by Webster G. Tarpley
July 21, 2010
After about two and a half years during which the danger of war between the
United States and Iran was at a relatively low level, this threat is now
A pattern of political and diplomatic events,
military deployments, and media chatter now indicates that Anglo-American
ruling circles, acting through the troubled
administration, are currently gearing up for a campaign of
bombing against Iran, combined with special forces incursions designed to
stir up rebellions among the non-Persian nationalities of the Islamic
Naturally, the probability of a new fake Gulf of
Tonkin incident or false flag terror attack staged by the Anglo-American war
party and attributed to Iran or its proxies is also growing rapidly.
The moment in the recent past when the US came closest to attacking Iran was
August-September 2007, at about the time of the major Israeli bombing raid
This was the phase during which the Cheney
faction in effect hijacked a fully loaded B-52 bomber equipped with six
nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and attempted to take it to the Middle East
outside of the command and control of the Pentagon, presumably to be used in
a colossal provocation designed by the private rogue network for which
Cheney was the visible face.
A few days before the B-52 escaped control of
legally constituted US authorities, a group of antiwar activists issued The
Kennebunkport Warning of August 24-25, 2007, which had been drafted by the
present writer.2 It was very significant that US institutional
forces acted at that time to prevent the rogue B-52 from proceeding on its
way towards the Middle East.
The refusal to let the rogue B-52 take off
reflected a growing consensus in the US military-intelligence community and
the ruling elite in general that the Bush-Cheney-neocon policy of direct
military aggression towards all comers had become counterproductive and very
dangerous, running the risk of a terminal case of imperial overstretch.
A prominent spokesman for the growing disaffection with the neocons was
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been a national security
director in the Carter administration.
Brzezinski argued that no more direct military
attacks by the United States should be made for the time being, and that US
policy should rather focus on playing off other states against each other,
while the US remained somewhat aloof. Brzezinski’s model was always his own
successful playing of the Soviet Union against Afghanistan in 1979, leading
to the collapse of the Soviet empire a decade later.
A centerpiece of Brzezinski’s argument was
evidently the claim that color revolutions on the model of Ukraine 2004 were
much a better tool than the costly and dangerous US bombing and US invasion
always championed by the monomaniacal neocons.
There was clearly an implication that Brzezinski
could deliver a color revolution in Iran, as he had done in Ukraine.
of 2007 Is Back
Brzezinski formulated his critique of the neocon methods of aggression and
imperialistic geopolitics in his testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in February 2007, going so far as to point out the
likely scenario of a false flag event or Gulf of Tonkin incident designed to
embroil the United States in direct military hostilities with Iran.
The heart of Brzezinski’s analysis was this:
‘If the United States continues to be bogged
down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination
on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and
with much of the world of Islam at large.
A plausible scenario for a military
collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks;
followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then
by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on
Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran
that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire
eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.’ 3
Today we could add Lebanon and Syria to that
list, plus perhaps Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and some others in central Asia.
The factors contributing to the current increased danger level include three
The CIA’s Green Movement in Iran Has Fizzled
I. The US sponsored Green
Movement in Iran has now demonstrably failed in its project of
overthrowing the Achmadinejad government.
Back in 2006-2007, the
Brzezinski-Nye-Trilateral “soft power” or “smart power” group attacked
the stupidity of the neocon plan for a direct US military attack on Iran
by pointing out the opportunities for staging a color revolution in
Iran, just as the Brzezinski faction had successfully staged the Orange
Revolution to install NATO puppets in Ukraine.
Why attack Iran directly, argued Brzezinski
and his friends, when a US puppet regime in Teheran could be used
against Russia and China in much the same way these same people had
played Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, with catastrophic results
of the latter. The apex of these subversion efforts came in June 2009,
with the so-called Twitter Revolution, which was celebrated with
hysterical gloating in the Anglo-American media.
The Mousavi-Rafsanjani faction left no doubt
about its CIA and MI-6 parentage with its signature chant of “Death to
Russia, Death to China.” The illusion of an easy coup in Iran has died
hard in Washington and London. But by June 2010, the impotence of the
Green forces in Iran had become evident. Hillary Clinton is even
complaining that Achmadinejad now represents a military-backed
government which has marginalized the mullahs, whom the US has demonized
in public but privately relied on to prevent the economic modernization
This gives rise to the tendency to fall back
on the previous neocon plan for some combination of direct military
attack by Israel and the United States, combined with escalated
subversion efforts among the Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmen, and Kurds
Russian Policy Now Uncertain
II. During the time that the
neocons were attempting to launch aggression against Iran, that task was
rendered much more difficult by pervasive uncertainty about the possible
reaction of Russia.
One of the targets of any bombing campaign
against Iran would necessarily be the Bushehr nuclear reactor, being
built by Russian technicians. Neocon war planners had to worry about
events like the visit to Tehran of Russian President Vladimir Putin on
October 16, 2007.
During the Putin era, Russian media and
figures like General Leonid Ivashov took the lead in calling attention
to suddenly increases in US-UK war preparations, as in the case of
Operation Byte, the attack on Iran proposed for Good Friday, April 6,
2007.4 While it was thought very unlikely that Russia would risk general
war as a result of an attack on Iran, there remained nevertheless the
question as to what Russia actually would do. This dangerous uncertainty
was a very serious obstacle for the pro-war agitation by the neocons.
In this way, Putin was able to make a decisive contribution to the
maintenance of world peace during the years after 9/11. As of mid-2010,
it would appear that the foreign policy of Russian President Medvedev is
momentarily evolving away from the fierce independence and Russian
nationalism championed by Putin, and is placing more value on projects
of cooperation with the NATO countries, sometimes obtained by unilateral
concessions to the US.
Part of this can be ascribed to the
increasing influence of the free market ideologue Anatoly Chubais, the
architect of the nomenklatura privatization of Soviet state property
during the 1990s, whose concept of the modernization of the Russian
economy depends very heavily on information technology, in which he
portrays the United States as being in the lead. Newsweek has reported
the approval of a new foreign policy outline drafted by the Russian
foreign ministry which has allegedly gained provisional approval by
This document is entitled “Program for the
Effective Exploitation on A Systemic Basis of Foreign Policy Factors for
the Purposes of the Long-Term Development of the Russian Federation.”
The main immediate effect of the reported
new Russian policy is the apparent willingness of the Kremlin to make
important foreign policy concessions to the United States with very
minimal returns. This in turn means that key unknowns surrounding a US
attack on Iran have become less of a concern for the resurgent neocon
war faction in Washington.
This adds up to a situation in which an
attack on Iran is now more likely.
The US-UK Hedge Fund Blitzkrieg Against the Euro
III. It is a grave error to
imagine that normal relations with the Anglo-American financiers can be
obtained in the current world depression through conciliatory behavior.
The US-UK are experiencing cataclysmic
instability in the form of a financial breakdown crisis, and this crisis
impels these powers towards irrational, adventuristic, and aggressive
A key lesson of the 1930s is that, when
imperialist financier elites are faced by a disintegration of their
fictitious speculative bubbles, they often respond with strategic
flights forward of the most lunatic sort. In the wake of the 2007-2008
disintegration of the Anglo-American banking system, the New York and
London elites have shown signs of going collectively bonkers, although
these clinical tendencies have been primarily expressed in the area of
their reactionary domestic socioeconomic policies.
The specific form assumed by this tendency
after the second half of 2008 involves the severe weakening of the US
dollar as the world reserve currency by the creation of a $24 trillion
credit line by the Federal Reserve, US Treasury, and FDIC for the
purpose of bailing out the Wall Street zombie banks.
This tidal wave of dollars led to a severe
weakening of the US greenback on international markets during most of
the second half of 2009. In late 2009 and early 2010 a group of
Anglo-American hedge funds around Soros, Paulson, David Einhorn, and
others launched a speculative attack against the government bonds of
Greece, Spain, and Portugal, with the goal of using a crisis in the
southern tier of the Euro to bring on a panic flight of hot money out of
the Euro, thus collapsing that currency to Third World levels.
Partly because of the countermeasures
instituted by the German government, including the banning of naked
credit default swaps on Euroland bonds and naked shorts of German
stocks, and partly thanks to direct support from China, the planned
Anglo-American blitzkrieg against the Euro has now bogged down after
eight months of effort, with the Euro currently oscillating at a price
of about $1.25 - $1.30.
This means that, unless the city of London
and Wall Street can come up with a new plan, the forces of world
economic depression represented by $1.5 quadrillion of bankrupt and
kited derivatives may now find a new victim, most likely in the form of
either the British pound or the US dollar.
The immediate threat of a pound or dollar currency collapse is leading
the ruling financier factions to reconsider a very dangerous flight
forward in the form of an attack on Iran, precisely because such an
aggression would likely lead to a blocking of the Straits of Hormuz or
in any case to a serious disruption of one third of the world’s tanker
Following the tested model of the Kippur
war/oil boycott of October 1973, the US-UK financiers would bid up the
price of oil to $500 or $1000 per barrel, thus creating enough demand
for dollars to soak up much of the dollar overhang and prop up the
greenback, at least for a time.
An Astronomical Oil
Price As Salvation for The US Dollar
As Jean-Michel Vernochet of the Réseau Voltaire has pointed
out, the likely Iranian retaliation for the looming attack in terms of
interdicting Hormuz and the Gulf is actually built into the US-UK war plan
as a positive contribution towards saving the dollar by massively driving up
the price of oil, which is of course still quoted mainly in dollars.6
Energy and Capital editor Christian A.
DeHaemer, an oil market analyst, commented:
“The last oil price shock in the Middle East
was in 1990 when the United States invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait. The
price per barrel of oil went from $21 to $28 on August 6… to $46 by
mid-October. The looming Iran War is not priced in,” he warned in his
Iran has the third-highest oil reserves in
the world and is second only to Saudi Arabia in production. If any
action prevents the flow of Iranian oil, the price of “black gold” would
soar, he added.’ (IsraelNationalNews.com) 7
Playing The Arabs
Against The Iranians
One important prerequisite for US aggression grows out of the Trilateral
group’s strategy, starting from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group of 2006,
of forming a block of the Sunni Arab nations against the Persian-speaking
Iranian Shiites and their allies in the Lebanese Hezbollah and the
Palestinian Hamas, as well as Syria.
