab states trying to figure out a way to help force Assad out of power.

At the Cairo meeting, foreign ministers from the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council proposed that all Arab League nations withdraw their ambassadors from Damascus and expel Syria's ambassadors from their capitals, according to officials.

The proposal was not mentioned in the resolution, but the clause calling for a halt to all diplomatic contacts with Syria appeared to reflect a compromise.

The six gulf nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been campaigning for a tougher stand against Assad's regime and may offer formal recognition of the National Syrian Council, the largest of Syria's opposition groups.

Assad's regime has pursued a harsh crackdown against the uprising since it began last March. More than 5,400 people have been killed, according to a U.N. estimate in January. That figure has not been updated because the chaos in Syria has made it all but impossible to do so, and hundreds have been reported killed since.

U.S. Navy: Iran Prepares Suicide Bomb Boats in Gulf

U.S. Navy: Iran Prepares Suicide Bomb Boats in Gulf

Reuters
February 13, 2012

Iran has built up its naval forces in the Gulf and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks, but the U.S. Navy can prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region said on Sunday.

Iran has made a series of threats in recent weeks to disrupt shipping in the Gulf or strike U.S. forces in retaliation if its oil trade is shut down by sanctions, or if its disputed nuclear program comes under attack.

"They have increased the number of submarines ... they increased the number of fast attack craft," Vice Admiral Mark Fox told reporters. "Some of the small boats have been outfitted with a large warhead that could be used as a suicide explosive device. The Iranians have a large mine inventory."

"We have watched with interest their development of long range rockets and short, medium and long range ballistic missiles and of course ... the development of their nuclear program," Fox, who heads the U.S. Fifth Fleet, said at a briefing on the fleet's base in the Gulf state of Bahrain.

Iran now has 10 small submarines, he said.

Military experts say the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf - which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers - is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran's navy.

But ever since al Qaeda suicide bombers in a small boat killed 17 sailors on board the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in a port in Yemen in 2000, Washington has been wary of the vulnerability of its huge battleships to bomb attacks by small enemy craft.

Asked whether the U.S. Navy was prepared for an attack or other trouble in the Gulf, Fox said:

"We are very vigilant, we have built a wide range of options to give the president and we are ready... What if it happened tonight? We are ready today."

Iranian officials have threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet to the Gulf through which nearly all of the Middle East's oil sails.

Asked if he took Iran's threats seriously, Fox said:

"Could they make life extremely difficult for us? Yes they could. If we did nothing and they were able to operate without being inhibited, yeah they could close it, but I can't see that we would ever be in that position."

He added that diplomacy should be given priority in resolving the tension.

"So when you hear discussion about all this overheated rhetoric from Iran we really believe that the best way to handle this is with diplomacy... I am absolutely convinced that is the way to go. It is our job to be prepared. We are vigilant."

Contacts between the U.S. Navy and Iranian craft in the Gulf region were routine, Fox said, referring to cases where his sailors helped Iranian ships that were in distress or threatened by pirates.

In addition to commanding the Fifth Fleet, Fox is also the commander of a multinational naval task force charged with ensuring Gulf shipping routes stay open. Although most of its firepower is American, the task force also includes other Western countries and the Gulf Arab states.

The European Union slapped an embargo on Iranian oil last month, which is due to kick in completely by July 1. The United States and EU have both imposed new sanctions on Iran's central bank which make it difficult for countries to pay Tehran for oil and for Iran to pay for the goods it imports.

Israel Accuses Arch-enemies Iran and Its Lebanese Ally Hezbollah of Twin Bombings in India and Georgia

Iranian Payback? Bombings of Israeli Targets Mimic Attacks on Iran Scientists

ABC News
February 13, 2012

Has Iran decided to turn Israeli tactics against Israel?

In a strike virtually identical to attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists, U.S. sources say a passing motorcyclist attached what appeared to be a shaped charge to an Israeli diplomatic vehicle in New Delhi, India. The driver and the wife of Israel's deputy defense ministry representative to India were wounded.

Television footage showed flames pouring from a minivan with its back door blown out. The attack took place at 4 p.m. on Race Track Road, close to the Israeli Embassy.

A single source confirms that a failed attack against an Israeli car in Tblisi, Georgia used a similar method, but the bomb did not detonate. A worker at the embassy alerted local police after seeing a black plastic bag attached to the bottom of the Israeli envoy's car. The bag held a hand grenade.

No attackers have been identified in either incident. An unconfirmed report says that a third Israeli facility in Amsterdam may also have been targeted.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly pointed the finger at Iran for the twin attacks in Georgia and India. Both attacks come one day after the fourth anniversary of the assassination of a top Hezbollah leader.

Motorcyclists with "sticky bombs" have been blamed in several mysterious bombings of Iranian nuclear scientists. The Iranian government has blamed Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. for the deaths. Both The U.S. and the U.K. have denied any involvement. In January, Mostafa Roshan became the fifth scientist or official involved in the program killed in the past two years. Iran had threatened to strike back for the deaths.

In New York, police have stepped up security at the Israeli consulate, at residences and on consulate vehicles.

"The NYPD adjusts its counterterrorism posture to include information about events overseas," said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne. "That's why the public may have noticed increased NYPD presence in recent weeks at Israeli government facilities and synagogues, although there has been no specific threat in New York."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she condemned the bombing and the attempted bombing "in the strongest possible terms. ... The scourge of terrorism is an affront to the entire international community."

Israel Says Iran Behind India, Georgia Attacks

Reuters
February 13, 2012

Israel accused arch-enemies Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of being behind twin bomb attacks that targeted embassy staff in India and Georgia on Monday, wounding four people.

Tehran denied involvement in the strike, which has amplified tensions between two countries at loggerheads over Iran's contested nuclear program. Hezbollah, the powerful Shi'ite Muslim movement in neighboring Lebanon, declined comment.

Police in the Indian capital New Delhi said a bomb wrecked a car carrying the wife of the Israeli Defence attache as she was going to pick up her children from school. She needed surgery to remove shrapnel but her life was not in danger, officials said.

Three others suffered lesser injuries in the same blast. Israeli officials said an attempt to bomb an embassy car in the Georgian capital Tbilisi had failed and the device was defused.

Israel had put its foreign missions on high alert ahead of the anniversary of the February 12, 2008 assassination in Syria of the military mastermind of Hezbollah, Imad Moughniyeh -- an attack blamed on the Jewish state.

