"We have thought about a possible military attack," Mr Larijani
said. "What the leader [Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei] said should be
taken seriously . . . If they want to harm us, we will harm them."
The country's deputy oil minister, Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, said there
was little risk of UN sanctions on Iran's energy sector while oil prices move
towards record levels above $70 a barrel.
Iran's atomic energy minister disclosed yesterday
that the country has enriched uranium to 4 per cent - enough for nuclear energy
but far short of the 80 per cent required to make nuclear weapons.
News Weekly Edition for Politics, 11/17/2003
|... Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
later in the day," IRNA reported yesterday. ...
Following talks with his Kuwaiti counterpart, Iraq's oil minister
Tehran insists that it does not want to develop nuclear weapons but that it
is entitled under international nuclear non-proliferation rules to develop
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Iran
could only negotiate with the international community if its right to
develop a civilian nuclear programme was acknowledged.
Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents - Page 169
edited by E. Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, Marc Weller,
Daniel Bethlehem - Law - 1991 - 330 pages
Sustaining the new unity of the international community
is the only hope and the
best ... It is up to the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait to negotiate those ...
"Negotiations over an undeniable and internationally acknowledged right
would . . . make us eventually lose parts of our rights. Iran has been
independent for the last 27 years and would not ask for permission to use the
achievements of its scientists," he said.
Although the US supports European diplomatic efforts to
resolve the nuclear stand-off, the Bush administration insists that it will
consider all options - including military action - to stop Iran developing
|Cheney says Iraq is about to get nuclear
weapons, and the United States will not ... country
have a responsibility to consider all of the available options,
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Saturday that no European
country would join a "coalition of the willing" to attack Iraq.
Dejavu, and more murder by the
Bushwhacker ad-menstruation of bloodlust for their shemborg collective of
Sanhedrin unto the Dragon
Operation Eretz ITSREALHELL
Bush's Five-Point Plan to Invade IRAN - Copyright 2003
Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 06:25:31 PM PDT
(Warning: It's a long one, folks -- damn long, so proceed at your own
risk...but please proceed:)
"That Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld is defiant. He says he is not backing down and
says he will stick around and let people criticize his handling of the
-- David Letterman
"On CNN today, a retired Air Force colonel said that US military
operations are already under way in Iran. You know what that means. Time to
break out the old 'Mission Accomplished' banner."
-- Jay Leno
Over the course of recent years, multiple lots of evidence have surfaced
that unambiguously point to an administration bent on invading the nation of
Saddam and there establishing an intimidating U.S. presence with or without
the aid of a publicly acceptable and legitimate rationale.
So it was written over a decade ago by then future
administration officials, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and
Donald Rumsfeld. They explained clearly what was needed in order to
Invade Iraq, and when they got it on September 11, 2001, there was no turning
That said, favorable public opinion would exponentially improve the ease with
which they were able to pursue their objectives of 'Reshaping the Middle East'.
So they rationalized an invasion with ever-changing rationales.
Like viewing failure through a kaleidoscope, each of their proposed
rationales fell into the dustbin of inadequacy -- switching from 9/11 ties, to
WMD, to regime change, to liberating the Iraqi people.
Nevertheless, the motives were sufficiently palpable -- at least enough to
ingrain our nation so far as to make immediate withdrawal a dubious option, if
not for us than for millions of innocent Iraqi citizens.
Along the way, the administration ignored (or dismissed) warnings from our
own intelligence sources that Saddam's contemporary stores
of WMD may be little more than a myth. They continued to stiff-arm our
sources by using duly noted 'dubious data' to sell the
invasion to the American public.
APOSTATE Bloodlust Judeo-Churchinsanity
Since then it has become apparent that the administration's focus had nothing
to do with WMD. The question that remains is, "Why couldn't anyone outside
the progressive political blogs see that this was taking place?"
Now the same course of events are unfolding with Iran.
War was Inevitable
Street Memo, the CIA, and a host of investigative journalists have since
come forward with evidence that War was a done deal even before the search for
Then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much when he
boasted that the real reason for the Iraq
Invasion was for oil and that the use of the WMD justification for that
invasion was used simply because "it
was something we could all agree on."