The Anglo-American hope for this tactic of
divide and conquer is that hostility between Arabs and Persians will eclipse
the more recent enmity between Jews and Arabs.
“The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for
one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at (it)
for a thousand,” wrote Jeffrey Goldberg on The Atlantic’s website.8
With many reports that the United Arab Emirates
and Saudi Arabia are ready to support the US aggression, great importance
must be attached to the current struggle over the future shape of the
government of Iraq.
Here The secular Shiite Allawi is a US puppet,
while his rival Maliki prefers Iran. Sadr and his Mahdi army, closely linked
to Iran, represent a key stumbling block for US intentions.
The US requires an Iraqi puppet state which will
pursue at least a pro-US neutrality in case of war, and above all prevent
Iranian special forces or guerrillas from cutting the long US supply line
alone Route Tampa from Kuwait City. This is why the question of the Iraqi
government was so important that Vice President Biden had to make a special
trip to Iraq in the vain hope of quickly setting up a suitable puppet regime
If the Iraq army turns against US, the situation
of US forces could become extraordinarily critical.
War Warnings, Calls
Over recent days, warnings about imminent war and direct calls for war have
been proliferating in the world media.
The veteran Cuban leader Fidel Castro
gave his most detailed media interview since the beginning of his illness
several years ago, apparently for the express purpose of issuing a
warning about US aggressive plans for Iran, and also for North Korea (DPRK).
According to a wire dispatch of July 12,
‘the 83-year-old former president talked
about how tension between the United States and both North Korea and
Iran could ultimately trigger a global nuclear war...'
Castro warned that an attack on Iran would be
catastrophic for America.
“The worst (for America) is the resistance
they will face there, which they didn’t face in Iraq,” he said.’ 9
On July 11, the former Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad stated that,
‘the US compelled the UN Security Council to
impose sanctions against Iran in order to weaken the country and lay the
ground for a military attack.
The former Malaysian premier added,
“It is a matter of time before the war
criminals in Israel and the United States launch another war of
aggression, once Iran has been weakened by sanctions.”’ 10
Around the same time, former Senator Chuck
Robb and former NATO deputy commander General Charles Wald issued
an editorial call for the US to begin preparing an attack.
Their argument was that the fourth round of
economic sanctions extorted by the United States from UN Security Council on
June 9 would never be effective, and that military action had to be geared
up in parallel to these sanctions.
They also warned that the Cold War doctrine of
deterrence would not work in regard to Iran:
‘Absent a broader and more robust strategy,
however, sanctions alone will prove inadequate to halt Iran’s pursuit of
nuclear weapons… current trends suggest that Iran could achieve nuclear
weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically
untenable threat to the United States.
Contrary to a growing number of voices in
Washington, we do not believe a nuclear weapons-capable Iran could be
contained... We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the
effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. Sanctions can be effective
only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last
Indeed, publicly playing down potential
military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a
peaceful resolution less likely.
Instead, the administration needs to expand
its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American
people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to
terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and
is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran’s nuclear
and supporting military facilities…
The stakes are too high to rely on sanctions
and diplomacy without credibly preparing for a potential military strike
as well.’ 11
The Neocons Promise A
Cakewalk - Again!
One of the most blatant calls for war with Iran comes from the former CIA
agent and neocon ideologue Reuel Marc Gerecht.
The Weekly Standard, the central organ of
the neocon warmonger party, devotes the cover story of its current issue to
urging the Israelis to put an end to Obama’s dithering by mounting the
attacks themselves, thus presenting the feckless tenant of the White House
with a fait accompli.12
In the inimitable style of neocon Kenneth Adelman, who notoriously
promised a cakewalk in Iraq the last time we went down this road, Gerecht
impatiently dismisses a series of arguments against such a fateful act of
incalculable folly, and does not miss the opportunity to settle accounts
with Brzezinski, whose alternative model of imperialist management is
now losing support within
the ruling elite.
‘…concerns about an Israeli bombing are no
more persuasive. Hezbollah would undoubtedly unleash its missiles on
Israel after a preventive strike… Hundreds of Israelis could die from
Hezbollah’s new and improved store of missiles. Israel might have to
invade Lebanon again, which would cost more lives and certainly upset
the “international community”…
The Obama administration might fume, but it
is hard to imagine the president, given what he has said about the
unacceptability of Iranian nukes, scolding Jerusalem long.
He might personally agree with his one-time
counsel, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski,
that Israel has become a pariah state, but politically this won’t fly.’
Three years ago, Brzezinski had the upper hand
and the neocons were in disarray, but now the tables have been turned to a
There is nothing to worry about, Gerecht assures us, since the Iranians are
a paper tiger and the results will be a cakewalk:
‘American fear of Iranian capabilities in
Iraq and Afghanistan has been exaggerated. The Americans are leaving
Iraq; within a year, most of our troops are due to be gone…’ 14
Back in 2002-2003, the neocon line was that
Saddam Hussein was so powerful that he had to be attacked.
This time around, their field is reversed, and
the main argument is that the Iranians need to be attacked because they are
‘If the Iranians tried their mightiest, they
could give us only a small headache compared with the migraine we’ve
already got courtesy of the Pakistanis, who are intimately tied to
Afghanistan’s Taliban. And the Israelis know the U.S. Navy has no fear
of Tehran’s closing the Strait of Hormuz.
If Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the
Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf:
It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike
Iran militarily. Such an escalation could quickly leave Khamenei with no
navy, air force, and army.
The Israelis have to be praying that the
supreme leader will be this addle-headed.’ 15
The tried and true ‘cakewalk’ argument is
neither the first nor the last notorious neocon trick which is being brought
back these days.
But what about the awesome threat of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, the
danger which these same neocons have been incessantly harping on for the
past decade? No problem, says Gerecht.
All we would need to do at that point is to
issue a bloodcurdling thermonuclear ultimatum to Iran about incinerating
that country with nuclear missiles, perhaps killing tens of millions of
As a matter of fact, Gerecht suggests, the US
had better start issuing this sort of threat right now, without any further
‘It is entirely possible that Khamenei would
use terrorism against the United States after an Israeli strike. That is
one of the supreme leader’s preferred methods of state action, which is
why he should not be permitted a nuclear weapon.
The correct response for the United States
is to credibly threaten vengeance. President Obama might be obliged to
make such a threat immediately after an Israeli surprise attack; whether
the Iranians would believe it, given America’s record, is more difficult
to assess.’ 16
Note carefully that these statements amounts to
the public advocacy of aggressive war, a behavior which may run afoul of the
Nuremberg precedents of 1945. The Iranians are crazy, says Gerecht, so the
old-fashioned nuclear deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction will
There is no point in wasting time any longer,
and it is time for the Israeli missiles and bombers to fly:
'It is possible the Israelis have waited too
long to strike. Military action should make a strategic difference… If
we’re not at the end of the road, then the Israelis probably should
waste no more time. Khamenei is still weak. He’s more paranoid than he’s
ever been. The odds of his making uncorrectable mistakes are much better
Any Israeli raid that could knock out a
sizable part of Iran’s nuclear program would change the dynamic inside
Iran and throughout the Middle East… Unless Jerusalem bombs, the
Israelis will soon be confronting a situation without historical
In the best case scenario, if things were
just “normal” in Tehran, Israel would likely be confronting Cuban
Missile Crisis-style brinkmanship on a routine basis.’ 17
Obama As The Cynical
New Woodrow Wilson
The reactionary writer Michael Barone makes the apt comparison of
Obama to the Morgan puppet Woodrow Wilson, who cynically got himself
re-elected in 1916 on a platform of 'he kept us out of war,’ and then
demanded the US entry into World War I about a month into his second term.
Obama campaigned for the presidency quite
explicitly as a warmonger in regards to Afghanistan, although his constant
claim to have opposed the Iraq war left many voters with the false
impression that he was less bellicose than Bush.
In reality, Obama was always adamant about his
desire to bomb and invade Pakistan in pursuit of the phantomatic “Osama
‘It would be ironic if the professorial
Barack Obama launches a military attack when his supposedly cowboy
predecessor George W. Bush declined to do so… But I take it seriously
when… nonhawks [Joe Klein and Walter Russell Meade] say Obama might bomb
Acts Of War In Iran By
Jundullah, a US Terrorist Proxy
The Sunni terrorist organization known as
Jundullah, which operates in Baluchistan on
both sides of the Pakistan-Iran border, is notoriously a creature of
Anglo-American intelligence, as Brian Ross of ABC News documented in 2007.19
Earlier this year, the Iranians, acting with the
help of Pakistan, succeeded in capturing the Jundullah leader Rigi,
whom they then executed this month. Rigi, according to Wayne Madsen, had
been on his way to a meeting with US regional Ambassador Richard
Holbrooke at the US air base in Kyrgyzstan.20
Retaliation from Jundullah soon followed in the
form of a murderous attack on Iranian territory which killed 21 persons,
including members of the Pasdaran Revolutionary Guard. Iranian leaders were
quick to denounce this action as the latest in a long series of acts of war
against Iran by the United States using terrorist proxies.
Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani condemned
this attack, which occurred in Zahedan, while explicitly blaming the United
‘“The Americans should know that they have
started a game that will not end well for them,” he said in Tehran.
Larijani asserted that Iran has ample evidence
that the Jundullah terrorist group has links to the United States.
The terrorist group Jundullah, which Iranian
officials say enjoys U.S. support, has claimed responsibility for the
attacks. In a statement posted on its web site, Jundullah described the
attacks as retaliation for Iran’s June 21 execution of the group’s former
ringleader, Abdolmalek Rigi.
Larijani said that the United States cannot
invent an excuse for the bombings.
“They may get away with other issues, but
not with this one,” he added.’ 21
Medvedev Policy Shift
Increases Moscow-Tehran Friction
One of the main policy goals of the Brzezinski faction in the United States
has always been to maneuver Russia into a position of hostility against
The hope has always been to foment conflicts
between these two Caspian powers. Unfortunately, the policy of attempting to
placate the United States on certain issues pursued by President Medvedev
has now created a Moscow-Tehran relationship in which elements of acrimony
coexist with gestures of cooperation.