Israel is also believed to be locked in a wider covert war with Iran, whose nuclear program has been beset by sabotage, including the unclaimed killings of several Iranian nuclear scientists, most recently in January.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to blame both Iran and Hezbollah, accusing them of responsibility for a string of recent attempted attacks in countries as far apart as Thailand and Azerbaijan.

"Iran and its proxy Hezbollah are behind each of these attacks," said Netanyahu. "We will continue to take strong and systematic, yet patient, action against the international terrorism that originates in Iran."

Iran's ambassador to India denied that his government had anything to do with the attack on the New Delhi embassy.

"Any terrorist attack is condemned (by Iran) and we strongly reject the untrue comments by an Israeli official," Mehdi Nabizadeh was quoted as saying by IRNA. "These accusations are untrue and sheer lies, like previous times."

Israeli officials have long made veiled threats to retaliate in Lebanon for any Hezbollah attack on their interests abroad, arguing that as the militia sits in the government in Beirut, its actions reflect national policy.

MOTORCYCLE ATTACK

The New Delhi blast took place some 500 meters from the official residence of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

B.K. Gupta, the New Delhi police commissioner, said an eyewitness had seen a motorcyclist stick a device to the back of the car, which had diplomatic plates.

"The eyewitness ... says it (was) some kind of magnetic device. As soon as the motorcycle moved away a good distance from the car, the car blew up and it caught fire," said Gupta.

The Iranian scientist killed in Tehran last month died in a similar such attack. No one has claimed responsibility for this.

Israel named the injured woman as Talya Yehoshua Koren.

"She was able to drag herself from the car and is now at the American hospital (in New Delhi), where two Israeli doctors are treating her," said a Defence ministry spokesman.

Thailand said last month its police had arrested a Lebanese man linked to Hezbollah and he later led them to a warehouse stocked with bomb-making materials. Also last month, authorities in Azerbaijan arrested two people suspected of plotting to attack Israel's ambassador and a local rabbi.

In a January 24 speech, Israel's military chief of staff, Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz, accused Hezbollah of trying to carry out proxy attacks while avoiding direct confrontation. Israel and Hezbollah fought an inconclusive and costly war in 2006.

"During this period of time, when our enemies in the north avoid carrying out attacks, fearing a harsh response, we are witnesses to the ongoing attempts by Hezbollah and other hostile entities to execute vicious terror attacks at locations far away from the state of Israel," Gantz said.

"I suggest that no one test our resolve."

World War III: Satanic International Banksters in Washington and London Sacrificing Israel, Iran and America

Israel Will Commit Suicide By Attacking Iran (and Allow the Globalists to Pick Up the Pieces)

By Saman Mohammadi, The Excavator Blog
February 11, 2012

In the last six months, tensions have risen between Israel and Iran. Israel has assassinated numerous Iranian nuclear scientists and Iranian military officials, including the founder of Iran’s missile program, Major General Hassan Moghaddam.

So far, Iran has not retaliated against Israel’s repeated acts of aggression and terrorism. But the spirit of revenge is alive in Tehran. While it is hard to tell what kind of manifestation Iran’s spiritual anger will take, everyone realizes that a retaliation is in order and completely justified.

Throughout Israel’s campaign of terror and provocations against Iran, the Obama administration has remained in the background, quietly minding its own business.

Washington’s compliance towards Israel has puzzled and aggravated many people, including world leaders who believe the time has come to get tough with Israel. Anyone who is paying the least bit of attention to statements on Israel and Iran by U.S. government officials know they are contradictory and anti-reality.

American author and journalist Mark Perry, who made serious waves in the Israel-Iran debate last month with his piece in Foreign Policy called, ‘False Flag,’ says that official U.S. government statements are written for a number of domestic and foreign audiences. So when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told CBS’ Face The Nation last month that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, he wanted to reassure Iranian leaders that things are under control in Washington and that the crazies are not totally guiding America’s Iran policy.

As far as words go, the Obama administration has proven that it can pull off the high-wire act of balancing U.S. interests and Israel’s ambitions. But this is a deadly game that Washington is playing. President Obama is gambling with the lives of Americans and citizens around the world.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, said that President Obama should make a public statement in which he warns Iran against raising tensions and guarantees that America will not attack Iran or allow any attack to take place. This move would isolate an already weakened Israel and force its lunatic leaders to reflect on its current terrorist strategy towards Iran and rethink Israel’s overall Middle East policy.

Brzezinski offered his advice to President Obama and top administration officials on the Chris Matthews show on February 3, 2012. Here is the exchange between Matthews and Brzezinski:

Matthews: Is there something that could be worse than Iran having a weapon. In other words, when you make the calculation on consequences, is there any way you would decide ‘Well, alright, we can live with a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranians’ because it’s better than what?

Brzezinski: The answer is very simple: war. Because it’s very easy to start a war, it’s very difficult to end it on your own terms. And it tends to produce unforeseen consequences.

Look, the Israelis have the so-called nuclear deterrent. We have an enormous nuclear deterrent. The notion that somehow or other the Iranians, who have existed for three thousand years, are going to commit public suicide the first moment they have a bomb is really ludicrous.

Gary Sick, who is a major significant expert on Iran, has produced a list since 1994 of annual Israeli predictions that next year Iran will have the bomb. So I think we can take their predictions with a little bit of caution.

Moreover, their public opinion is not first strike. The majority of American Jews are not first strike. . .I think we’re dealing here with a right-wing government with rather one-sided notions of what security is, and perhaps with a somewhat irresponsible attitude about the consequences of their actions for us.

Because the Iranians, if attacked, are not going to retaliate effectively against Israel because they can not. They’ll retaliate against us because they’ll see us as the sponsors. So, our troops in Afghanistan will pay the price and our disengagement may become very difficult to pursue. We’ll have a mess in Iraq again. There could be difficulties in the Persian Gulf. The price of oil could go up. The global economy could be hurt. American taxpayers will pay five bucks per gallon. The consequences for us could be extremely serious.

Matthews: But Dr. Brzezinski, can Israel survive if it’s known by its own people it protects, perhaps future immigrants to Israel, that they’re going into a country that’s under a basically a firing zone from Iran, that any moment one of the Mullahs could decide to attack, maybe irrationally.

Brzezinski: Look, we lived in that situation for several decades, with an enemy who could wipe out much of America in a few minutes.

They don’t have the bomb yet. We’re negotiating with them. I think part of the Israelis’ concern is that we may make an arrangement with the Iranians that doesn’t humiliate them, and doesn’t force them to capitulate totally.

Matthews: What’s in U.S. interest?