Has absolutely zero to do with oil, that is a
misdirection ruse of Sanhedrin the beast of their dragon they serve
But if you thought failures of foreign policy and revelations of executive
dishonesty would slow them down, you would be painfully mistaken because despite
all this, the administration is back at it again.
In fact, they've been working tirelessly on 'Reshaping the Middle East' Stage II
even as Stage I was struggling through infancy.
Stage II -- "Operation Iranian Freedom"
It's a simple formula really -- prepping the world for "Operation
- Use provocative language identical to that used in the run-up to
"Operation Iraqi Freedom"
- Defend the Bush "Unilateral, Preemptive Doctrine" -- desensitizing
the public to the concept.
- Drop hints that military action is a strong possibility and create an
'environment of inevitability'
- Step up Cycle of Provocation and avoid diplomacy
- Keep reading...
Step 1) Use provocative language identical to that used in the run-up to
"Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Take the Pre-invasion Quiz:
Let's see what we've learned from the first Bush term. Can you differentiate
between administration statements about Iran and past statements about Iraq?
1) Hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous
disclosures about xxxx's nuclear capacities to make the case that xxxx is
a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military
action, or 'regime change.'
2) Bush warned the United Nations that xxxx could have nuclear weapons
within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney said: "On the
nuclear question, many of us are convinced that xxxx will acquire such
weapons fairly soon.
3) But Britain, France and Germany are urging diplomacy, placing their
hopes in a deal they brokered last week in which xxxx agreed to suspend
its uranium enrichment program in return for discussions about future
4) Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that xxxx will have nuclear weapons
"fairly soon." Cheney acknowledges, and no one outside xxxx
really knows how close xxxx is to that point.
5) Secretary of State Colin L. Powell thrust himself into the debate on
Wednesday by commenting to reporters that fresh intelligence showed that
xxxx was 'actively working' on a program to enable its missiles to carry
nuclear bombs, a development he said 'should be of concern to all
(See answer below.)
Okay, so maybe that wasn't so difficult. Nevertheless, the point is clear.
The administration's foreign policy 'template' is alive and well and they find
no need to differentiate between Iraq or Iran (or probably Syria, Sudan,
Lebanon, North Korea, and France for that matter).
Hey, it worked once... and if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
(Answer key: Iran:
1,3,5 -- Iraq:
More Recently, U.N. ambassador John Bolton's Language on Iran has eerily
replicated pre-Iraq War rhetoric. ABC
News' Nightline reported that in describing the threat from Iran, Bolton is
using "precisely the same warnings that the Bush Administration proclaimed
about Iraq." Bolton said:
"Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It funds
groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad. Imagine what would happen, if the
Iranians obtained a nuclear weapon and gave it to Hezbollah. You don't want to
contemplate the consequences."
The current UN discussion on Iran is also being compared to the Iraq debate
three years ago. According to the Christian
"As the United Nations Security Council wrestles with how to curb Iran's
nuclear ambitions, discussion at UN headquarters is at times as much about the
council's effectiveness and America's role in the international community as
it is about Iran. Sound vaguely familiar?" Three years after the Iraq
debate, "the UN is witnessing a strikingly similar conversation.
Moreover, some experts warn that dallying by the council could prompt the US
to eventually act outside the UN."
Following these lines is a report by the Los Angeles Times that US Officials
Believe Iran Aiding Al Qaeda.
"US intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for
building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery:
the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of
Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country. Some officials, citing evidence from
highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the
Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and
allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the
terrorist network's operations."
Of course, Iraq was accused of Al Qaeda ties in the administration's effort
to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and broader acts of terrorism in general.
Step 2) Defend the Bush "Unilateral, Preemptive Doctrine" --
desensitizing the public to the concept.
For those nations and individuals who were somehow able to suppress their gag
reflex when Bush announced his horrific "Pre-emptive Doctrine", there
was only one logical alternative -- monkey see, monkey do.
As expected, Bush's demonic doctrine inspired others to follow
Russia: Russia assured the world that it's prepared
to make 'pre-emptive' strikes on "terrorist bases" across the
globe. Russia's Chief of Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky said:
"With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any
action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does
not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes."