On July 12, Medvedev made an important verbal concession to the emerging US-neocon
theory of Iranian nuclear weapons.
A RIA-Novosti dispatch read:
‘Iran is about to acquire the capability to
make nuclear weapons, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned on
Monday. He urged Russian ambassadors and permanent representatives to
move away from “simplistic approaches” toward Iran’s nuclear problem.’
On June 20, Medvedev had expressed concern
‘U.S. secret intelligence data that Iran has
enough enriched uranium for construction of two nuclear bombs. “As for
this information, it needs to be verified but in any case such
information always worries. Today the international society does not
acknowledge the Iranian nuclear program as transparent. If the
information from the American secret services is confirmed it would make
the situation more tense and I do not exclude that this issue would
require extra consideration,” Medvedev said at a news conference after
the G8 and G20 summits in Canada.’ 23
US intelligence regarding Iran is notoriously
unreliable, and distorted by political agendas inside the US intelligence
It is even possible that some of the material
which Medvedev was shown during his time in North America came from the
alleged defector Shahram Amiri, whose credibility is gravely in question.
In response to Medvedev’s allegations about an Iranian nuclear weapons
program, leaders in Teheran responded with vigorous denials.
On July 13, RIA Novosti reported that,
‘Iranian officials on Tuesday angrily
dismissed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s remarks that Tehran was on
the verge of acquiring military nuclear capability, the Fars News Agency
“These remarks are at odds with reality,”
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said during a press
conference at the Iranian embassy in Madrid, stressing that Tehran has
always sought only peaceful uses for nuclear technology.’ 24
During the preparation of the Iraq war, Russia
was very skeptical of the explanations offered by the Bush regime, including
at the UN Security Council. This time around, it would appear that parts at
least of the Russian government are lending credibility to the US charges.
In response to these Iranian objections, Medvedev returned to the issue on
July 15, reiterating that,
‘Russia possesses information indicating
that Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear technology…”The
information that is being received comes both from open sources and from
special services that deliver relevant reports and shows that these
[nuclear] programs are being developed,” Medvedev said during a joint
news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Russian
Urals city of Yekaterinburg.’ 25
The Russian government has issued sharply
conflicting statements about whether the sale of modern Russian S-300
surface-to-air missiles would be blocked by the new round of UN sanctions.
It is generally thought that, if Iran can
finally take delivery of these missiles, any design for air attacks against
Iran would have to reckon with extravagant losses among the attacking
On June 11, RIA Novosti reported that,
‘a Kremlin source said on Friday the sale of
S-300 air defense systems fall under the new UN Security Council’s
sanctions against Tehran, but the Russian foreign minister said it was
up to the president to make the final decision.’ 26
Ironically, this reading of the sanctions was
less favorable to Iran then what the US State Department was saying on the
same day. On June 11, the State Department opined that,
‘the delivery of Russian S-300
surface-to-air missile systems to Iran is not against the recently
imposed UN sanctions.’ 27
In the face of criticism, the Kremlin
characterized its position as evenhanded.
On May 26, RIA Novosti reported that
presidential aide Sergei Prikhodko had argued that,
‘Russia’s position on Tehran’s nuclear
program is neither pro-American, nor pro-Iranian. The statement comes
after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a televised
interview earlier in the day that Russia’s support for UN sanctions
against Tehran was “not acceptable to the Iranian nation.”’ 28
Russia also expressed no enthusiasm for an
expansion of the so-called five plus one group (composed of the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) which had been
negotiating the nuclear issue with Iran.
The arbitrary nature of this five plus one
grouping had been pointed out by many countries, and inevitably arose after
the initially successful mediation of the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment
issue by Turkey and Brazil. Why not have Turkey and Brazil joined the five
plus one? The addition of these two states would obviously make the
negotiating group less hostile to Iran. But the Russian Foreign Ministry was
On July 19, RIA Novosti reported that,
‘Turkey and Brazil are not joining talks led
by the Iran Six group of international mediators on Tehran’s nuclear
program, the Russian foreign minister said Wednesday. “There have been
no discussions on the issue,” Sergei Lavrov said. Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tuesday that the Islamic Republic
wanted Turkey and Brazil to participate in the talks.’ 29
Criticism of Iran keeps coming from numerous
On July 14, Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly
Churkin said there was
“still cause for concern about Iran’s
nuclear program as signals from the Islamic Republic have been far from
encouraging… “The signals I have heard from Iran are not encouraging,”
he said. “Iran continues to set out terms, make excuses and say that it
will persist in enriching uranium to 20%.”’ 30
At the same time, Russia continued to assist
Iran in the construction of the
Bushehr nuclear power reactor, which should
come on line and start generating electricity within a few months.
The Iranians also operate research reactors. On
July 12, Iran announced that,
‘nuclear fuel for the Tehran research
reactor will be ready in September 2011… “God willing, we will deliver
the fuel to the Tehran reactor next September,” Ali Akbar Salehi of the
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) was quoted by Fars News Agency
(FNA) as saying. “At present we have produced about 20 kg of
20%-enriched uranium and we are now producing fuel plates,” he said.’
The Anglo-Americans have tried to make this 20%
enrichment a virtual casus belli, despite the fact that weaponization
requires far higher percentages, well above 90%.
Russia appeared inclined to defy the US on some issues. There were
indications that Russia was willing to help Iran frustrate the UN Security
Council ban on other nations’ selling refined gasoline to Iran, which is one
of the centerpieces of the latest US-backed sanctions offensive. Iran
produces abundant oil, but lacks refineries to make that oil into gasoline
and other products.
Here was an ideal way to get around this
According to RIA Novosti,
‘Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said
… that Russian companies are ready to supply oil products to Iran
despite U.S. sanctions punishing companies that sell motor fuel to Iran
or help it rebuild its refining capabilities, which have been degraded
by years of international isolation.’
(‘Iran hopes to become largest gasoline
exporter in 2-3 years’, RIA Novosti, July 15, 2010,
According to Vernochet of the Réseau Voltaire,
the Russian policy,
‘appears to reflect a certain schizophrenia
at the highest level of the state, or an openly diverging policy with
two heads, with a presidency a priori more pro-Western than Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin.’ 32
McDermott agrees about this latent conflict,
‘There is also the thorny issue that Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin, has a group of foreign policy aides managed by
Yuriy Ushakov functioning as a “little” foreign ministry: which
represents the single greatest barrier to adopting such policy concepts
(Ezhednevny Zhurnal, May 14).’
The net result of these developments is that the
aggressive forces inside the United States think they have a much freer hand
with Iran than they did during the time of the Putin presidency.
Weaker, Neocon-Petraeus Faction Stronger
As already noted, the
faction is losing ground to the neocons, who have been mightily strengthened
by the ascendancy of their chosen factional figurehead and presidential
candidate for 2012, General David Petraeus.
The planned color revolution in Iran has not
materialized, and therefore the neocon recipes for aggression are winning by
default, especially given the systemic hysteria induced by the financial
The Brzezinski-Nye-Trilateral group had
been early supporters of Obama, and growing public awareness of Obama’s
weakness, fecklessness, dithering, and treachery are also weakening his
Petraeus, The Savior
Of The Savior
Obama’s appointment of Petraeus as the new commander in Afghanistan,
succeeding McChrystal, is an act of supreme political folly.
By appointing Petraeus, Obama has focused new
adulation by the political class on his most formidable opponent for the
presidency in 2012, as seen in Petraeus’ 99-0 confirmation vote by the U.S.
It should be evident that Petraeus is not likely
to have accepted this new command without having extracted certain binding
policy commitments from Obama in advance, and one of these is likely to have
been a more truculent US stance against Iran, to say nothing of Pakistan and
Obama had been the savior, but Petraeus now
assumes the role of the savior of the savior, and it is the neocon faction
and its strident war program which is the beneficiary.33
A New National
Intelligence Estimate By And For Warmongers
During the declining years of the Bush regime, one of the most important
signals of a general ruling class consensus that the US attack on Iran
should be taken off the table was the national intelligence estimate issued
in December 2007, which concluded that Iran no longer had a functioning
nuclear weapons program.
This simply meant in practice that the neocons,
for the moment, were out of power. This finding was opposed tooth and nail
by the neocons, and was directly contradicted by the claims of Israeli
The way in which this new NIE is being rigged, with the facts and
intelligence being fixed around the desired war policy, is reflected in a
recent rare interview by CIA Director Leon Panetta. The new phony NIE
is now guaranteed to repudiate the previous finding, and to accuse Iran of
actively seeking nuclear bombs. This was in fact Panetta’s first network
news interview since taking over the CIA in early 2009.
According to one published account,
‘in an ABC News interview Sunday, CIA
Director Leon Panetta alluded to a fact that was reported by Newsweek
months ago: U.S. intelligence agencies have revised their widely
disputed 2007 conclusion that Iran had given up its efforts to design or
build a nuclear bomb.
That shift is expected to be reflected in an
update of the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which
was supposed to have been completed months ago, but according to three
counter-proliferation officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing
sensitive information, the formal update still is not finished and may
be delayed for months to come.
Even when it’s done, officials have said,
the Obama administration is expected to keep the revised report’s
contents officially secret…’ 34
Panetta, a political hack, has claimed that Iran
is working on weaponization of fissile material, which has been a central
issue in the dispute within the US intelligence community.
With this, Panetta clearly joins the warmonger
State Department -
Iran Wants Nukes, Iran Has Always Wanted Nukes
On June 8, David E. Sanger of the New York Times reported that
US diplomats at the United Nations were already beginning to prepare the
other members of the UN Security Council for a complete volte-face on the
question of Iranian nukes compared to the December 2007 NIE.
In December 2007 there were no nukes, but now
there are some again, the US in effect argued. One imagines that UN
Ambassador Susan Rice took special satisfaction in an Orwellian reversal of
‘The American briefings, according to
foreign diplomats and some American officials, amount to a tacit
admission by the United States that it is gradually backing away from a
2007 National Intelligence Estimate.
It is using new evidence to revise and in
some cases reverse conclusions from that estimate, which came to the
much disputed conclusion that while Iran had stepped up its production
of nuclear fuel, its leadership had suspended its work on the devices
and warhead designs needed to actually build a weapon.’ 35
The neocons are already mobilized to skew the
new NIE in the direction they want. An example of their effort is the op-ed
by Gabriel Schoenfeld of the arch-reactionary Hudson Institute
appearing in the Wall Street Journal on July 19.