Brzezinski: I think in the U.S. interest it is absolutely imperative that Israel be secure, but in a Middle East which is not at war. And we can accomplish that. We can first of all issue a public statement that any threat by Iran against any state in the Middle East will be viewed as a threat against us. That in itself would be a very major deterrent. And I think we can at the same time continue negotiating with Iranians perhaps about some arrangement in which they’ll continue their nuclear program but under effective international inspection. And some progress is moving in that direction.

Matthews: How do you save their pride?

Brzezinski: Well, by agreeing to them having a nuclear program.

Matthews: It’s not weaponized?

Brzezinski: It’s not weaponized. The enrichment is not up to a certain level that really represents a danger.

Matthews: Okay, what does Israel get out of that deal? Do they get a year or two or three years of safety?

Brzezinski: Look, if they have a guarantee from the United States they have as much safety as Western Europe, or as Japan, or as South Korea. I think we can do it. But we have to be forthright. And our president and secretary of defense also have to speak forthrightly about this and make it clear we do not want that war, it’s in nobody’s interest.

If Brzezinski’s narrative—that Israel is pulling and dragging America into a war with unpredictable consequences that it does not want—is correct and true then that makes Israel the clear villain in this global drama.

So according to this narrative, America = the subservient dog in the house; and Israel = the rogue wild wolf on the frontier.

But is this the reality, or is it clever CIA/Pentagon propaganda?

The biggest question on the minds of the people of the world is not will a vilified and isolated Israel attack Iran, but, does Israel control Washington, or does Washington control Israel? And by Washington I mean the globalist new world order terrorists in the CIA and the Pentagon who were behind 9/11, and the assassination of JFK.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raised this question back in August 2010 when he challenged President Obama to a live television debate. He said:

“Somebody should answer questions whether the US government is dominated by the Zionists or the Zionist regime is controlled by the US government.”

Journalist and author Russ Baker rejects the popular notion that Israel is leading a bewildered Pentagon over the cliff of Armageddon by attacking Iran. In his article, “Is Israel Really Iran’s Main Adversary? The West Doth Protest Too Much,” Baker writes:

“History, and current pressures on the Pentagon to justify its budget in a time of austerity, suggest that the Pentagon is not really opposed to an attack on Iran, only very shrewdly letting someone else get the music started.Make Israel the villain. If there’s one thing that the Left relates to even more than suspicion of the Pentagon: it’s default vilification of Israel as the world’s leading lone wolf miscreant.”

Baker is right.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the Pentagon, CIA, and MI6 are letting Israel and the Zionists take the blame for the coming global war.

The two staged events that started this world war–the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the 9/11 attacks–were both the products of the shadow CIA and MI6 that exist separately within the official CIA and MI6.

See: Asian Secret Societies (the Dragon Family) Want Their Gold Back; the Western Secret Societies Blew Up the World Trade Center So That They Wouldn't Have to Give It Back

See: The Church Will Be 'Raptured' at Armageddon

See: Iran-Russia-China Military Alliance: Russia and China Will Not Stand Idly By If Iran Is Attacked

See: World War III, the Rise of the Anti-Christian One-world Government and Religion, and the Abomination of Desolation

Mossad is only a secondary actor in this game.

I’m not vilifying Israel because it wasn’t Israel that put Khomeini and Islamic radicals in power in Iran in 1979 who cause unnecessary trouble by describing the Israeli government as the “regime occupying Jerusalem.” I’m not vilifying Israel because it wasn’t Israel that staged the hostage crisis in Iran after the Islamic revolution. Both of those manufactured events were engineered by shadow CIA-MI6 operatives and their well-placed friends in Iran’s intelligence and security services. The facts prove it.

But they want us to blame Israel. Why? Because the globalist architects and cultural programmers who want to create a clash of civilizations need a scapegoat. And they tell themselves: who better to blame than the historically persecuted and ancient Jewish people? They expect people to dump their hate and anger on Israel, and absolve the globalist rascals in Washington and London of their sins. Well, I’m not buying it, and neither should you.

World War III isn’t about Israel against the world.

World War II isn’t about Israel provoking an unwanted conflict with Iran and dragging a reluctant Pentagon for the wild ride.

World War III is about the Satanic international banksters and globalist nuclear terrorists in Washington and London sacrificing all three nations involved in the conflict: Israel, Iran, and America.

Let’s not be blinded by anti-Semitism. Let’s not overlook the fact that the globalist genocidal mass murderers who control the CIA, MI6, and Pentagon have plotted a third world war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel since the Soviet Union collapsed, and probably even before then.

Trusting the CIA, MI6, and Pentagon more than the Mossad is a very risky gamble. History shows we would be foolish to take this risk. The narrative the CIA/Pentagon propaganda machine is putting out makes Israel the sole bad guy and abstains them from the guilt and shame of being the murderers behind World War Three and Nuclear Armageddon.

This fractured narrative blurs the truth and shields the globalist terrorists from public wrath. If we are to believe the CIA and Pentagon, Israel and Iran are the demonic villains, and America is the reluctant but stern warrior and international steward of the Persian Gulf and global economy. It is very sweet and touching. Very Hollywoodesque.

This is how the CIA/Pentagon plot reads: Israel and Iran create a huge mess that pulls in America after it decided to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, two newly created democracies. Once again, the blood of Americans must be spilled to resolve the crisis, bring the two parties to the table, and create a lasting peace in the Middle East.

And this is the planned global popular reaction to the telling of this mythical tale: Wow. The U.S. military is so impressive. America is so heroic. Washington is saving civilization. What wonderful people are Pentagon generals and CIA officers. May their hearts be blessed. May they continue to teach the Jews and the Persians how to live together in peace. We hope they never leave the Middle East because their wisdom, maturity, and grace will always be needed in this region of the world.

If only it were true.

If only Pentagon generals and CIA officers weren’t cold-blooded bastards and traitors who would kill an American president in an instant if he crossed their interests.

If only Pentagon generals and CIA officers didn’t write documents like Operation Northwoods that say staging false flag attacks in the United States is okay.

If only the mass murderers and terrorists were in Tel Aviv and nowhere else. But life isn’t that simple.

You can believe in the myth that Israel is the only villain in this drama all you want. In the real world, however, the biggest mass murderers and liars are in London and Washington, not Tel Aviv. They started World War III on September 11, 2001, because they want to destroy America, Israel, Iran, and every nation so they can rule Earth with a global fascist government.