Nuclear strikes? Is this guy nuts? The clear implication here is that this
official -- who has significant influence on the use of the Russian nuclear
arsenal -- believes that the global community would consider nuclear strikes as
a valid option when responding to terrorist attacks...at least to the extent
that he felt compelled to clarify that nuclear strikes will not necessarily be
the action taken. And by the way, he didn't say he would not use nuclear strikes
-- only that his proclamation is not evidence that they will.
What do you think this guy really wants to do?
And can you blame him. After all, it was our own glorious leader who defined
pre-emptive strikes as a valid form of foreign policy. We can hardly hold the
rest of the planet to a higher standard.
[In other news, President
Bush is considering the use of Nuclear Weaponson Iran]
And besides, Russia is not the first nation to jump on the pre-emptive,
North Korea: In February of 2003, North
Korean officials argued that they have the right to a pre-emptive attack on
the U.S. as the Bush Administration was preparing for the invasion of Iraq.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the
deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures.
Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
President Bush should be proud. He's set the standard for our enemies. So
much for strategic ambiguity. If you ever wondered what would happen if the US
preemptively struck another nation, Pyong Yang has your answer.
India: Back in April of 2003, India, a nuclear power, called
on the US to preemptively invade and conquer Pakistan, a neighboring nuclear
power. They cited the opinion that given the Administration's own lax criteria
for invasion, Pakistan is a far more dangerous and legitimate target than Iraq.
According to the External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha:
"I genuinely believe that if possession of weapons of mass destruction,
absence of democracy and export of terrorism are the criteria, then no country
deserves more than Pakistan to be tackled."
Japan: In May of 2003, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
"Japan has the right to make a preemptive strike on any country preparing
to attack it."
The World is about to Peemptively strike the World,
it is called Global War, and this Global war will end in desolation
He took the additional step of calling for Japan to "revise its
Constitution to give its Self-Defense Forces the status of a conventional
Japan has maintained a pacifist security policy since their defeat in WWII.
Koizumi went to outrageous lengths to propose changes to the Japanese
Constitution, attempting to turn that policy on its head and spark an aggressive
military buildup in the region and around the world.
The idea of a renewed Japanese military operating outside its own territory
would likely alarm many sovereignties in the region that were victims of
Japanese aggression in the Second World War.
Koizumi, using fashionable "Bush-speak", cited justification for
pre-emptive action because "We could not just let the Japanese people be
harmed by doing nothing."
You can imagine the historic consequences of using such logic as every
paranoid, trigger-happy, nutcase would have launched wars of aggression in the
"defense" of their nation.
And that underscores the catastrophic precedent set by this Administration
when it preemptively attacked Iraq. Bush's example has forever altered the
global perception of 'acceptable' foreign policy tactics and he has offered an
arsenal of rationalizations available for other nations in pursuit of dubious
Clearly, the "First Strike" precedent opens doors for devastation
in situations surrounding China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, Russia-Georgia,
Japan-North Korea and others. They say, "Hey! If the US can do it, why not
Targeted assassination of Itsrealhell is what began it
More recently, the Administration released its national security strategy to
Congress which underscored
the administration's commitment to the first-strike policy. Bush's national
security adviser, Stephen Hadley, insisted that the pre-emption doctrine is not
aimed at Iran.
And by that, he means that it IS aimed at Iran.
In fact, the New
York Times follows up reporting that Bush's document "gives no ground
on the decision to order a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003," and adds
that it "identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single
greatest future challenge to the United States." The strategy document
"declares that American-led diplomacy to halt Iran's program to enrich
nuclear fuel 'must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,'" And the Wall
Street Journal reports the Iran language "could heighten nervousness
that the Bush administration will ultimately resort to force to stop Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons."
Imagine: You believe your neighbor wants to do you harm so you break into his
house in the dark of night and smother him as he sleeps.
Perpetual Purim, see Chabad Lubavitch, Dinah, Shechem,
You feel vindicated as you are now assured that the threat no longer exists.
Unfortunately, your other neighbors know what you did. Now they think you
want to do the same to them.
Have a nice sleep.
Step 3) Drop hints that military action is a strong possibility and create an
environment of inevitability
Alternate Title: "Top 21 Pieces of Evidence that Iran is Next on
Bush's Hit List"
1) Clearly, the Bush administration never made it a secret that further
invasions beyond Iraq would be heavy on their list of future options.
securing Eretz Itsrealhell, Babylon Proper from the
Nile unto the Euphrates
The Bush administration [told] Congress in open hearings... that the threat of
weapons of mass destruction remains so real the U.S. may
have to use military force again to stop their proliferation.