Schoenfeld’s first goal is to perform the
Orwellian exercise of expunging the December 2007 NIE:
‘In December 2007, our intelligence agencies
put out a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE),
which in its opening sentence baldly declared that “We judge with high
confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
In a stroke, this authoritative
pronouncement eliminated any possibility that President Bush, then
entering his final year in office, would order a military strike against
Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Perhaps even more significantly, it undercut
White House and international efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran.
After all, if the Iranian nuclear program had been halted in 2003, what
would be the point?… Behind the scenes, the intelligence services of
Germany, Great Britain, France and Israel all took issue with the NIE.
It became the subject of fierce criticism in Congress and the press. It
is now clear that while the U.S. dithered, Tehran forged ahead…
Evidence has surfaced that the flawed 2007
NIE was the result of political cookery... Since late last year, U.S.
intelligence has been preparing a new estimate of Iran’s nuclear
program. The critical question is whether the forces that led to
politicization in 2007 have been eradicated.
Will the drafters of the new Iran NIE call
the shots as they are, or will they once again use intelligence as a
political lever?’ 36
Neocons Want a Team B
Notice that, for this neocon doublethinker, ‘politicization’ is anything
which delays or avoids war, while objectivity is identified exclusively with
the warmonger position.
Schoenfeld is obsessed with counting how many
months remain before Iran stages their first nuclear detonation. Israel says
there may be as few as twelve months left! How to focus public attention on
Schoenfeld has an answer ready:
‘That is why a neutral outside panel should
be brought in to scrutinize the discredited 2007 NIE and the entire
estimating process in this sensitive arena.’
This sounds very much like an old neocon trick -
Team B, the panel of apocalyptic dissident ideologues created by Bush the
elder in 1975-76 to prepare an alarmist estimate of Soviet intentions in
contradiction to the findings of the official CIA.37
In such a contest, neocon Strangeloves
proclaiming dramatic doomsday messages have an easy time marginalizing
colorless bureaucrats with their plodding prose. It is the neocons who are
the iron chefs of cooking intelligence.
As Sir Richard Dearlove, the boss of
MI-6, informed Tony Blair and his ministers in July 2002,
‘the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy’ by Washington in the runup to the Bush-Cheney
aggression against Iraq.38
Leverett - There Is No
Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program
One leading US expert on Iranian affairs is Flynt Leverett, who worked on
Iran during his time in the G. W. Bush National Security Council.
In a July 18 radio interview transcribed on
Leverett’s website, Race for Iran, which is also by run by Hillary Mann
Leverett, an important Iran expert in her own right, the former official
‘to the best of my knowledge… there is no
evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program... I haven’t been working
in a classified environment for a number of years now and I certainly
wouldn’t claim to know everything that the U.S. intelligence community
might have, [but]…my very strong impression is that we know that the
Iranians have been working on…a dedicated fuel cycle program focused on
uranium enrichment for a long time.
Could they have at some point…looked into
other kinds of technical or engineering problems that you would need to
solve if you were actually at some point going to build a nuclear
Yeah, that’s possible, but I’ve never seen
what I would consider clear and convincing evidence of it.’ 39
The mendacious process by which National
Intelligence Estimates are manufactured on sensitive issues like Iran is
much illuminated by the case of the Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri.
Amiri, it will be recalled, issued a Youtube
video in which he alleged that he had been kidnapped by the United States
while on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, and was being held in Arizona. Later,
he issued another videotape, this one better produced, in which he reassured
the public that he was fine, studying physics in Arizona of his own free
will. A third tape went back to asserting that he had been kidnapped.
Amiri at length appealed to the Iranian interest
section of the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, DC, and soon returned to
Amiri, The CIA’s New
So what is the truth about Amiri?
We need to recall the examples of the anonymous
“source Curveball” and of Achmed Chalabi, two Iraqi adventurers
assiduously courted by the neocons and plied with large sums of US taxpayer
money in order to make fantastic allegations about the allegedly threatening
programs of weapons of mass destruction being pursued by Saddam Hussein.
If the CIA had really brought Amiri to the
United States and offered him $5 million, it is a pretty good guess that he
was being paid to provide the lurid details of an Iranian nuclear weapons
program which many qualified experts, as we have just seen, conclude to be
nonexistent, just as the US government officially stated in December 2007.
The Leveretts stress that Amiri was never a top official of the Iranian
science establishment, and it is therefore very likely that his opinions
about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program are worthless.
As the Leveretts wrote on July 15,
‘We warned, in April that Amiri could not
possibly be the highly valuable intelligence source that some Western
officials and the National Council for Resistance in Iran (an affiliate
of the MEK, which the U.S. government has designated as a foreign
terrorist organization) claimed him to be - a source who “had worked on
sensitive nuclear programs for at least a decade” and was now revealing
the inside story on Iran’s alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program.
We were appalled that the Washington Post
was reporting these claims without the most minimal, common-sense
follow-up questioning. Now we learn that the CIA apparently tried to pay
Amiri $5 million.
Along with trying to figure out the details
of Amiri’s trajectory over the last year, journalists ought to be
focusing on what the Agency’s willingness to pay $5 million to a
hyped-up source signals about the U.S. Intelligence Community’s
desperation to make a prosecutor’s case against the Islamic Republic.
Indeed, the CIA and the rest of the
Intelligence Community seem sufficiently desperate to make their case
that they will pay taxpayer dollars to gotten-up defectors who might be
prepared to say - for the right price - what Washington elites want to
As we noted in our April piece, if the CIA
and its partners in the Intelligence Community are unable to make a case
against Iran, “how could Washington argue for intensified sanctions
against the Islamic Republic - much less keep the military option ‘on
Press comments on Panetta’s ABC News interview
suggest precisely this:
Amiri was brought in to provide fodder for a
campaign of mass brainwashing designed to show that Iran is on track to
build nuclear bombs.
On the ABC website we read:
‘Panetta did not directly confirm that the
controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nukes was
under revision. But other officials have confirmed to Declassified that
an update has been in the works since late last year. They say its
completion has been postponed several times while agencies evaluate new
intelligence reporting which has surfaced over the last few months.
At least some of that fresh input is
believed to have come from one or more Iranian nuclear insiders,
including Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist who disappeared
about a year ago while on a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.
Earlier this year, ABC News reported that Amiri had defected to the
Although government sources have
acknowledged… that they are aware of Amiri’s defection and of
information that he might have provided, they do not confirm that he
defected to the U.S.’ 40
Now that Amiri has fled back to Iran, another
possibility opens up for the US mindbenders:
they might now argue that the December 2007
NIE which concluded there was no Iranian nuclear weapons program had
been based on falsified information procured by Amiri and others like
him, who had been recruited to espionage by the US, but who later proved
unreliable - as shown by Amiri’s flight back to Iran to rejoin his
All of these points represent good reasons not
to believe the contents of the new NIE when its contents are reported in the
press in the very near future.
It is guaranteed to be a tissue of lies.
Amiri’s Last Word - No
Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program
The last word from Amiri seems to be a statement that there is no Iranian
nuclear weapons program after all.
This has been established by CIA veteran
Philip Giraldi based on leaks from his networks inside the agency. As
Gareth Porter of IPS reported,
‘Contrary to a news media narrative that
Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri has provided intelligence on covert
Iranian nuclear weapons work, CIA sources familiar with the Amiri case
say he told his CIA handlers that there is no such Iranian nuclear
weapons program, according to a former CIA officer.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA
counterterrorism official, told IPS that his sources are CIA officials
with direct knowledge of the entire Amiri operation.’ 41
But mere facts have never prevented the
neocon mythographs from pressing for aggression.
Maybe they will now re-create the Pentagon’s
Office of Special Plans, which was responsible for a series of whoppers in
Obama Regime Beats The
Propaganda Drum For War
In the wake of the new round of sanctions in June, top officials of the
Obama regime have begun to suggest that sanctions will be inadequate to stop
the nuclear weapons development which they will soon claim is going on,
leaving the obvious conclusion that direct military attack is the only
'”Will [sanctions] deter them [Iran] from
their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability?” CIA Director Leon
Panetta told ABC News on June 27. “Probably not.”’ 42
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is taking
special pains to argue against the idea that Iran could be held in check by
traditional nuclear deterrence of the time-honored Cold War type, even if
Tehran were to procure nuclear weapons.
This is an argument which has been endorsed by
some leading US military officers, who are obviously not eager to go into
the Iranian meatgrinder.
According to Fox News,
‘Gates is sounding more belligerent these
“I don’t think we’re prepared to even
talk about containing a nuclear Iran,” he told Fox News on June 20.
“We do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons.”
“I don’t think we’re prepared to even
talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think we’re - we - our view
still is we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons.
And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that
“Actually, what we’ve seen is a change
in the nature of the regime in Tehran over the past 18 months or so.
You have - you have a much narrower based government in Tehran now.
Many of the religious figures are being set aside. As Secretary
Clinton has said, they appear to be moving more in the direction of
a military dictatorship. Khamenei is leaning on a smaller and
smaller group of advisors.”’ 43
Gates had been skeptical in public about the
Iran attack, in conformity with his Brzezinski pedigree; his joining the
extreme war party thus means the bureaucratic situation is deteriorating.
The US argument against the Iranian regime used to be that Iran was bad
because it was a theocratic dictatorship of the mullahs, who were the
bearers of Islamic fundamentalism. Gates and Clinton now argue that Iran is
bad precisely because it is no longer a theocratic dictatorship of mullahs,
but an authoritarian military dictatorship.
The only constant is the desire for war and
Netanyahu Of The War
In order for the US to assemble an Arab-Sunni front in the Middle East to
oppose the chosen Persian-Shiite adversary, it was considered advantageous
to get the Israelis to make a few concessions to the Palestinians with a
view to creating the illusion of progress towards an overall peace
settlement between these two parties.
