US military-industrial complex looks to exploit demonstrations to weaken Ahmadinejad’s regime
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, February 21, 2011
While the current global revolt sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa is born out of a universal human cry for freedom, food security and a decent standard of living, it is important to understand that the global elite are waiting in the wings to exploit the chaos as an opportunity to re-order the geopolitical landscape in their image, particularly by exploiting the demonstrations as a vehicle through which to weaken and topple the Iranian government.
The primary reason why the US military-industrial complex and other western nations appear to be supporting revolutions which directly threaten the tenures of dictators loyal to them, Hosni Mubarak being a prime example, is that such consequences are a price worth paying if the number one target of the globalists – Iran – gets toppled in the process.
Prominent neo-con David Frum made this point clear in an article entitled America Can’t Afford to Ignore the Chaos in Bahrain, writing, “Always and ever: Iran is the big play in the Middle East…Every regional decision has to be measured against the test: Is this moving us closer to—or further from—a positive change in the Iranian political system? That test should guide decisions about Bahrain, and about a lot more than Bahrain.”
Similarly, the The New York Times’ David Sanger highlighted the fact that it’s in the interests of the US military-industrial complex to allow the revolutions to spread in order to weaken the stability of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In an interview with National Public Radio, Sanger noted that the Obama administration was looking to exploit the protests to create, “an alternative narrative to Iran that the United States ought to make use of.”
“It is in this context that we should understand why the Obama Administration, literally seven hours after Omar Soliman announced that Hosni Mubarak would step down as Egypt’s President after all, called the White House press corps back in and, as Sanger put it, “all but urged the protestors” in Iran, such as they were, “to get out and do more”. The Administration has clearly decided, as America’s strategic position in the Middle East erodes before our eyes, to “push back” against the Islamic Republic, in multiple ways,” write Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.
Indeed, several top ranking former U.S. military officials have now called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “rescind the 14-year-old designation of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organization, or MEK, as a terrorist group.”
As prominent New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has documented, the US government has already been providing hundreds of millions of dollars to MEK as a means of fomenting instability inside Iran.
“The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, said Hersh. “Then you have what the White House calls the ‘casus belli’, a reason to attack the country. That is the thinking and it is very crazy.”
As former CIA Director Michael Hayden notes, governments in the Middle East “are not dominoes, these are very different regimes,” with the Iranian regime undoubtedly being the most immune to the wave of revolutions currently spreading like wildfire across the region.
That’s why the US military-industrial complex is relying on MEK to become the vanguard of the Iranian opposition movement, because as Retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton, notes, “Iran’s current regime is currently a government that needs to change,” that is, it needs to change from the perspective of the US military-industrial complex, and they will resort to any means, including bankrolling terrorist organizations while framing them as an “opposition movement,” to make it happen.
The true scale and number of revolts now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa preclude any simple explanation that they were all kick-started as a result of US geopolitical manipulation. However, that’s not to say that such revolutions were not actively forseen and prepared for by the same forces now trying to exploit the fallout.
For example, we know that as far back as December 2008, the US Embassy was aware of plans to overthrow Mubarak in 2011 and had begun secretly funding rebel leaders to spearhead the campaign.
From a wider perspective, the fact that the outcome of the financial collapse would be food riots, revolts, revolutions and even civil war was understood years in advance.
As we wrote back in February 2008, six months before the economic collapse, the UN was “Warning of a food shortage crisis and drawing up plans for food rations which will hit even middle-class suburban populations as inflation and economic uncertainty causes the prices of staple food commodities to skyrocket.” This would lead to “food riots,” we warned, simply reporting the statements of UN officials at the time.
Soaring food prices have been cited as one of the primary drivers behind the revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.
In addition, we reported on an April 2007 British Ministry of Defence document which warned of a “mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes.” which now seems to be unfolding in Wisconsin as well as “Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order,” across the world.
The fact that the revolutions we now witness enveloping the Middle East and North Africa will grow and evolve is without doubt, the only question that remains is whether those revolts will simply lead to another form of tyranny, such as the military dictatorship that has taken over Egypt, whether the outcome will provide the opportunity for the global elite to accelerate their new world order, or whether people power will truly triumph and genuine freedom will prosper as a result.
Senator Lindsey Graham spoke the same fearmonger/warmonger propaganda recently, urging President Obama to strike Iran and cripple “their ability to wage war.” He even said that we are probably past that point. This speech of stopping their ability to “wage war” sounds a lot like the rhetoric that we’ve heard from then-President George W. Bush, when he urged the American people to support his backtrack of foreign policy and used the same excuse.
“Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we’re to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime’s ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that’s a different military scenario. It’s not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back.”