In the strongest policy statement yet made, [then] Undersecretary of State
for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton [revealed] to the
House's Committee on International Relations the administration's "roll
back" doctrine in dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Though Bolton will stress the U.S. will seek peaceful and diplomatic
solutions to the proliferation threat, he [added], ominously, "we rule
out no options."
Among those options, Bolton [said], is pre-emptive military force, "as
the case of Iraq demonstrates.
2) Bush was drooling over the release of the 911 Commission Report, for
although it dismissed any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (we
already invaded that country anyway), the Commission did neoconservatives (Talmudic
Hassidim and their Noahide proselytes) a tremendous favor by mentioning
ties between Iran and al Qaeda, and in particular the 911 hijackers.
Now, never mind that these connections were 'Murky' and that there was no
evidence of a 'close working relationship' between Iran and the terrorist
group. Such nuances are easily downplayed and ignored by
an apathetic media and a fear-stricken electorate.
Indeed, this single reference alone could serve as the fuel for the
long-awaited execution of the neoconservative foreign policy
initiative...'reshaping' the Middle East.
3) Nevertheless, we would be grossly mistaken if we were to assume that such
cues were a recent phenomenon. An invasion of Iran and the surrounding region
has been a mainstay neoconservative objective since the founding of that
The invasion of Iraq was merely a stepping stone toward this greater
objective. In fact, the plan is described in some detail by a neoconservative
think tank whose membership at one time included Dick Cheney, Richard Perle
and Paul Wolfowitz, just to name a few.
And it all began long, long ago in a land not so far away...
4) Flashback to spring of 2003. John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria
and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He
"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson
from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their
He called the pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs a
terrorist threat and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a
peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot
use them against innocent people." No, he wasn't referring to the US... and
no, he wasn't referring to MOAB "collateral damage".
And so a methodic course of foreshadowing an unending future of preemptive
strikes was set in motion. Unambiguously implied, Iran (and Syria) are next on
the administration's hit list.
For Sanhedrin wants Iraq, Iran, Part of Saudi Arabia,
Part of Egypt to the Nile, Part of Turkey, Syria and Lebanon to revive Babylon
Proper and enslave the Middle east "non jew" goyim, and if not.....
"It is our duty to force all
mankind to accept the seven Noahide
laws, and if not — they will
be killed." Rabbi
5) To some this comes as no surprise. Certainly in beltway circles, plans for
further invasions are no secret. in March of 2003 George
McGovern claimed that Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after
finishing with Iraq.
"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration...
I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House,
that plans are in place for the next invasions."
6) And don't think for a minute that the premonition of invasion comes only
from the left. While progressives cite with outrage the probability of future
preemptive invasions, Administration hawks and the influential right-wing
media (Talmudic Media)
have boastfully warned of their desire for Middle East conquest.
In March of 2003, at a meeting of the hawkish, right-wing American
Enterprise Institute, the focus was squarely on their "bold vision of
the postwar agenda: radical reform of the UN, regime change in Iran and Syria,
and 'containment' of France and Germany."
Speaker Bill Kristol, editor of the US magazine, the Weekly Standard asserted
"The failure of the first Bush Administration to finish the job in 1991
had resulted in 'a lack of awe for the US' in the Middle East, an absence of
respect that fostered contempt of the US among Arabs and encouraged the rise
of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. This war would redress those mistakes.
The fall of Mr. Hussein would be an 'inspiration' for Iranians seeking to be
free of their dictatorial mullahs."
Frankly, the only thing surprising about Kristol's message was that he blamed
Bush Sr. and not Bill Clinton.
It is all preplanned according to the sorcery of Zohar,
nevertheless God the Creator is in charge
7) Next... Pat Buchanan, an isolationist and rare conservative dove outed
"On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open
letter to the White House instructing Bush on how the war on terror must be
conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and
Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers' support, Bush
was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria
and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any
failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, 'will constitute an early and
perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.'"