Because the politics of economic depression has
produced a marked heightening of the extremist elements of Israeli politics,
the Netanyahu regime has refused to make any concessions, and has acted out
defiance of Obama for domestic political consumption. This dynamic gave rise
to the hostile and heated atmosphere of Netanyahu’s previous White House
This time, the atmospherics were kept more
conciliatory. In any case, Netanyahu’s demand for US military attack on Iran
is a constant refrain.
As the Leveretts pointed out on July 11:
‘it is the Prime Minister’s remarks on Iran
that deserve special attention - for these remarks suggest that
Netanyahu is embarked on an extremely dangerous course.
Netanyahu is pushing the United States to
take eventual military action against Iran - a confrontation that would
have predictably disastrous consequences for U.S. interests and regional
stability, and for which Israel and the pro-Likud community in the
United States will be blamed, because they will have led the charge to
Such a scenario would be far more damaging
to Israel and the American Jewish community than anything Iran might
conceivably do. Netanyahu argued that the Islamic Republic’s “irrational
regime” cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons capability, because
“you can’t rely on the fact that they’ll obey the calculations of cost
and benefit that have governed all nuclear powers since the rise of the
nuclear age after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”’ 44
Netanyahu, it is argued, is also trying
to force the US to take the lead in attacking, which is less convenient for
Washington than being dragged into war by a supposed breakaway ally:
‘…while preserving the option of Israeli
military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, Netanyahu is shifting
the onus for forestalling the further development of Iran’s nuclear
capabilities onto the prospect of U.S. military action.’ 45
The UAE Calls For War
At Aspen, Colorado Ideas Festival
Many reports stress that the political leadership of Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates are issuing strident demands that the US make the
attack on Iran, thus abandoning all hypocritical pretenses of Arab
One piece of evidence in this regard is the
outburst of the UAE ambassador to the United States during a panel
discussion in Aspen Colorado during the first week of July.
In response to a question about Iran, UAE
ambassador to the United States Yousef Al Otaiba issued a remarkable
open call for US military aggression in regard to Iran, despite the likely
serious negative side effects which his own country would experience because
of its close geographical propinquity does a theater of war.
‘”I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr.
al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with
Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there
will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and
rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a
Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”’
‘”If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to
live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still
the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb
what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.”’ 46
Al-Otaiba was soon called home for
His formulation is reminiscent of French
President Sarkozy’s cynical comment that the only thing worse than bombing
Iran is Iran with a bomb.
Joe Klein in Time -
Arab Gulf States Want Iran Bombed
According to Joe Klein of Time Magazine, the demand for war by
the Saudis and the Gulf states is pushing the United States rapidly down the
path to military conflict.
One senses that alibis are being prefabricated
for Obama and his officials for when the body bags begin to come home. Klein
‘One other factor has brought the military
option to a low boil: Iran’s Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do
it. When United Arab Emirates Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba said on July 6
that he favored a military strike against Iran despite the economic and
military consequences to his country, he was reflecting an increasingly
adamant attitude in the region.
Senior American officials who travel to the
Gulf frequently say the Saudis, in particular, raise the issue with
surprising ardor. Everyone from the Turks to the Egyptians to the
Jordanians are threatening to go nuclear if Iran does.
That is seen as a real problem in the most
volatile region in the world: What happens, for example, if Saudi Arabia
gets a bomb, and the deathless monarchy there is overthrown by Islamist
We should stress that the rulers of Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf states represent some of the most extreme and backward feudal
relics to be found anywhere on this planet, having survived through the 20th
century mainly thanks to the fact that these were British imperial puppet
states for most of that time.
The idea that a gaggle of titled feudal
reactionaries can talk the United States into a catastrophic war shows how
far gone the current situation actually is.
The clamor for war from the Saudi and Gulf potentates is also the theme of a
recent article in the online edition of the pro-British German newsmagazine,
Der Spiegel, where we read:
‘Israel and the Arab states near the Persian
Gulf recognize a common threat: the regime in Tehran. A regional
diplomat has not even ruled out support by the Arab states for a
military strike to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions... Never have the
strategic interests of the Jewish and Arab states been so closely
aligned as they are today.
While European and American security experts
consistently characterize a military strike against Iran as “a last
option,” notable Arabs have long shared the views of Israel’s
ultra-nationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. If no one else
takes it upon himself to bomb Iran, Saudi cleric Mohsen al-Awaji told
SPIEGEL, Israel will have to do it.
“Israel’s agenda has its limits,” he said,
noting that it is mainly concerned with securing its national existence.
“But Iran’s agenda is global.”’ 48
A Philodoxer Of The
War Party: Bernard-Henri Lévy
One who rejoiced that the UAE was now ready to fight the Iranians to the
last American was the notorious philodoxer Bernard-Henri Lévy, who
had already done yeoman service for the Anglo-Americans over many years as
an all-purpose warmonger on the subject of Iraq.
Here is part of the Huffington Post account of
‘”The UAE has chosen to side with the camp
of those who apply to the letter the new United Nations resolution of
June 9,” wrote Lévy, noting that it was “truly a blow to the regime” in
Iran. For Lévy, the “union sacrée” of Muslim countries against the
“Zionist enemy” is a fantasy. The countries that feel threatened by
Tehran, he added, now have the opportunity to form an alliance of
We might as well say that the Emirates’
decision is truly a blow to the regime... And the fact that, for the
first time, an Arab country took this step, the fact that it said no to
the Iranians’ attempted holdup, thus foiling the maneuver of which Hamas
and Hezbollah were the vanguard but whose ultimate goal was to set the
region ablaze, constitutes not only a gesture of survival but proof of
maturity and a welcome sign of clarification. If this decision is
maintained, nothing will ever be the same again.
And for Ahmadinejad, the countdown will have
The reference to the countdown at the end
suggests Lévy’s vision of US missiles streaking towards Tehran with their
Volunteers As Springboard For Assaulting Iran
Saudi Arabia has by all indications volunteered the use of its airspace as a
transit corridor for Israeli planes attacking Iran.
According to other reports, Israeli forces are
now present on the territory of the kingdom. On June 12, The Times of
London reported that Saudi Arabia had recently ‘conducted tests to stand
down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on
Iran’s nuclear facilities’ - as part of an attack on Iranian targets.
In March, reports had started appearing in the
European press about secret negotiations between Jerusalem and Riyadh to
work out the details of cooperation.50
On July 5, these reports became more concrete when the London Times
‘the head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas
intelligence service… assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister,
that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the
kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites. Earlier this
year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with
Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.
The Israeli press has already carried
unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert,
the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues.
The reports were denied by Saudi officials.
“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the
Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which
is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi
Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.
Although the countries have no formal
diplomatic relations, an Israeli defense source confirmed that Mossad
maintained “working relations” with the Saudis.’ 51
On June 28, RT Jerusalem correspondent Paula
Slier reported that Israeli helicopters were dropping off materiel at
Vernochet of Voltaire cites a press agency
report to the effect that Israeli planes landed in Saudi Arabia on June 18
Another Big Difference
This Time - The French President
During the Bush-Cheney propaganda campaign for an attack on Iraq back in
2002-2003, a key focal point of resistance was constituted by French
President Jacques Chirac and French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin.
These French leaders earned the gratitude of
persons of goodwill all over the world through their opposition to the wild
lies told by the US neocons.
This time around, the world situation is
qualitatively worse because the independent French spirit typified by Chirac
and Villepin is no longer reflected at the top of the Paris government.
Instead, the tenant of the Elysée Palace is Nicholas Sarkozy, an
adventurer and demagogue who grew up in a household closely allied with
the Wisner family of the CIA.
Of all the European leaders, Sarkozy has been
the absolute worst on all issues concerning Iran, where he has surpassed all
the rest in his bellicose and belligerent rhetoric. Everything indicates
that Sarkozy, if he is still in office, intends to support the coming attack
Sarkozy has attempted in particular to pull
Medvedev away from the traditional Russian position and towards the
As RIA Novosti wrote,
‘France has welcomed Russia’s decision on
new sanctions against Iran, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said at the
St. Petersburg International Economic Forum... “I would like to welcome,
in particular, the decision by President Medvedev in regard to voting
for sanctions on the Iran issue. This (sanctions) would be impossible if
he had not made this choice,” Sarkozy said.’ 53
There is now some hope that the l’Oréal
political contributions scandal could weaken or even oust Sarkozy.
This scandal is at least a sign that seventy
years after de Gaulle’s famous call to arms, French institutions are
fighting back against foreign domination. The US anti-Obama opposition could
learn a great deal from this scandal.
China Opposed, But
As for China, this power is trying to placate the US hawks while at the same
time maintaining reasonably good relations with Iran, upon which the Chinese
depend for a significant part of their current oil supply, and which above
all represents the best future hope of building a pipeline
(Iran-Pakistan-China) which would finally provide a land route for oil from
the Middle East to the Middle Kingdom, far from such chokepoints is the
Straits of Malacca, and above all far from the naval domination of the
Hillary Clinton has blackmailed China
by telling Beijing that they have to choose between supporting sanctions on
Iran, which might cut off their Iranian oil imports if Tehran becomes
enraged, and the worse option of losing all their Gulf oil imports if there
are no sanctions, since in the absence of sanctions a more likely Israeli or
US attack on Iran would lead to the total closing of the Gulf through
Risk giving up your Iranian oil, Hillary told
the Chinese, or risk your Saudi oil as well, with the latter supply being
China also has its own areas of direct conflict
with the United States, including such issues as US cyber-subversion
campaigns, sovereignty over the oil-rich South China Sea, China’s sovereign
right to manage its own currency, and the proper handling of the DPRK.
The Chinese have argued that, although they
voted for the sanctions as demanded by the US, they had been instrumental in
making them weaker and more diluted.
In any case, China is anxious to find ways of
getting along with Tehran.
On June 6, a RIA Novosti article reported that,
‘China is ready to strengthen diplomatic
relations with Iran, regardless of sanctions imposed on the Islamic
Republic over its nuclear program, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman
Qin Gang said on Thursday.’ 54
How The Next War Will
Joe Klein of Time describes how, during the time the neocon General
Petraeus was in command, the
US CENTCOM was busy working out new and
apocalyptic scenarios for Iran.