See: Banking Cartel Is the New World Order

See: IMF and the World Bank

See: Battle Over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem

See: Obama Favors Arab Sovereignty Over the Temple Mount

See: The Chronological Order of the Book of Revelation

See: Drones and the End Times

See: Corporate Takeover of America

See: Elite Ruling Class Owns the Governments of the World

See: Final Global Empire Will Arise

See: Fourth Beast Kingdom Which is Yet to Come

See: We Are on the Road to World War III

See: New World Order Is Upon Us

See: Illuminati Meeting at Bohemian Grove July 16 - July 17, 2011

See: NWO Order Plans Exposed by Insider in 1969: One World Government Under the Devil Without Liberty or Justice for All

See: Obama: New World Order Puppet

See: Obama, the Illuminati, and the Zionist Agenda

See: Zionism vs. Peace in the Middle East

U.S. Officials, Analysts Say Syria Intervention Unlikely; U.S. Closes Embassy in Syria

U.S. Embassy in Syria Closed, Diplomats Evacuated

ABC News
February 6, 2012

The United States has whisked its remaining diplomats out of Syria and suspended operations at its embassy in Damascus as violence there continues to increase, U.S. officials told ABC News.

The skeletal staff, including Ambassador Robert Ford, departed quietly despite in some cases being denied exit visas by Syrian authorities, the officials said.

"The recent surge in violence, including bombings in Damascus on Dec. 23 and Jan. 6, has raised serious concerns that our Embassy is not sufficiently protected from armed attack," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said today. "We, along with several other diplomatic missions, conveyed our security concerns to the Syrian government but the regime failed to respond adequately."

The embassy had already drawn down its staffing over the past several months amid concerns about their security. After the latest round of reductions in January a core group of only 17 remained in the country. Some departed overland to Jordan while others flew out of the airport in the capital.

The shuttering of the embassy follows similar steps by other Western countries in recent weeks. A U.S. official said that talks are ongoing with Poland to serve as the American protecting power in Syria while the U.S. embassy is closed.

Today's move comes after the Obama administration says its requests to Syrian authorities for increased security around the American embassy and its diplomats fell on deaf ears. The embassy is situated on a busy intersection in Damascus and officials say they feared al Qaeda elements, which are believed to be behind a string of car bombs in the Syrian capital, could target the Americans next. They had requested that the street the embassy is on be closed, but nothing was done.

The embassy had already been targeted by a pro-Assad mob last July after Ambassador Ford defied restrictions on his travel outside the capital and visited the restive city of Hama. Some in the crowd scaled the outer walls of the embassy and defaced the exterior, including the American flag, before being chased away by embassy guards.

The U.S. embassy, like other diplomatic facilities there, is guarded by Syrian security forces. U.S. officials say they were slow to respond and accused the government of sponsoring the protest.

Similar mobs have targeted Ambassador Ford's convoy when he went to visit a prominent opposition leader in September. Ford and his staff barricade themselves in the leader's office for several hours before Syrian security finally arrived to disperse the crowd. As they left the pro-Assad protestors pelted the cars with rocks, eggs, and tomatoes, damaging one of them significantly, officials said at the time.

The Syrian government's crackdown on the movement to oust President Assad has become increasingly bloody in recent months. The United Nations stopped counting the dead late last month, saying it was too hard to keep up with and verify the body counts. At the time it placed the death toll at more than 5,400. Since then there have been reports of hundreds more killed.

Opposition elements have also stepped up efforts to fight back, raising fears that the once peaceful movement could evolve into a civil war.

Ambassador Ford has been one of the most vocal critics of the Assad government over the past year. In August President Obama called on Assad to step down, and the United States has supported resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that would do the same.

The latest effort at the United Nations, proposed by Morocco and backed by the Arab League, was vetoed on Saturday by Russia and China who have maintained support for President Assad and are reluctant to endorse another resolution that could lead to foreign intervention like in the case of Libya.

U.S. Officials, Analysts Say Syria Intervention Unlikely, as Pentagon Mulls Options

The Envo
Febuary 8, 2012

Even as top American officials say they have no plans for military intervention in Syria, the Pentagon is reportedly reviewing its options as the death toll continues to mount in Syria's ten-month crackdown.

Still, American officials and analysts said talk of any Libya-style military intervention in Syria is highly premature.

"Obama, Rice, Clinton have ruled out military intervention," former Pentagon Syria and Lebanon analyst David Schenker told Yahoo News Wednesday.

Reports that the Pentagon is reviewing Syria options "make it sound like they are doing something. It doesn't strike me as a serious threat" to use force, he said.

"The Pentagon is constantly reviewing plans, taking plans off the shelf, looking at them, honing them, updating them," Schenker continued.

In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer taped last Sunday, President Obama downplayed prospects for action.

"I think it is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention, and I think that's possible," he said.

On Tuesday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the same to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"Before we start talking about military options, we very much want to ensure that we have exhausted all the political, economic and diplomatic means at our disposal."

Why are American so reluctant to militarily intervene in Syria, given that they were quick to launch a NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya last March?

"Syria is a lot more complicated," Schenker said, noting its borders with Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Israel, sectarian divisions, and arsenal of anti-aircraft weapons.

"It would be a far more complex operation."

Neo-Cons Hate Ron Paul’s Honest Foreign Policy

Why Neo-Cons Hate Ron Paul’s Honest Foreign Policy

This article, originally titled “Ron Paul: Propagandist Or Prophet?”, was written by Jeremy R. Hammond and published at Foreign Policy Journal

Alt-Market
December 27, 2011

Ron Paul is “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”, writes Dorothy Rabinowitz in a recent Wall Street Journal hit piece. To support the charge, she writes that Dr. Paul “assures audiences” that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 “took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions”. It’s “True,” she writes, that “we’ve heard the assertions before”, but only “rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us”—and, she adds, he doesn’t care about the victims of the attacks.

The vindictive rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that Ron Paul is guilty of here? It is completely uncontroversial that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

Notice that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually deny that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by such U.S. policies as these. Rather, Ron Paul’s sin is that he actually acknowledges this truth. The fact that other political figures choose to ignore or deny this fact hardly reflects poorly on Dr. Paul. Refusing to bury one’s head deeply up one’s arse, as Rabinowitz is so obviously willing to do, is hardly a character trait to be faulted.