Global Noahide enforcement unto them who oppose the
self made gods of shems shame
a separate article, Buchanan singles out influential conservative columnist
"Podhoretz... claims that Bush's mission is 'to fight World War IV - the
war against militant Islam.' Podhoretz' enemies... 'are not confined to ...
the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should
extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like
the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian
Authority'... Podhoretz believes... that Bush 'must find the stomach to impose
a new political culture on the defeated' Islamic world, just as we did on
Germany and Japan..."
9) That February, during
a visit to Israel (Scroll down to story below the EU article), U.S.
Undersecretary of State John Bolton said...
...that he has "no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be
necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea
Part of Bolton's visit included a meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
who expressed his concern about the security threat posed by Iran:
"It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned
10) The Boston Globe brought it all together when it revealed the truth about
vision for the future:
"As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its most
hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that sees
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first step in the region's
Shemborg collective states
The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Middle East has
been pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles.
[It has also been] considered as a possible US policy with the ascent of key
hard-liners in the administration - from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in
the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis Libby (see ya!) on the vice president's
staff and John Bolton in the State Department...
All Talmudic Hassidic Jews of Treason
Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an
ouster of Hussein, they say, the US will have more
leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to
resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able to rely less
on Saudi oil."
Thus they allowed Hamas to win election
11) But even this wasn't the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that this
Middle-East conquest began long ago with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Richard
Perle. It involved a basic restructuring of the entire Middle East, not because
of the terrorist threat to the United States, but rather to secure
Middle-Eastern oil for the US and ultimate security for Israel.
It began over 200 years ago with the Hassidic Talmudic
Sofiet son's of the shemmyGoG of Satan
paper for the Israeli right wing by a group including Richard Perle argued
that Israel should scrap the peace process, work to subdue its neighbors by
force, and overthrow the Iraqi government in order to reshape the region's
This paper, of which Perle was the architect, was titled...
"'A Clean Break, a New
Strategy for the Realm' and it argued that the best way to secure Israeli
security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq
and also including Syria. And that's since been expanded to include
12) Back in 1992, Perle joined forces with his buddies Paul Wolfowitz and
Dick Cheney and formed a group called the Project
for the New American Century. In a document
authored three years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to
assure US global power was...
"... some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl
WTC Strike by MOSSAD
The document noted that, while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides
immediate justification for intervention...
"... the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
13) Former CIA Director James Woolsey, said:
"... the US is engaged in World War IV (WWIII having been the Cold War),
and that it could continue for years... He said the new war is actually
against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq
and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda... that all three enemies have
waged war against the US for several years but the US
has just 'finally noticed.'"
Despite Bush Administration rhetoric, their intentions are clear. Iraq is but
the first step in a long list of conquests. Indeed, they've already begun laying
the groundwork for the next phase of "Operation Iran and Syria
Freedom". As with the Iraq invasion, the Administration will rely on a complex
web of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies in order to sell the
need for invasion to the American public. (The rest of the world will never
bite. Fool me once...)
Admittedly, there are many nations whose government holds legitimate ties to
terrorist groups. The U.S. is a member of this group. Of course only in
extremist fantasyland do any of these connections warrant an outright invasion
and occupation of the country (Taliban-led Afghanistan perhaps the lone
Ironically, part of the rationale to be used in convincing Americans to drive
further into the Middle East will be derived from evidence that was at first
pushed as false proof of a Saddam-terrorism connection.
14) For example, in one of the many bogus attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda,
Colin Powell asserted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the "missing link"
between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, extensive information obtained from
individuals close to al-Zarqawi, showed no links to Iraq, but extensive
links to Iran. To illustrate, 40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into
Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia - but
not Iraq. Also, Al-Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist
attacks against a Jewish target in Germany.
15) Of course the ties between Iran and Syria to the terrorist group
Hezbollah are well known, but from here on, the line between fact and
speculation becomes increasingly blurred.
For instance, Ariel Sharon shared
the following with NY Times columnist William Safire in October of 2002:
"The Syrians, together with the Iranians, are playing a double game,
escalating tension on our northern border....the Iranians have supplied those
terrorists with 9,000 to 10,000 rockets, maybe including a new one with a
200-mile range. If war [with Iraq] comes, we'll see what Syria-Iran-Hezbollah
are preparing: they'll be surrogates for Saddam, opening a second front to
Is this believable? Iran working for Saddam? Well, it certainly hasn't
happened to date. Tellingly, when Sharon includes such telling words as
"maybe" and "we'll see" and then speculates that they are
"surrogates" for the enemy, you can bet that
he's setting-up someone else as future targets.