He stresses that Israel has been integrated into
US military planning, under various pretexts.
‘…intelligence sources say that the U.S.
Army’s Central Command, which is in charge of organizing military
operations in the Middle East, has made some real progress in planning
targeted air strikes - aided, in large part, by the vastly improved
human-intelligence operations in the region.
“There really wasn’t a military option a
year ago,” an Israeli military source told me. “But they’ve gotten
serious about the planning, and the option is real now.”
Israel has been brought into the planning
process, I’m told, because U.S. officials are frightened by the
possibility that the right-wing Netanyahu government might go rogue and
try to whack the Iranians on its own.’
Klein also acknowledges that there is resistance
among the US military to this new round of aggression.
And well there might be: at various times over
the past few months, Obama has had more US combat troops in the field than
Bush ever did. The suicide rate in the U.S. Army in particular has grown to
alarming proportions. Armies can reach breaking points, and the U.S. Army is
not exempt from this rule.
‘Most senior military leaders also believe
Gates got it right the first time - even a targeted attack on Iran would
be “disastrous on a number of levels.”
It would unify the Iranian people against
the latest in a long series of foreign interventions. It would also
unify much of the world - including countries like Russia and China that
we’ve worked hard to cultivate - against a recowboyfied U.S.
There would certainly be an Iranian reaction
- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, by Lebanese Hezbollah against Israel and by
the Hezbollah network against the U.S. and Saudi homelands. A
catastrophic regional war is not impossible... But it is also possible
that the saber-rattling is not a bluff, that the U.S. really won’t
tolerate a nuclear Iran and is prepared to do something awful to stop
Flynt Leverett regards this new and wider
war as a gradual process, with time necessary to show that the new round of
sanctions has not had the desired effect.
Leverett said in a radio comment on July 19,
‘we now have these new sanctions in place
that we’re going to need to go through - six months, twelve months or so
living with these sanctions until everyone is willing to acknowledge
that they’re not having the desired effect.
And I think the Israelis are playing a game,
looking at a year down the road, 18 months, maybe two years down the
road, when after more and more people come on board and say sanctions
aren’t working, the Iranians are continuing to develop their fuel cycle
capabilities, etc. - at that point, probably around the time that
President Obama is gearing up for his own reelection campaign in a
serious way, the Israelis can come back and say, “Okay, now we need to
do something more coercive around the Iranian problem.”’ 56
But things may also move much faster.
De Borchgrave - Obama
Wants Three Wars And Both Houses Of Congress
The veteran columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave offers the following
estimate, which gives considerable attention to the US military opposition
against the coming strike, as well as to Iranian capabilities for
retaliation in the region:
‘A former Arab leader, in close touch with
current leaders, speaking privately not for attribution, told this
reporter July 6, “All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran
taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won’t
The temptation for Obama to double down on
Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a
festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a
recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan
that is bound to get worse and a military theater in Iraq replete with
sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Obama a three-front war
- and a chance to retain both houses of Congress.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, also expressed reservations from time to time. The
Joint Chiefs and former CENTCOM commanders know better than most experts
that Iran has formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities.
For example, all of these are vulnerable to
Iranian sabotage or hundreds of Iranian missiles on the eastern side of
from the narrow Straits of Hormuz, which
still handles 25 percent of the world’s oil traffic
to Bahrain, the U.S. Fifth Fleet’s
headquarters where the population is two-thirds Shiite and the royal
family is Sunni
to Dubai, where about 400,000 Iranians
live, including many who are “sleeper agents” or favorable to Tehran
to Qatar, now the world’s richest
country with per-capita income at $78,000, which supplies the United
States with the world’s longest runway and sub-headquarters for
CENTCOM, and whose LNG facilities are within short missile range of
Iran’s coastal batteries
to Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura, the
world’s largest oil terminal, and Abqaiq, nerve center of Saudi’s
eastern oil fields’ 57
On The Eve Of A New
False Flag Provocation?
Naturally, the traditional Anglo-American method for neutralizing any
possible opposition from military leaders or members of Congress, to say
nothing of the increasingly atomized US public, has been to stage a
provocation along the lines of the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, or an
event like 9/11, quickly followed by the appropriate congressional
resolution which can be used in lieu of an actual declaration of war, as
Vernochet finds that these ingredients are
really the only ones missing in the current constellation of forces to get
military operations going in grand style.58
Vernochet estimates that the only possibility
for stopping this war would be the creation of a large block of states led
by Russia and China, and that this possibility seems very remote at the
But instead of seeing the denizens of Manhattan
and the city of London as power crazed, it would be more accurate to regard
them as living in mortal fear of their own imminent financial bankruptcy,
and desperately seeking some way to convince the world that their empire of
derivatives, zombie banks, and hedge funds actually represents the economic
future of humanity.59
In the meantime, one thing which antiwar
activists can unquestionably do is to begin inoculating public opinion to
regard any terrorist act or military clash attributed by the mass media to
Iran as a provocation deliberately staged by the US-UK war party.
US And Israeli
The US has recently deployed a second aircraft carrier battle group to
waters near Iran.
A large number of US warships, by some accounts
11 vessels, passed through the Suez Canal heading east towards the Gulf at
the end of June. This was evidently the expanded battle group around the
attack carrier USS Truman.
An Israeli report says:
‘International agreements require Egypt to
keep the Suez open even for warships, but the armada, led by the USS
Truman with 5,000 sailors and marines, was the largest in years. Egypt
closed the canal to fishing and other boats as the armada moved through
the strategic passageway that connects the Red and Mediterranean Seas.’
Some reports stated that an Israeli ship was
part of the armada.
There are also reports that the
Israeli Navy is expanding its operations into the Gulf:
‘Several defense websites have reported that
Israel is deploying one to three German-made nuclear submarines in the
Persian Gulf as a defensive measure against the possibility of a missile
attacks from Lebanon and Syria, as well as Iran.
“The submarines of Flotilla 7 - Dolphin,
Tekuma and Leviathan - have visited the Gulf before,” DeHaemer wrote,
“but the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of
at least one of the vessels.” 61
These submarines fire nuclear missiles, and
could destroy Iranian cities.
They cannot defend anything, but they can launch
a nuclear first strike.
US Troops In Eleven
Countries Encircle Iran
US forces currently operate in at least 11 countries within striking
distance of Iran.
While Manas Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan might
be available for operations against Iran, there are currently no US bases in
Uzbekistan, so far as is known.
But the US is trying to re-open its Uzbek base,
which was closed in 2005.62 Thus, US military forces are now
present in virtually all of Iran’s neighbors, except Syria. Many of these
are places which the US peace movement, to the extent that it has survived
the coming of Obama, has never heard of.
This includes more than 50,000 GIs in Iraq
(where the US is now alone, after the departure of all coalition
contingents) and Afghanistan, where there are some 100,000 US forces. There
are US forces in various disguises in Pakistan. There are NATO bases,
including the formidable Incirlik air base, in Turkey.
Whether Turkey will allow its territory to be
abused for aggression is another question.
US Protectorate Over
US forces are now in Azerbaijan, a country which Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton visited at the end of June.
When these troops showed up, they provoked an
immediate stir among the Iranian Pasdaran:
‘…a large American force has massed in
Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran. [Iranian]
Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Mehdi Moini said Tuesday that his
forces are mobilized “due to the presence of American and Israeli forces
on the western border.”
The Guards reportedly have called in tanks
and anti-aircraft units to the area in what amounts to a war alert.’
US Forces In Armenia
US units have also surfaced in Armenia. A report dated June 24 details a
sharp Iranian protest against this further hostile militarization so close
to its border:
‘Iran will not allow a United States-led
military force to be deployed in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone that
immediately borders on its territory, according to the Islamic
Republic’s chief diplomat in Armenia.
At a press conference in Yerevan on
Wednesday Ambassador Seyed Ali Saghaeyan claimed that Washington is
contemplating a deployment of its troops in Fizuli, which is one of the
seven Armenian-controlled districts around Nagorno-Karabakh. He further
alleged that the American intention was to do so under the guise of a
peacekeeping operation.’ 64
Result - Iran
The following summary by an oil industry analyst sums up the degree to which
Iran is hemmed in by hostile US and NATO military.
Emphasis has been added to show the number of
‘Iran literally is surrounded by American
troops, notes an oil market analyst, Energy and Capital editor Christian
A. DeHaemer. There is no evidence of an imminent attack, but he connects
a number of recent events and the presence of American soldiers to warn
that oil prices might soar - with or without a pre-emptive strike aimed
at stopping Iran’s nuclear power ambitions. Iran is bordered on the east
by Pakistan and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been waging a costly
war, in terms of money and lives, against Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other
The Persian Gulf is on Iran’s southern
border, and last week’s report, confirmed by the Pentagon, that 11
warships had sailed through the Suez Canal, raised alarm bells that the
U.S. is ready to fight to keep the Persian Gulf open. Iran has
threatened it could close the waterway, where 40 percent of the world’s
oil flows in tankers, if the United Nations or the United States by
itself carry out harsh energy sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
An Israeli ship has also reportedly joined
the U.S. armada. Kuwait, which is heavily armed by the U.S. and is home
to American bases, is located on the southwestern border of Iran. The
country’s western neighbors are Turkey and Iraq, also home to American
bases, and Turkmenistan, the Caspian Sea and Azerbaijan are the Islamic
Republic’s northern neighbors. The U.S. Army last year advanced military
cooperation with Turkmenistan.
An independent Caspian news agency has
confirmed unusually heavy activity of American troops along the border
with Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Brigadier General Mehdi
Moini said last week that his forces increased patrols, including tanks
and anti-aircraft units, along the border with Azerbaijan because they
noticed increased American activity.
Iran charged that Israeli forces were also
present, sparking a virtual war alert among the Iranian Guards.’ 65
US Nuclear Response To
Envelopment In Iraq, Afghanistan
The US naturally intends these forces to be a factor of strength in the
coming conflict against Iran.
There is, however, another possibility, which is
that US units in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere near Iran, which are widely
scattered or which are operating in inaccessible areas, could be surrounded
by Iranian or pro-Iranian forces, or else could have their supply lines cut
by the Iranian side.66
A retired U.S. Navy captain who had served in
the nuclear submarine fleet under Admiral Hyman Rickover described in
a conversation with this writer on July 18 how he had at one time in his
career participated in an exercise which assumed that 35,000 US troops had
been cut off in or near Iran.