As far as I know, Iran hasn’t lobbed one weapon towards the continental United States or Iraq, or Afghanistan. It’s not a “ground invasion”, but an invasion just the same. And for the President to order such an attack without a Declaration of War from Congress is illegal.
Speaking on terms of retaliation on Iran’s part, Graham said:
“You can expect that,” he said. “You can expect, for a period of time, all hell to break loose. You must have to almost plan for that. And weigh that against the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran and what that means to the future of the world.”
Well, it’s finally time that someone admittted the obvious.
Graham said the current sanctions on Iran are not “crippling”. Now by what he means by “crippling”, he didn’t elaborate, and, furthermore, I don’t think that even he knows. Sanctions are an act of war and aggression, and they don’t work. Before WWII, sanctions created Hitler. During the ’90s, sanctions killed more that 500,000 people in Iraq.
Iran has said that if we attack (and they have a right to) they will retaliate on our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and most certainly Israel. War begetts more war and brings no resemblance of peace.
Our current state in the Middle East is precarious at best. Iraq and Afghanistan are complete failures, and we are told that bin Laden is in Pakistan; adding more fuel to the military industrial complex’s war machine. In an attempt to “fight terrorism” the United States government is trying to buy Pakistan’s alliegance, which by most reports, isn’t working.
Broadening our war machine to Iran will invigorate al-Qaeda and we will be fighting a well-armed military. Blood will be shed for a conflict that has no end in sight. By the end, the American people will be asking the most obvious of questions, “why did we do this for?” But this may come at a time when it is too late for the United States to realize the fact.
In his article, David S. Broder, covers the issues such as the economy, Obama’s run in 2012, and what he can do to save it. Can you guess what one of those things is? War with Iran. He says:
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
Broder may not be saying that we “need to incite war with Iran”, but it is either by his ignorance or maybe something else, but “inciting” is what the government does best. We’ve heard the excuse that Iran is a threat to peace in the region and the world, and that they are in the process of getting WMDs. But where did we hear this before? Oh yes, Iraq.
During the 90s, Saddam Hussien’s Iraq was broke, and in the process of sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations; a destitute Iraq was put into an already perilous situation made worse by the warmonger foreign policy. Sanctions don’t kill dictators, just the innocent.
Broder’s opinion that Obama could make this world safer is a fallacy. Case in point; there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11 or invasion; it was only when we went there that they came to fight us. So spreading the “war on terrorism” to Iran would only broaden al-Qaeda’s reach and its reason to fight us. Not to mention what Iran’s allies (China and Russia) would do. In short: I think that an attack on Iran would launch the Mid-East into a WWIII.
America may support this conflict, but Americans need to know that any such action taken on part of the United States would merit vicious attacks from al-Qaeda. And the machinery of the military industrial complex moves on.
As early as this month the Israel Aerospace Industries announced that they have signed as deal with Russia to the tune of $400 million dollars. Russia wil buy the drones over a period of three years and they will be assembled in Russia.
“This is a huge step toward deepening cooperation between IAI and Russian industry. This agreement will also strengthen the bilateral relationship between Israel and Russia,” the two companies said in the statement.
Einstein’s theory on insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Now without using big words and going smart on everyone; can anyone say that this will go well? Russia? A nation that has recently been selling weapons to Iran. A nation that has historically been opposed to Israel. Does anyone remember the Six Day War?
Now Russia’s military is obsolete and these weapons will greatly enhance their already floundering war policy.
Just recently the Obama administration proposed $2 billion multi year deal to fund Pakistan in the “fight” against terrorism.
I think I agree with Ron Paul when he said, “what’s going on here?”
Imagine if tomorrow or maybe a year from now coalition forces lead by the United States would lead surgical attacks against Iran. A nation contrary to most Americans popular belief, has done nothing to the United States and hasn’t even invaded a neighboring country. This is a country since the Bush administration has been under threat. Why?
Is it because they pose a threat to the United States? Israel? Has Iran launched a full-scale attack on U.S. forces in Iraq? True they fund Hamas, but hasn’t the United States funded Saddam Hussein? A terrorist to his own people. Were we not allied with Osama bin Laden? These facts cannot be ignored.
So what would happen?
Mini-nukes: “Safe for Civilians”
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The war agenda is based on the Bush administration’s doctrine of “preemptive” nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.
According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or “low yield” “mini-nukes”, with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered “safe for civilians” because the explosion is underground.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for “battlefield use”, they are slated to be used in the next stage of America’s “war on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons:
Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.
In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:
Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] … a UAE newspaper …, according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran’s borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel’s special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara’s readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
Tehran has said that if attacked they will retaliate. Undoubtedly targets of retaliation would be U.S. forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and Israel. Iranian forces would breach the Iraq/Iran border and this would lead to nothing short of full out war. While this has been labeled (as in the case of Iraq) a “cause for peace”, it seems to me that this would lead to a cause for destruction. Only a fool would think that using air strikes and various forms of nuclear weapons would “solve the problem”. Can we really think that Iran would roll over and die?