Even then, the outright fabrications, speculation, exaggerations, and
distortions were hastily rolling forward. They would serve as the basis for the
Of course any fabrication has but a limited lifetime... in most worlds. With
the Bush administration, any fabrications disproved or otherwise clarified to
reflect reality merely offer another opportunity to assert the original, faulty
claim with even greater force. This was the strategy used when administration
officials continued to cite an alleged meeting between an Iraqi agent and
September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta in Prague in April 2001 after Both Czech
President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted
16) Recall that Donald Rumsfeld was quick to chime in with the first blatant
lie, hastily attempting to tie Iran to Saddam, much the same as he attempted to
tie Saddam to Osama. Rumsfeld made completely unsubstantiated
charges that "hundreds" of armed Iraqi Shiite Muslim from Iran
were entering Iraq and would be viewed as "combatants."
17) To summarize the coming fabrication/propaganda campaign, veteran defense
issues commentator John
"Between April of 2003 and November 2004, the US, UK and Israel will
accelerate instability operations in Iran and engage in
global disinformation campaigns to belittle the political and military
leadership there. They will take to the airwaves to portray to
Americans a country beset by internal strife and dissension. Corporate media
will revisit the Iranian Hostage Crisis and display for war-hungry Americans
footage from the 1978-80 timeframe. That will include images of Khomeini's
henchmen hanging and executing the Shah's secret police. Movies such as Sally
Field's Not Without My Child portraying many Iranians as 'evil doers' will be
broadcast by all the networks."
18) Of course the Administration is clever in it's invasion campaigns. They
know it will take more than lies and speculation to sell a takeover of the
Middle-East. Even though the US and allies put Saddam in power (way back when he
was only an aspiring 26-year-old despot), sold him biochemical weapons, and then
supported him even as he used them, the US government has cited all these things
as evidence of the necessity of an Iraq invasion.
It seems that the Administration is following the same path in the rest of
the Middle East. In its effort to buy the loyalty of various Middle-Eastern
nations, the White House lifted
its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Administration will cite those weapons that
Syria and Iran have attained as a result of this "lift" in sanctions
as "evidence" of wrongdoing. It's the old "Bush
set 'em up and knock 'em down" technique. Recall that it was Reagan and
Bush Sr. who built the Taliban and Osama bin Laden even as they was selling
weapons illegally to Iran in order to support South American terrorists. Is
there any surprise that the world under Bush Jr. is heading in the direction
that it is?
19) To understand the mindset of these people, the American
Prospect notes the arrogance with which the neocon hawks (talmudic
hassidim jews) flaunt US military power as their personal agenda
"In the Middle East, impending 'regime change' in Iraq is just the first
step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to
neoconservatives - who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a
'cabal.' Like dominoes, the regimes in the region - first Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and
Somalia - are slated to capitulate, collapse or face US military action. To
those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, 'We
could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'"
Nevertheless, don't expect any of the Administration members to stand up and
say, "Yes, we're going into Iran and Syria [and others]."
20) Indeed, Powell
was already hard at work constructing a feeble facade of denial:
"Iraq should be ruled by its own people and American forces will not
invade Syria and Iran after liberating Baghdad... Nobody in the American
administration (has) talked about invading Iran or Syria... It seems that
there is a constant desire by everybody to accuse us of invasion operations.
That didn't, and won't, take place."
Wrong! As sourced above, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and
others have been talking
about invading Iran and Syria for years.
As always, it is the Administration's actions that must be watched like...
well... like a hawk. Their words have proven worthless a thousand times.
21) It must be noted that one of Bush's appeals-du-jour for an Iraq invasion
was to "liberate the Iraqi people" from the brutal dictator. Iran,
however is a democracy (Including a rather moderate, pro-west faction among its
people), so it will be interesting to see what nonsense he cooks up in support
of an invasion of this country. Fear of nuclear weapons is the clear focal point
for the moment. But even Iran-Contra criminal Richard
Armitage admits that the strategy will have to take a different PR slant:
"... I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the
other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a
Then we saw increased
rhetoric from the administration regarding Iran, Increased
diplomacy between Iran and our allies, warnings
from Iran, global
outcry, and covert
And now we see the cycle of provocation continued...