The immediate response was the use of nuclear
weapons, he recalled.
Against Syria For Hezbollah Actions
This is not the appropriate place to offer a detailed hypothetical scenario
of what the consequences of an Israeli or US attack on Iran might be, but it
is already clear that they would be catastrophic.
We should bear in mind once again the Brzezinski
testimony of February 2007.
One factor which has changed is unquestionably
the growing strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which would almost certainly
be brought to bear on Israel if Iran is bombed. To this must be added in the
now-declared Israeli policy of carrying out retaliatory strikes against
Syria in response to whatever Hezbollah might do to the Israelis.
In the London Times of April 18, 2010 we
‘Israel has delivered a secret warning to
Syrian President Bashar Assad that it will respond to missile attacks
from Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese-based Islamist group, by launching
immediate retaliation against Syria itself.
In a message, sent earlier this month,
Israel made it clear that it now regards Hezbollah as a division of the
Syrian army and that reprisals against Syria will be fast and
It follows the discovery by Israeli
intelligence that Syria has recently supplied long-range ballistic
missiles and advanced anti-aircraft systems to Hezbollah.
“We’ll return Syria to the Stone Age by
crippling its power stations, ports, fuel storage and every bit of
strategic infrastructure if Hezbollah dare to launch ballistic
missiles against us,” said an Israeli minister, who was speaking
off-the-record, last week.
The warning, which was conveyed to Damascus
by a third party, was sent to reinforce an earlier signal by Avigdor
Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister.
“If a war breaks out the Assad dynasty
will lose its power and will cease to reign in Syria,” he said
earlier this year.’ 67
Based on this report, we must assume that a
conflict with Iran would impose the necessity of US combat operations in
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, with the status of Pakistan
being anybody’s guess.
Hostilities would probably involve Yemen, where
a pro-Iranian insurrection confronts the Saudi-backed regime, and might also
implicate Somalia, and even Sudan. For a bankrupt power with an
overstretched and exhausted army like the US today, this means biting off a
very large chunk of the globe as a theater of war.
Bombing Iran means killing Russian technicians
at the Bushehr nuclear reactor and other sites. It may mean killing Chinese
present in the oil fields were supervising Chinese oil imports from Iran.
Bombing Syria may involve the Tartus naval base of the Russian navy, which
is being expanded.
From here, the possibilities of grave danger go
on and on.
Israel In The
Crossfire Of Missiles From Hezbollah And Iran?
Another way in which the planned attack on Iran could go out of control and
lead to a more general war, including a nuclear war by miscalculation, has
to do with the erosion of the conventional superiority traditionally enjoyed
by Israel in the Middle East.
As long as the Israelis can win on the
conventional plane against their Arab neighbors, they may not be tempted to
escalate to nuclear weapons of mass destruction. But, if Israel is facing
conventional defeat, then the impulse towards nuclear escalation may become
The failure of the Israeli efforts against
Hezbollah in the August 2006 war already suggested that Israel’s
conventional edge was no longer what it had been in the past.
Now, there are press reports of large transfers
of solid-fuel ballistic missiles with reasonably accurate guidance systems
into the hands of Hezbollah. If the reports are true, these missiles might
represent a lethal threat to the Israeli Air Force, which has always been a
cornerstone of that country’s conventional strength.
This is the background for the Israeli ultimatum
to Syria reported above.
David Moon of the Asia Times has recently called attention to
the upgrades in the Hezbollah missile arsenal, and to their far-reaching
strategic implications. Moon writes:
‘The recent alleged transfer of a small
number of Scud missiles to Hezbollah from Syria only serves to highlight
the capabilities of Hezbollah-operated M600 missiles manufactured and
supplied by Syria. The M600 is a truck-mounted solid fuel booster
pushing a 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) warhead nearly 300 kilometers...
The unanswered question - and the one of
most concern - is the number of game-changing launchers Hezbollah has
already got hidden away or that it will acquire from Syria.’ 68
Hezbollah - From
Counter-Value To Counterforce
In August 2006, Hezbollah launched some 4,000 short range missiles against
northern Israel, most of which were Russian-made Katyushas of World War II
These missiles had limited range and were
impossible to aim accurately. Accordingly, Hezbollah could only point them
in the general direction of Israeli cities. But the new missiles may be much
more accurate, and might allow Hezbollah to engage in a counterforce rather
than counter-value strategy. Instead of terrorizing Israeli civilians,
Hezbollah might be able to target the air fields used by the Israeli Air
At the same time, Israel has been developing a
layered missile defense in the form of the Iron Dome, David’s Sting, Arrow,
and Patriot systems.
There are reports that the Israeli air force is
ready to flee northern Israel at a moment’s notice and take refuge in bases
in the south of their country, where the Hezbollah missile threat is less.
But what if Hezbollah acquires accurate missiles
which can reach all that Israeli territory? And what happens if
Hamas can get a few more effective missiles
into the Gaza Strip?
As Moon writes,
‘Israelis express concern that this missile
[the M600, also known as the Fatah 110] will be directed at population
centers. A more accurate and more dangerous threat to Israel militarily
is for Hezbollah to rain down rockets on its most dangerous enemy - the
Israeli Air Force - principally on airfields in northern Israel.
However, with upwards of 40,000 Katyusha rockets stockpiled, Hezbollah
still retains the terror option.
If Hezbollah’s plentiful M600s were fired in
high-volume volleys, the Arrow system could be overwhelmed. If the IRGC
[Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps] launched Iranian high-value
Shahab-3Bs and variants timed with Hezbollah’s M600s, the Islamic
republic could deal telling blows to strategic targets... Hezbollah is
said to be flush with the Russian-made SA-7 “Grail”, the SA-14 “Gremlin”
and the SA-18 “Grouse”.
These shoulder-fired SAMs are a point
defense for covering mobile missile launchers like the M600 when exposed
during the firing and retirement cycle. Also in the bargain came the
SA-8 “Gecko”, a mobile launcher with a range of about 16 kilometers and
a height of 12,000 meters. Mix these new capabilities with Syria’s new
radar system supplied by Tehran…
For Israel, the cost of setting back Iran’s
nuclear program a few years before dealing decisively with Hezbollah and
Syria is now at an all-time high.’ 69
If Iran and Hezbollah can coordinate their
missile salvos, Moon thus suggests, it might be possible for them to
overwhelm the Israeli antimissile defenses, and to inflict grave damage on
the airfields where the Israeli air force is based.
This potential for conventional defeat or simply
for grave losses conjures up another prospect of an escalation into the
nuclear realm by the Israelis as the sole remaining means of saving the day.
On the surface, it would seem that the atomic bombing of southern Lebanon
and even more so of Gaza would make no sense for the Israelis, since the
radioactive debris and fallout would descend in large measure on Israeli
territory and Israeli population centers.
But there are also unconfirmed reports that the
Israelis may have developed their own version of the neutron bomb, something
last discussed widely in the United States during the Jimmy Carter
administration. This might avoid most of the radioactive fallout problem. In
any case, using the neutron bomb against Hezbollah would unquestionably
represent the first use of atomic weapons, and would clearly cross the
At that point, the Middle East and the world
would have entered a new and uncharted terrain, replete with incalculable
risks of general war and nuclear war.
In the meantime, we would like to interrogate the proverbial fly on the wall
during this week’s meeting of Obama with British Prime Minister Cameron at
the White House. Was their discussion really consumed by the vicissitudes of
BP and the Lockerbie incident, or was there also some discussion of
cooperation in military aggression against Iran? Given the way the wind is
blowing, the latter hypothesis appears persuasive.
Someday we may find new and more scandalous
Downing Street memoranda devoted to this meeting.
But let’s not wait around.
Political mobilization against this new war danger is imperative. There is a
conference in Albany, New York within a few days which bills itself as a
national gathering of the United States peace movement. If this movement
still exists in reality, it will respond to the situation around Iran with a
call for mass mobilization against the new warmonger-in-chief
and his new and wider war, before the end of the summer.
It is important to promote primary election or
third-party challenges, especially against Democratic members of Congress
who have voted for or otherwise supported war appropriations over the past
Most important would be the presence of a
qualified, serious, antiwar challenger against Obama in the Democratic
primary election process, starting in Iowa and New Hampshire in January
2011, which is just six short months away. A third-party peace candidate of
real presidential caliber would also be a godsend.
Those who are intelligent enough to understand
these necessities had better get busy right now. One thing is certain:
Noam Chomsky and the various left-liberal paladins of impotence are not
going to take the lead on this one.
Even though the forces that may initially respond to such calls for
mobilization may be relatively limited, they can perform the indispensable
function of alerting larger parts of public opinion at home and abroad that
a tragic and genocidal crime is being prepared behind the scenes.
If we recall the fateful summer of 2002, when
the Iraq war was being cooked up, the warlike intent of the US
administration was signaled through a bellicose speech by Cheney at
the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August, followed by a coordinated
media campaign of war psychosis starting in September.70
So far, Obama and Biden have not
started a campaign of open war propaganda concerning Iran. This time around,
it may be possible for those of us still in the reality-based community to
get out in front of the war party rather than having to run to catch up with
It is genuinely appalling to realize that we are now back to something
resembling the desperate situation of 2002, with Iran as the target this
time around. One rule of thumb which many learned during the Bush-Cheney
years is that the attack is likely to start during the dark of the moon.
This suggests a possible timetable built around
August 10, September 8, or October 7 of this year, or perhaps some
It may come as an October surprise, as de
Borchgrave seems to suggest. We are back once again to the classic
predicament of persons of good will in recent decades: get active or get
So it’s time to get active.