From this position of willful ignorance, Rabinowitz then implores her readers that “a President Paul” would “be making decisions about the nation’s defense, national security, domestic policy and much else.” The conclusion one is supposed to draw is that anyone who could actually acknowledge the ugly truth that 9/11 was a consequence of U.S. foreign policy isn’t fit for office; only someone who is willing to delude him or herself that the U.S. was attacked because “they hate our freedoms” is worthy of the presidency. Anyone who wishes to change U.S. foreign policy is unfit; only a person who is willing to continue the status quo should be allowed a seat in the Oval Office.

Rabinowitz warns that “The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead.” It’s not clear who she has in mind with the “another”, but it’s by now a familiar refrain. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are,” President George H. W. Bush declared to the world after a U.S. warship had shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, killing all 290 passengers aboard, including 65 children. Surely, any president willing to apologize for the murder of innocent children must not lead the nation. The horror of the thought!

And then there is Dr. Paul’s position with respect to Iran. He recently urged his host in an interview “to understand that Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map.” Here, again, it’s notable that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually dispute this. Dr. Paul is, of course, correct. The claim that Iran has threatened to acquire nuclear weapons to “wipe Israel off the map” is a complete fabrication of Western media propaganda, and mainstream corporate news agencies know it is a fabrication, but repeat it obligatorily anyway.

Rabinowitz presumably does, as well, so instead of challenging Dr. Paul on the facts, she quotes him saying “They’re just defending themselves” and writing, “Presumably he was referring to Iran’s wishes for a bomb.” In the interview referred to, Dr. Paul had said,

“I don’t want them to get the nuclear weapon”, but pointed out that Israel’s defense minister, “Ehud Barak said that they’re acting logically, and they’re acting in their self-interest, and if he was an Iranian, he would probably think the same way” (Dr. Paul is correct on this, also; it’s true that Barak has “quipped that if he were an Iranian, he would take part in the development of nuclear weapons”).

Rabinowitz also disinclines herself to point out what Dr. Paul said next:

“But there is a gross distortion to this debate that they are on the verge of a nuclear weapon. There is no evidence that they are on the verge of a nuclear weapon, and we shouldn’t be ready to start another war” (Dr. Paul is correct on this, too, and has rightly drawn parallels to the current propaganda about Iran and the lies that preceded the war on Iraq).

So, once again, we see that Ron Paul’s true sin is his failure to jump on board with the war propaganda. A further sin is that he said after 9/11 that “there was ‘glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.” But is the contention that those policymakers responsible for the war on Iraq were not happy that they now had the opportunity to do so sustainable?

Is Rabinowitz unaware that in 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser coauthored a document prepared for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, which made the case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime? Or that the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose membership was a virtual who’s who of so-called “neoconservatives” calling for war on Iraq, had a manifesto calling for regime change and stating that the “process of transformation” of the U.S. military into a force to “preserve American military preeminence” around the globe “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor”? That PNAC director Robert Kagan acknowledged that the 9/11 attacks were the “Pearl Harbor” he and his ilk were looking for, writing in the Washington Post that 9/11 must be used to “to launch a new era of American internationalism. Let’s not squander this opportunity”?

Yet again, it becomes evident that Ron Paul’s sin is that he is too willing to be honest with the American people and speak the truth about U.S. foreign policy. Just as Dr. Paul predicted and warned about the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008, so did he predict and warn prior to 9/11 that U.S. foreign policy would result in what the intelligence community terms “blowback”. Ron Paul has a long record of speaking truth to power and making predictions that have come to pass.

Rabinowitz concludes, “It seemed improbable that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is.” That Ron Paul has emerged in Iowa as a frontrunner is a hopeful sign that Americans are waking up to the realities of U.S. foreign policy and are tired of crude propagandists for U.S. wars and empire insulting their intelligence, as Rabinowitz—who is a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board—does so well in her column.

Turkey Says Attack on Iran 'Would Be Disaster'

Attack on Iran 'Would Be Disaster,' Must Talk: Turkey

Reuters
February 5, 2012

Turkey and Qatar urged the West Sunday not to attack Iran to solve a nuclear row, but to make greater efforts to negotiate an end to the dispute.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, a gathering of security officials and diplomats, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said an attack would be a "disaster" and the dispute over Iran's nuclear program could be ended very rapidly.

"If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days," he said. "The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will."

Turkey was the venue of the last talks between Western powers and Iran a year ago which ended in stalemate because participants could not even agree on an agenda.

The West has since imposed much tougher sanctions on Iran, which it suspects of seeking nuclear weapons capability. Iran says its nuclear work is purely civilian and peaceful.

Davutoglu added:

"A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again but this time there will be a complete result."

In Tehran, the deputy head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards told the semi-official Fars news agency Iran would attack any country whose territory is used by "enemies" of the Islamic state to launch a military strike against its soil.

Washington and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the standoff. Iran has warned of firm retaliation if attacked, including targeting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane.

Qatar's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Khalid Mohamed al-Attiyah, whose Gulf country is increasingly active in regional diplomacy, said an attack "is not a solution, and tightening the embargo on Iran will make the scenario worse. I believe we should have dialogue."

"I believe that with our allies and friend in the West we should open a serious dialogue with the Iranians to get out of this dilemma. This is what we feel in our region."

Tension between Iran and the West rose last month when Washington and the European Union imposed the toughest sanctions yet on Iran to try to force it to provide more information on its nuclear program. The measures are aimed at shutting off the second-biggest OPEC oil exporters' sales of crude.

Iran Threatens to Target Any Country Used as a Launchpad for Attacks Against Its Soil

Iran Threatens to Hit Any Country Used to Attack Its Soil

Reuters
February 5, 2012

Iran will target any country used as a launchpad for attacks against its soil, the deputy Revolutionary Guards commander said, expanding Tehran's range of threats in an increasingly volatile stand-off with world powers over its nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Iran's supreme clerical leader threatened reprisals for the West's new ban on Iranian oil exports and the U.S. defense secretary was quoted as saying Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it assembling nuclear weapons.

Although broadened and sharpened financial sanctions have begun to inflict serious economic pain in Iran, its oil minister asserted on Saturday it would make no nuclear retreat even if its crude oil exports ground to a halt.

Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes. But its recent shift of uranium enrichment to a mountain bunker possibly impervious to conventional bombing, and refusal to negotiate peaceful guarantees for the program or open up to U.N. nuclear inspectors, have thickened an atmosphere of brewing confrontation, raising fears for Gulf oil supplies.

"Any spot used by the enemy for hostile operations against Iran will be subjected to retaliatory aggression by our armed forces," Hossein Salami, deputy head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the semi-official Fars news agency on Sunday.