Step 4) Continue Cycle of Provocation and avoid diplomacy
The Provocation began years ago as 'Coalition' troops were still storming
through blistering sands toward Baghdad.
The first episode was conspicuous at best. Three
missiles fired by U.S. jets taking part in attacks in Iraq landed over the
border in southwestern Iran. U.S. and British military jets violated the Islamic
Republic's airspace several times [over a two day period] during operations
against targets in southern Iraq. In two cases, rockets from American planes hit
the area of Maniuhi, close to the border with Iraq. Another rocket hit an oil
refinery depot in the city of Abadan, about 30 miles east of the southern Iraqi
city of Basra.
For perspective, accidentally hitting an oil refinery in Iran with a missile
is about as likely as hitting a hole in one on a par 5.
Provocation in Syria? You bet. US cluster bombs annihilated
a passenger bus entering Syria from Iraq. Sure, maybe coalition forces
speculated that enemy forces were on board. Regardless, the bus was an official
civilian target and the bombing was in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions related to the protection of civilians during wartime. In any event,
an unmistakable message was sent.
And, since acts of hostility are more accurately interpreted with
accompanying acts of idiocy, the threats started rolling right from the top. The
NY Times reports:
"Shortly after Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and
Syria last week (April 2003), declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed
on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of Bush's closest
aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense
secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush
smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled
the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and
went back to work. It was a small but telling moment on the sidelines of the
war. For a year now, the president and many in his team have privately
described the confrontation with Saddam Hussein as something of a
demonstration conflict, an experiment in forcible disarmament. It is also the
first war conducted under a new national security strategy, which explicitly
calls for intervening before a potential enemy can strike."
even if it is fifty years down the road, and if they
Just cry anti-Christ, then the shems' must purge them from their Hoodlum haha
of hasatan the dragon they serve
In the same article, Administration political mastermind Karl Rove was quoted
"Iraq is not just about Iraq."
In a series of speeches to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
Bolton said U.S. officials hope that a decisive toppling of Saddam may give
pause to other nations with secret weapons programs and "that some of these
states will back off."
More recently, the cycle continues and is summarized beautify by Dave
Lindoff at Counterpunch (with some paraphrasing).
the U.S. continues to leave open the possibility, raised by President Bush
himself, of attacking Iran over its alleged efforts to produce enriched
uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Arguably, the reason Iran is working at providing itself with a nuclear
capability is precisely because it feels threatened by the U.S., and has
noticed that those countries that have nuclear weapons-Israel, Russia, India,
Pakistan, China, and North Korea-seem to get treated a lot better by the U.S.
than countries like Syria, Iraq and Vietnam, which don't.
If the goal of the U.S. were to enhance the security of the Middle East
region, to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, and to enhance the safety of Americans
and of American interests, one would think it would be trying to reach some
kind of modus vivendi with Iran, as it has done with China and Russia, so as
to lesson the perceived need of the Iranians to enhance their military
capabilities and screw with Iraq.
That, however, is not what the U.S. is doing. Instead it is blustering,
making threats, and acting outraged at efforts made by Iran to protect itself,
all of which can only have the effect of making the Iranians even more nervous
and anxious to prepare for the worst.
One would almost think that the U.S. was trying to provoke Iran.
In response, An Iranian
official threatened the US with "harm and pain" for seeking to
prevent the development of its nuclear program at the United Nations. They
warned that UN sanctions would escalate the ongoing crisis "beyond
Europe's control". They also rebutted a U.N. Security Council deadline
to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions by warning that they
hiding their nuclear program and transferring their nuclear know-how to
other regional countries if the West takes any "harsh measures"
"Military action against Iran will not end our program," [Tehran's
top nuclear negotiator] Larijani said at a conference on the energy program.
"If you take harsh measures, we will hide this program. If you use the
language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately shot back, saying Iran's
statements were further isolating it from the international community.
"Iranians can threaten, but they are deepening their own
isolation," she said in Athens.