1 Webster G. Tarpley, “Cheney Determined To
Strike In US With WMD This Summer,” July 21, 2007, at http://tarpley.net/2007/07/21/cheney-determined-to-strike-in-us-with-wmd-this-summer/
2 “THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING/ To the American people, and to peace
loving individuals everywhere: Massive evidence has come to our
attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice
President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a
new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation
over the coming weeks and months. Such events would be used by the Bush
administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against
Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of
martial law here in the United States. We call on the House of
Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney, as
an urgent measure for avoiding a wider and more catastrophic war. Once
impeachment has begun, it will be easier for loyal and patriotic
military officers to refuse illegal orders coming from the Cheney
faction. We solemnly warn the people of the world that any terrorist
attack with weapons of mass destruction taking place inside the United
States or elsewhere in the immediate future must be considered the prima
facie responsibility of the Cheney faction. We urge responsible
political leaders everywhere to begin at once to inoculate the public
opinion of their countries against such a threatened false flag terror
operation. (Signed) A Group of US Opposition Political Leaders Gathered
in Protest at the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, August 24-25,
2007” at http://actindependent.org/
3 SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE TESTIMONY - ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI,
February 1, 2007, at http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001916.php
4 Webster G. Tarpley, “Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US
Forces On Iran Planned, Russian Military Sources Warn,” March 25, 2007,
5 Roger McDermott, “Kremlin Contemplates a Seismic Shift in Russian
Foreign Policy,” May 31, 2010, http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36393&cHash=f2c72323eb
6 ‘Sans oublier le scénario de basse intensité comportant la fermeture
du détroit d’Ormuz… mais à y regarder de plus près, celle-ci ne ferait
que retarder l’échéance d’une campagne (déjà planifiée) de frappes
massives destinées à donner toutes ses chances aux forces intérieures
œuvrant au renversement du régime. Le scénario « Ormuz » devant se
révéler tout aussi impuissant à dissuader les attaquants potentiels…
L’artère jugulaire d’Ormuz par laquelle transitent près de 30 % de la
production mondiale des hydrocarbures nécessaires à faire tourner le
moteur planétaire, fermée, un baril qui bondirait à 300 $ serait
d’ailleurs une aubaine inespérée pour les Majors, le cartel des grandes
Compagnies pétrolières, qui pourraient dès lors se lancer dans
l’exploitation à haut coût des schistes et des sables bitumineux du
Groenland et d’ailleurs ou se lancer dans d’aventureuses campagnes de
forages en eaux profondes comme dans le golfe du Mexique et avec le «
succès » que l’on sait.’ Jean-Michel Vernochet, “La guerre d’Iran
aura-t-elle lieu?” Réseau Voltaire, http://www.voltairenet.org/article166329.html
7 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, ‘Iran is Surrounded by US Troops in 10 Countries,’
June 27, 2010. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138284
11 ‘Sanctions alone won’t work on Iran,’ Washington Post, July 9, 2010,
12 Reuel Marc Gerecht, ‘Should Israel Bomb Iran?’, Weekly Standard, July
18 Michael Barone, ‘Rising speculation about bombing Iran’s nukes,’ San
Francisco Examiner, July 21, 2010 at http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/Rising-speculation-about-bombing-Iran_s-nukes-1002107-98879894.html.
See also Jim Lobe, ‘Stirrings of a New Push for Military Option on
Iran’, Inter Press Service, July 9, 2010, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20104
19 ‘ABC News Exclusive; The Secret War Against Afghanistan,” April 3,
2007, at http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
21 Tehran Times, July 18, 2010, http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=22314
22 Iran could acquire nuke weapons capability - Medvedev, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100712/159769777.html
23 Russia’s Medvedev says worried with U.S. intelligence data on Iran
24 Iran says Medvedev’s nuke remarks ‘divorced from reality’, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100713/159801504.html
25 Russia up to date on Iranian nuclear developments - Medvedev, http://en.rian.ru/world/20100715/159823618.html
26 S-300 missiles come under new UN sanctions on Iran - Kremlin source,
27 Russian-Iranian S-300 missile deal not against UN resolution - U.S.,
28 Russia rejects Iran’s claims it favors U.S. on nuclear issue ,
29 Turkey, Brazil not included in Iran Six talks - Lavrov, http://en.rian.ru/world/20100714/159811258.html
30 Iran’s nuclear program still cause for concern - Russian envoy ,
31 Iran to load reactor in Sept. 2011 - nuclear chief, http://en.rian.ru/science/20100712/159773330.html
32 ‘En ce qui concerne Moscou, cette décision semble bien refléter une
certaine «schizophrénie» au sommet de l’État ou un bicéphalisme
ouvertement divergent entre une Présidence a priori plus «occidentaliste»
que ne le serait le Premier ministre Vladimir Poutine.’ Jean-Michel
Vernochet, “La guerre d’Iran aura-t-elle lieu?” Réseau Voltaire, http://www.voltairenet.org/article166329.html
33 See Webster G. Tarpley, “Towards the Eighteenth Brumaire of General
David Petraeus?”, June 23, 2010, at http://tarpley.net/2010/06/23/towards-the-eighteenth-brumaire-of-general-david-petraeus/
34 “New Iran Nuke NIE Still Not Ready,” Newsweek, June 28, 2010, http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/28/new-iran-nuke-nie-still-not-ready.html
35 David E. Sanger, ‘U.S. Presses Its Case Against Iran Ahead of
Sanctions Vote,’ New York Times, June 7, 2010 at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/middleeast/08nuke.html
37 See Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The
Unauthorized Biography (Washington DC: EIR, 1992), pp. 320-325.
38 Michael Smith, “Blair planned Iraq war from start,” London Times, May
39 See http://www.raceforiran.com/
40 http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11025299; see also http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/28/new-iran-nuke-nie-still-not-ready.html
41 Gareth Porter, ‘Amiri Told CIA Iran Has No Nuclear Bomb Programme,’
IPS, July 19, 2010, at http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=3201
42 This Week, June 27, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11025299
45 “WHO WILL BE BLAMED FOR A U.S. ATTACK ON IRAN?”, July 11, 2010,
46 ‘U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran’s nukes,’ Washington Times, July
6, 2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/uae-ambassador-endorses-bombing-irans-nuclear-prog/
47 Joe Kein, “An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table,” Time.com, July 15,
2010, at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003921,00.html;
Time, July 26, 2010, p. 22.
48 Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand, ‘Persian Isolation: A Quiet
Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East,’ Spiegel Online, July 15,
2010, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,706445,00.html
49 ‘The Arab World Against Ahmadinejad?,’ Huffington Post, July 6, 2010,
50 Hugh Tomlinson, ‘Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack
Iranian nuclear sites,’ London Times, June 12, 2010, at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece
51 Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran, London Times, July 5, 2010,
52 ‘Verdict qui tombe après que l’Agence Guysen International News eut
diffusé le 24 juin une information donnée pour être d’origine iranienne
(!) suivant laquelle « … des avions israéliens auraient atterris sur
l’aéroport saoudien de Tabouk les 18 et 19 juin dernier…C’est ce qu’a
rapporté l’agence iranienne FARS dans un article intitulé “Activité
militaire douteuse du régime sioniste en Arabie Saoudite.”’
53 France’s Sarkozy welcomes Russia’s support of new Iran sanctions,
54 China ready to strengthen diplomatic ties with Iran (Update),
55 Joe Kein, “An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table,” Time.com, July 15,
2010, at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003921,00.html;
Time, July 26, 2010, p. 22.
57 Arnaud de Borchegrave, ‘Global Sentiment Builds to Attack Iran,’
Newsmax, July 13, 2010, http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Iran-Iraq-airstrikes-US/2010/07/13/id/364492
58 ‘Il ne manque plus au tableau qu’un prétexte plausible, une
provocation intervenant n’importe où dans le monde mais suffisamment
spectacularisable pour frapper les opinions de sidération, cela, le
temps nécessaire à lancer les premières frappes qui tétaniseront les
oppositions en les prenant de court et enclencheront automatiquement
59 ‘Sauf par conséquent à ce que l’initiative tripartite ne soit reprise
par une large coalition conduite par la Russie et la Chine, ce qui
semble peu probable dans la conjoncture présente, le scénario du pire,
sous les deux versions qui viennent d’être évoqués - frappes préventives,
représailles, fermeture d’Ormuz - est en fait de plus en plus plausible.
Et sauf une levée de bouclier internationale particulièrement nette et
ferme, La guerre de Troie aura bien lieu si les dieux assoiffés de
puissance qui siègent dans l’île de Manhattan et règnent sur la Cité de
Londres s’accordent entre eux et en décident ainsi. Il restera aux
stratèges de décider s’ils frappent directement la Perse, ou s’ils font
éclater un conflit à sa marge, pour l’y précipiter et l’y détruire.’
Jean-Michel Vernochet, “La guerre d’Iran aura-t-elle lieu?” Réseau
60 ‘US, Israel Warships in Suez May Be Prelude to Faceoff with Iran,’
June 20, 2010, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138164
61 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Iran is Surrounded by US Troops in 10 Countries,
June 27, 2010.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138284
62 Ann Gearan and Robert Burns, ‘Uzbekistan Being Considered By US As
Backup Air Base,’ Huffington Post, February 5, 2009, at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/uzbekistan-being-consider_n_164469.html
63 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, ‘Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops
near Iran Border,’ June 23, 2010, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/1382
64 ‘Militarization of the Caucasus: Tehran Says it will Oppose
Deployment of American Forces in Karabakh close to Iran Border,’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19879
65 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, ‘Iran is Surrounded by US Troops in 10
Countries,’ June 27, 2010.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138284
66 This danger is not new; see Webster G. Tarpley, ‘US Could Face
Catastrophic Military Defeat In Iraq - What Baker And Hamilton Forgot,’
December 17, 2006, at http://tarpley.net/2006/12/17/us-could-face-catastrophic-defeat-in-iraq/
67 Uzi Mahnaimi, ‘Israel warns Syria over Hezbollah attacks,’ London
Times, April 18, 2010, at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7101106.ece
68 David Moon, ‘Amid war talk, arms buildup continues,’ Asia Times, July
20, 2010, at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG20Ak03.html
69 David Moon, ‘Amid war talk, arms buildup continues,’ Asia Times, July
20, 2010, at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG20Ak03.html
70 For Cheney’s Iraq war campaign kickoff speech of August 27, 2002, see
71 For the reality-based community, see Ron Suskind, ‘Faith, Certainty,
and the Presidency of George W. Bush,’ New York Times, October 17, 2004,