The Guards began two days of military maneuvers in southern Iran on Saturday in another show of force for Iran's adversaries associated with tensions over its disputed nuclear program.

The United States and Israel, Iran's arch-enemies, have not ruled out a military strike on Tehran if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear stalemate.

Salami did not identify which countries he meant as possible hosts for military action against it.

The six, U.S.-allied Arab states in the Gulf Cooperation Council, situated on the other side of the vital oil exporting waterway from Iran, have said they would not allow their territories to be used for attacks on the Islamic Republic.

But analysts say that if Iran retaliated for an attack launched from outside the region by targeting U.S. facilities in Gulf Arab states, Washington might pressure the host nations to permit those bases to hit back, arguing they should have the right to defend themselves.

The Gulf states that host U.S. military facilities are Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

THREAT TO SHUT VITAL OIL CHANNEL

Iran has warned its response to any such strike will be "painful," threatening to target Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the Strait of Hormuz used by one third of the world's seaborne oil traffic.

Betraying nervousness about possible blowback from any military strike on Iran, two of its neighbors - Qatar and Turkey - urged the West on Sunday to make greater efforts to negotiate a solution to the nuclear row.

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference attended by top world policymakers, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said an attack would be a "disaster" and the dispute over Iran's nuclear program could be ended very rapidly.

"If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days," he said. "The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will."

He added: "A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again but this time there will be a complete result."

Turkey was the venue of the last talks between Western powers and Iran a year ago which ended in stalemate because participants could not even agree on an agenda.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Mohamed al-Attiyah said an attack "is not a solution, and tightening the embargo on Iran will make the scenario worse.

"I believe that with our allies and friends in the West we should open a serious dialogue with the Iranians to get out of this dilemma. This is what we feel in our region."

Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, throttling the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

A military strike on Iran and Iran's response, which might include an attack on the oilfields of No. 1 exporter Saudi Arabia, would send oil prices soaring, which could seriously harm the global economy.

Israel Could Strike Iran Soon: Will This Lead to World War III?

The Pentagon realized through their game scenarios that if they started all-out World War III, 90 percent of humanity would die — including most of them. So they didn’t want to go along with it. The Pentagon has systematically sabotaged these plans. They constantly prevented attacks on Iran. They stopped Israeli air raids. They invaded Georgia to stop an Israeli attack on Iran from there. They didn’t want to start World War III, because they realized it was insanity. [The South Ossetia war… was an Israeli air base that was designed to attack Iran and start this whole thing.] Yet the 'Powers That Be' are still trying to attack Iran. One of the enforcement arms that could come into play, now that a wedge has been driven with this lawsuit, is the Pentagon. The good guys in the Pentagon could at some point actually do mass arrests at gunpoint of most of the House of Representatives and the Senate — these guys have private accounts in the Vatican Bank and they have been bribed. - David Wilcock's interview with Ben Fulford, CONFIRMED: The Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit That Could End Financial Tyranny, Divine Cosmos, December 12, 2011

The Rockefeller faction in the U.S. is building up the military; they’re trying to get the Western countries on a full, militarized basis to prepare for World War III. They want to reduce population and they want to wipe out the Chinese. And they don’t want to lose control. They don’t want to lose power. They still have their Messianic, fascist, cultist beliefs that they are destined to rule humanity. The Israeli newspapers openly referred to China and Russia and Iran as Magog, and the G5 and G7 as Gog. They were trying to get all these countries to kill each other. They were trying to start World War III... They had this plan to start this whole Gog and Magog thing again. This time the plan involved starting a limited nuclear war between Iran and Israel. They were going to use that war as an excuse to set up martial law in the G7 countries. They’ve been trying it for quite a long time now — ever since 2001, even before... They are still trying to attack Iran. I’ve had reports now that they are planting nuclear bombs in the seabed off the shore of Tokyo to create another tsunami here. - Asian Secret Societies (the Dragon Family) Want Their Gold Back; the Western Secret Societies Blew Up the World Trade Center So That They Wouldn't Have to Give It Back

According to David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries:

President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 14, 1972, which reorganized the United States into 10 federal regions... The unconstitutional goal of this reorganization into 10 super regions is to set the stage for the abolishment of governments from the federal, to the state, to the county, and even to the local, levels. The objective is to set in place the form of government that could be implemented during a planned crisis, that would effectively strip us of our elected representational form of government. Suddenly, we would find ourselves being governed by officials who are not elected, nor responsible to any voters.

This regional system is apparently unlimited in its scope and powers. Thus, Americans could very well discover that they are back under the control of the type of government that our Founding Fathers spent their lives and fortunes overthrowing! Worse still, we could find ourselves facing the type of dictator which we have seen ruling Russia and Nazi Germany.

This regional system is also apparently a military structure. We will see this more clearly when the federal program called "General and Complete Disarmament" (Public Law 87-297) is fully integrated according to this 10-region system of government. We also will probably not see this 10-region system implemented until we are under the simultaneous crises of which we have spoken many times.

When America is under the following planned crises, we will witness this changeover to this 10-region system, most likely with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) exercising initial control. These are apparently the crises that are planned:

1. All-out nuclear warfare in the Middle East (or neutron warfare).


2. All-out nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula (or at least the threat of such a war).


3. Arab terrorists threatening to devastate American cities with atomic, chemical or biological weapons (or actually carrying out this threat).


4. Total oil embargo from the Arab nations in support of Arab forces fighting Israel in the Middle East.


5. Earthquakes deliberately caused to create panic.


6. Simultaneous riots in many American cities to further cause panic.


7. American Presidency weakened because of scandal and infighting with Congress and the Courts to further cause panic among American voters.


8. The Stock Market will crash, causing absolute panic amongst all Americans. Jobs will immediately begin to be lost, thus further adding to the panic.

Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis. If this occurs, then "aliens" and visible "angels" are to appear to urge all peoples of the world to support him and his plan.

At this moment, the head of FEMA will suddenly appear, announcing that he is taking "temporary" control, and quoting all the various Executive Orders and laws passed by Congress giving him all the authority he needs to assume the powers of government, of all branches of our former Constitutional government.

Once this changeover to the new 10-region system of government occurs, amidst all these contrived and planned crises, you may rest assured the End of the Age is upon us.