The United States has not threatened military action and has said it is
pursuing diplomatic option. But President Bush has said all options, including
military force, remain on the table.
[Iran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani's comments came a day after
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly predicted
the Security Council would not impose sanctions and warned he was thinking
about dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
On Tuesday, Larijani said flatly that Iran would not abide by Friday's
deadline to suspend enrichment, and would halt all cooperation with the IAEA
and pull out of the treaty if sanctions were imposed.
"If you take the first step wrong, the wrong trend will continue. We
welcome any logical proposal to resolve the issue. They just need to say why
should we suspend," Larijani said.
And regarding the transfer of nuclear technology...
"Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific
capabilities in the country. ... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to
transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists,"
Khamenei told al-Bashir.
Such a transfer of technology would be legal as long as it is between
signatory-states to the nonproliferation treaty, and as long as the IAEA was
And then the administration refusess any attempt at genuine
Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council,
yesterday offered to open talks with the US over establishing a stable
government in Iraq, an offer taken up by National Security Adviser Stephen
ABC World News Tonight reported that
on "the same day that the US is essentially calling Iran public enemy
number one, US officials are also saying they're willing to accept Iran's offer
to talk." However, the White House "stresses these talks would be
limited to improvised explosive devices and others involving Iraq. In other
words, no direct talks about Iran's nuclear program."
Evening News reported the contacts "would be the first direct contact
since the Iranian hostage crisis more than a quarter century ago. Whether a
straight attempt at dialogue or a diversion from a mounting confrontation with
Iran over its nuclear program, the Administration responded coolly."
The evidence suggests that the administration doesn't seriously desire a
resolution. That would only serve to inhibit the pursuit of their long-stated
Putting it All Together
It's important to note that Tony Blair has already unambiguously stated that Britain
will have no part in such further conquests. Supporting that assertion,
Blair made a point of distancing
himself from the radical claims of Bush, instead blandly stating the obvious
-- that Iran is a sponsor of terror and that they should comply with set
obligations on their nuclear ambitions.
So let's assume that Blair is out of the picture, essentially canceling any
ghost of a coalition that existed for "Operation Iraqi Oil". This
along with the exposed truth about Iraq's AWOL WMD and fictional ties to al
Qaeda (along with Nixonian approval ratings http://www.cnn.com/2006/POL
ITICS/04/24/bush.poll/ hitting 32%. Ouch!) puts Bush in a far less
politically tenable position for preemptive invasion. At this stage of Bush's
presidency, the administration might not care about the surrounding public
opinion -- but Republican congressmen certainly will.
As predicted, Bush claimed victory in Baghdad, boasted of the liberation of
the Iraqi people, denied that either Iran or Syria were on the Administration's
radar, overruled domestic issues by distracting America's attention with a
perpetual 'war on terror', claimed the economy is the best in a century -- and
all due to his tax cuts, blah, blah, blah.
Bush will now declare Iran's refusal to accept UN demands as a belligerent
act of aggression and will proceed to exaggerate the potential of Iran's Nuclear
weapons program. In addition, North Korea will serve as an ongoing reminder
that nuclear weapons programs (which have found new life since Bush began his
saber-rattling and ABM treaty abandonment) are a reality -- keeping the focus
squarely on Iran rather than other, less 'nukular' Mid-East nations.
Remember, however, that Iran is just the next step in a long line of
'reshaping' to come.
In fact, Washington
lists 13 countries with allegedly active biological weapons programs,
including Cuba, Libya and Syria, and 16 currently producing chemical weapons,
including Pakistan, the former Yugoslavia and Sudan.
Also remember that, as we steamroll through Iran, we will simultaneously be
engaged in occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The need for troops will
increase on and around the Korean peninsula. And of course we'll always have
need for some troops to stay at home to protect our borders.
So when people wonder, "Why does the Administration seem so unconcerned
about an exit strategy from Iraq after the toppling of Saddam?" -- The
answer is, "Because we won't be leaving the region."
Having conquered Iraq, the US has already created three
U.S. Super Bases from which to proceed with the 'reshaping' of the Middle
The absolute bottom line: Can you say...
Perpetual Purim ?
I won't give the Ger toshav
Movement of the immigrants the time of the day let Drudge and fox report on
News Part 460