A foreign policy such as this deserves one word – idiocy. And a slap across the face.
With twenty-four seven coverage of the BP oil spill you may have missed things about Israel having nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. Or about the current economic slide. Or maybe the Mexican riots in L.A. Now I am not saying that this is a quote “conspiracy” to keep you in the dark, but when the spill is two months old and the progress is slow, I think that we can focus on other things besides getting told the same things over and over again. So, here are the ten things that you may have missed…
As a side note: In a time when we are losing our rights over here, we have men in armed forces fighting for the rights of others in lands far from here. This whole foreign empire nation building is one of the grossest lies ever to be sold to the American people. Sold under a guise that we aren’t there they will come here and take us over is overshadowing the fact that many of our rights are being taken from us, and not by invasion, but by legislation. Don’t be decieved.
Read my tag line: The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Adolf Hitler.
Corporate media does it’s best to keep you uninformed
Friday, Jun 18th, 2010
The mainstream media is running a 24 hour news cycle focusing purely on the BP oil spill, a disaster, as we have shown, that is being intentionally hyped in order to sell cap and trade legislation and moves to nationalize big business.
In the wake of this, big important news stories are being overlooked. Here are just some of the stories, in no particular order, that you should be hearing on the nightly news, but of course, are not.
Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.
The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
US intelligence has shown Iran could launch an attack against Europe with “scores or hundreds” of missiles, prompting major changes to US missile defenses, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said on Thursday.
The anti-Iran rhetoric has amplified following the revelation that many Bilderberg members, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, are now in favor of U.S. air strikes on Iran and are “leaning towards war,”.
“Some of them in Europe are saying no we shouldn’t do it but most of them are in favor of American air strikes on Iran,” Bilderberg sluth Jim Tucker relayed from the recent meeting in Spain. “They’re tilting heavily towards green lighting a U.S. attack on Iran.”
3. The continuing economic slide:
The greatest bankster heist in history and the looming greatest depression rumbles on.
Gold has hit record highs as the dollar slumps and the Euro continues to face complete collapse. Unemployment figures in the U.S. are through the roof and U.S. consumer prices posted their largest fall in nearly 1-1/2 years in May.
Rumours in Europe persist regarding an impending bailout for spain, while Russia says it is ready to found a “new economic world order“.
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.
Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.
5. Obama/Blagojevich story
As the Blagojevich trial continues and important details emerge, linking Obama to possible political corruption, Federal prosecutors are seeking a gag order to keep the ex-Governor and his lawyers from making public comments.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Congressman Paul Broun warns that, “With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.” Broun characterizes the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty as “nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.”
The treaty would force national governments to acquiesce to a global gun registry, while strengthening licensing procedures so as to make it almost impossible for a citizen to legally purchase a gun. It would also ban the private sale of semi-automatic weapons and ultimately lead to the confiscation and destruction of all “unauthorized” firearms owned by citizens.
By encapsulating the gun grab within a treaty, the Obama administration could claim that no Senate approval is needed to authorize any such move against the right to bear arms – although whether a treaty trumps the Constitution is a very murky area of debate.
7. Mexicans riot in LA/Land given over to Mexico
Violent scenes following the LA Lakers’ championship-clinching win over the Boston Celtics in the NBA finals saw angry mobs smashing their way through the streets waving Mexican flags as they went.
Meanwhile, a massive stretch of Arizona has become effectively off limits to Americans, Prompting questions over whether the Obama administration is giving a major strip of the south-west back to Mexico.
President Obama is planning to sneak through his job-killing, economy wrecking carbon tax by stealth according to the Washington Post, by passing a weakened bill and then adding in cap and trade provisions after the heat is off following the November elections.
Described as the “lame duck climate strategy,” Obama is planning to secure enough votes in the Senate to pass a weakened energy bill and then drag out the conference long enough to ensure the stronger provisions contained in the original House version are added “after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.”
News that the U.S. has suddenly discovered $1 trillion-worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan, and descriptions of the bounty as a “game changer” by the corporate media, represent nothing more than crude war propaganda designed to reinvigorate public support for a failing and ever more pointless occupation.
The “newly discovered” riches have been known about since the 1970s and further revelations indicate that the Pentagon report cited by the New York Times as their source for the story did not even mention the untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan.
H.R. 5175, The so-called DISCLOSE Act would severely limit the ability of political groups to communicate to their members and the general public.
Politico reports that , the NRA bargained for an exemption for itself and other large, established groups while trampling the rights of private citizens, new political groups, like Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and other small organizations.
As John Bresnahan reports, “The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations… The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.”