World War III will occur before the Antichrist appears to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. After the Third World War, the new temple will be rebuilt for Antichrist, not Jesus Christ. A one-world government with a one-world religion will be established, the anti-Christian kingdom prophesied in chapter 13 of the book of Revelation. This one-world power will offer apparent peace and security to a world in chaos. The devil, Satan, will establish his earthly kingdom for "a little season," so that he as God will stand in the holy place, showing himself that he is God, and he will deceive many with his signs and wonders. - Satan's Final Deception Before Christ Returns

Once you understand that Middle Eastern events are being driven by this fervent Masonic desire to rebuild Solomon's Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, then you will be able to make sense of what is occurring over there today. To finally realize this dream, control of Jerusalem, generally, and of the Temple Mount, especially, must pass from Israeli control; but it must not pass to Arab control. Rather, control of Jerusalem must pass to the Illuminized International Community. God is using this Masonic "preoccupation" with Jerusalem to pull all the nations of the world together against Jerusalem. Literally, out of the smoke, devastation and terror of the planned World War III, The Christ (Antichrist) shall come striding. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries, June 25, 2009

The goal of the New Jerusalem Covenant Project is to create the plan by which Antichrist can solve the Middle East crisis; Antichrist will use this crisis to stage his appearance in the world. Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis (World War III). The prophetic reality of Daniel 9:24-27, Matthew 24:15 and Revelation 11:1-12 is that the new Temple will be built after World War III and will produce the Man of Sin. Thus, the Illuminati plans to destroy the Dome of the Rock during the World War III fighting so that their Antichrist can rebuild Solomon's Temple. This reality means that Arabs will retain control over the Temple Mount until the moment Antichrist comes to the world scene and seizes it for the Jews so his temple can be created. "Peace and safety" will be heralded, and the leaders of the major nations will be busy taking credit for their "brilliant" leadership that seemingly finally solved the deeply engrained religious strife in and around Jerusalem that has plagued mankind for the past 1,400 years. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries

Well before the battle of Armageddon [the final battle and final judgment], but during the final three and one-half years of this earth, the anti-Christian kingdom shall reach its full manifestation. The anti-Christian kingdom shall be the climax of the development of the man of sin: it is the kingdom of man, of the creature, without God, without the seven; and therefore his number is 666, the number of man indeed. The kingdom of man under Satan shall be complete: it shall be a kingdom which has sway over all the universe, over all men, over all the powers of creation; it shall be a kingdom in which man worships his own work and in which the devil is lord supreme. "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up;" that is, the devil incarnate, claiming to be God, shall rule over his world government from Jerusalem for five months before Christ returns in the clouds of heaven to deliver up His people as the nations prepare for the battle of Armageddon. - Outline of the Book of Revelation

Bible prophecy describes the battle of Armageddon [the final war on earth, which occurs after Christ returns in the clouds of heaven to deliver up His people] as a coalition of nations that will almost certainly include China and Russia and several Muslim nations of the Middle East. Every day, the evidence mounts that China will be tightly leagued with Russia and many of the Islamic nations in a powerful anti-Israel political and military alliance from which the 200-million-man army described in the book of Revelation (Rev. 9:16) will ultimately come. - The Sixth Trumpet War of Revelation 9

The Euphrates originates in Turkey, and flows through Syria and Iraq; then it converges with the Tigris River, which then borders Iran. Anyone who hears the daily news should know that these four nations are extremely volatile trouble spots for military conflicts nowadays. The prophecies even imply that the nation of Iraq, once controlled by the regime of Saddam Hussein, will be a notable part of this final showdown. The population of these countries today is: Turkey -- 77 million; Syria -- 19.4 million; Iraq -- 29 million; Iran -- 70 million. The total population of that region is 195.4 million. Obviously, a 200-million-man army cannot come from these nations alone. In the light of China's cooperation with Iran and Syria (both openly and covertly), it appears to be fairly certain that China will league with Iran and Syria, somehow engaging Iraq and Turkey as well, to attempt to defeat Israel and the West. Their rabid anti-Zionism, anti-American hatred will not die, but will escalate into the worst conflagration in the history of human conflicts. Every day, the evidence mounts that China will be tightly leagued with Russia and many of the Islamic nations in a powerful new anti-Israel political and military alliance from which this 200-million-man army will ultimately come. - Ken Raggio

The essay "The Sixth Trumpet War of Revelation 9" presents a coalition of forces -- in particular, China, Russia, Iran, Syria and Turkey -- attacking Israel from the East at the sixth trumpet in a war before the battle of Armageddon. However, the war which begins at the sixth trumpet is the battle of Armageddon, when the heathen nations join forces to destroy Jerusalem. This coalition of forces, called Gog and Magog in the Bible, will prepare to attack the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem. It will be upon this scene, when the heathen nations are gathered in battle and surrounding Jerusalem, that Christ will return to deliver up His people. - The Church Will Be 'Raptured' at Armageddon

Israel Sounds Like It Wants to Strike Iran

February 3, 2012

The Atlantic Wire - In some of the more disturbing news you'll hear about the Middle East, U.S.Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is predicting an Israeli attack on Iran could come as soon as April and right now top Israeli security officials aren't doing much to convince us otherwise. In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, David Ignatius writes that,

"Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb".

Panetta declined to comment about the published reports when he talked with reporters yesterday, but CNN confirmed the Panetta timetable with an unnamed senior administration official in a report posted yesterday night.

Israel's top security officials are making Panetta's timeframe look very solid at the moment. On Thursday Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel's security agency (the Shin Bet), warned that Iranian agents have been targeting Israelis in retaliation for the death of the Iranian nuclear scientist.

"It doesn't matter if it's true or not that Israel took out the nuclear scientists. A major, serious country like Iran cannot let this go on," said Cohen in a report by Haaretz today.

"They want to deter Israel and extract a price so that decision-makers in Israel think twice before they order an attack on an Iranian scientist," Cohen added.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak bolstered Cohen's comments yesterday, declaring that time was running out for stopping Iran's nuclear device.

"Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak said in a WaPo report.

Read More...

Panetta Says Israel Could Strike Iran in Spring: Report

AFP
February 2, 2013

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a "strong possibility" that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear installations this spring, the Washington Post said Thursday in an editorial.

When asked about the opinion piece by reporters travelling with him to a NATO meeting in Brussels, Panetta brushed it aside.

"I'm not going to comment on that. David Ignatius can write what he will but with regards with what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else," he said.

"Israel indicated they're considering this (a strike), we've indicated our concerns," he added.

The Post columnist said Panetta "believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."

President Barack Obama and Panetta are "said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold," he said.

"But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack."

Panetta said Sunday in an interview with CBS that Iran needed "about a year" to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, and one or two more years to "put it on a deliverable vehicle."

Iran insists its nuclear project is peaceful and has threatened retaliation over the fresh sanctions, including possibly disrupting shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Israeli media reported in October last year that the option of pre-emptive air strikes on Iran was opposed by the country's intelligence services but favored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

Israeli television said Mossad chief Tamir Pardo raised the possibility of a unilateral strike on Iran during a visit last week to Washington.

Panetta Lets Stand Report Israel May Attack Iran

The Associated Press
February 2, 2012

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta won't dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

Panetta was asked by reporters to comment on a Washington Post opinion column by David Ignatius that said Panetta believes there is a "strong likelihood" that Israel will attack in April, May or June. Ignatius did not say who told him this.

Asked whether he disputes the report, Panetta said,

"No, I'm just not commenting."

He added, "What I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else."

He noted that Israel has stated publicly that it is considering military action against Iran.

He said the U.S. has "indicated our concerns."

War with Iran is Inevitable

February 4, 2012

Simon Nguyen, Yahoo! Contributor Network- Defense secretary Leon Panetta raised some eyebrows this week when he told Washington Post journalist David Ignatius that Israel might strike Iran's secretive nuclear facilities sometime this spring. The revelation makes it likely Israel will pursue this move. Panetta would not have publicly given a timetable for an Israeli strike unless such a plan is in the final stages.

This would not be the first time Israel takes out nuclear facilities in an Arab country. Israeli airplanes allegedly bombed a Syrian nuclear site in 2007. While Syria's reaction to the air strike was rather muted, one should expect a much more aggressive response from the Iranians if their facilities are attacked.

As Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary, a direct attack from Israel will surely trigger war between the countries. Since the U.S. and Israel are inseparable, this means America will likely be involved in the conflict one way or another. In a meeting with U.S airmen on Friday, Panetta was reported by the Associated Press to have given hint of possible military actions if Iran does not reverse course.

A war with Iran is likely to extend beyond conventional battlefields. Iran's greatest weapons are not tanks and guns, but its networks of proxies and terrorist groups. What actions Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza will undertake to support their ally Iran against Israel? Will Iran join hands with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to plan attacks on the U.S. and its allies?

The biggest concern with regard to a possible Israel-Iran conflict is its impact on the region and on the world's economy. The Middle East is already at a boiling point with mass unrests and unstable governments. The last thing it needs is a war between Israel and Iran. Also, Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz where 20 percent of the world's oil shipments are estimated by the EIA to pass through.

In a possible conflict, the Iranians will likely go through with this threat, which will bring oil prices to record highs.

Iran Launches New Military Exercises

February 4, 2012

AP - Iran began ground military exercises Saturday and defiantly warned that it could cut off oil exports to "hostile" European nations as tensions rise over suggestions that military strikes are an increasing possibility if sanctions fail to rein in the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

Tehran has stepped up its rhetoric as international pressure mounts over allegations that it is seeking to develop atomic weapons, a charge it denies.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued stern warnings against any possible U.S. or Israeli attacks against Tehran's nuclear facilities. Western forces also have boosted their naval presence in the Gulf led by the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

The new military maneuvers came weeks after Iran rolled out its troops and arsenals in an unprecedented display of military readiness, with 10 days of naval maneuvers that included the first threats to block Gulf oil tankers in early January. Ground forces also were sent on winter war games — against what a Tehran military spokesman called a "hypothetical enemy" — with U.S. forces just over the border in Afghanistan.

Plans for new Iranian naval games in the Persian Gulf off the country's southern coast have been in the works for weeks.

Iranian state media reported the ground maneuvers of the elite Revolutionary Guard started Saturday near Jiroft, 745 miles (1,200 kilometers) south of the capital Tehran. No more details were available, but it appeared that they were small-scale exercises and not linked to the planned major naval maneuvers near the Strait of Hormuz, the route for one-fifth of the world's crude oil.

Iranian officials and lawmakers repeatedly have threatened to close the strait, which funnels down to a waterway no wider than 30 miles (50 kilometers) at the mouth of the Gulf, in retaliation for sanctions that affect Iran's oil exports. But they have as yet made no attempts to disrupt shipping through the waterway, and the U.S. and other Western powers have warned they would respond swiftly to any attempts at a blockade.

Washington and its allies fear Iran could use its uranium enrichment labs — which make nuclear fuel — to eventually produce weapons-grade material. Tehran insists it only seeks reactors for energy and medical research.

So far, the West is relying primarily on the threat of economic sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program.

Tehran has claimed that the most recent move — EU sanctions approved on Jan. 23, which include an oil embargo and the freezing of central bank assets — will be ineffective, while members of Iran's parliament say they have drafted a bill which would cut off the flow to Europe early, before it can find alternative suppliers.

Iran's Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi also said Saturday the Islamic Republic would "definitely" cut off oil to "hostile" European countries, without specifying which ones they were.

However, he said Iran is moving toward reducing reliance on oil revenues, a hint that Tehran is preparing for the worst. Oil sales account for about 80 percent of Iran's foreign revenues.

Qassemi, the oil minister, reiterated Iran's argument that the EU oil embargo will not cripple Iran's economy, claiming that the country already has identified new customers to replace the loss in European sales that accounted for about 18 percent of Iran's exports.

"We've made the necessary planning to deal with that. We have friends in the world and will assist each other," he said. "We won't back down a single step under political pressures and won't give up our right position even if we can't sell a single barrel of oil."

In contrast, he said, the ban would rebound on oil consumers.

"If Iran's oil is totally deleted from the market, then a terrible tension will be created. The costs will be intolerable. The option of imposing a total ban on Iran's crude exports is unenforceable," he said.

Qassemi also reinforced Iran's warning to Saudi Arabia and other fellow OPEC members against boosting production to offset any potential drop in Tehran's crude exports, saying the cartel should not be used as a political weapon against a member state.

Israel, for its part, has so far publicly backed the efforts by the U.S. and European Union for tougher sanctions that target Iran's oil exports. But Israeli leaders have urged even harsher measures and warn that military action remains a clear option despite Western appeals to allow time for the economic pressures and isolation to bear down on Iran.

Khamenei, in a nationally broadcast speech on Friday, staked out a hard line after suggestions by Israel that military strikes are an increasing possibility if sanctions fail to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

He pledged to aid any nation or group that challenges Israel and said any military strikes would damage U.S. interests in the Middle East "10 times" more than they would hurt Iran. The comments also may signal that Tehran's proxy forces — led by Lebanon's Islamic militant group Hezbollah — could be given the green light to revive attacks on Israel as the showdown between the rivals intensifies.