U. S. Naval Institute
With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.
After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.
First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.
The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.
The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.
Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.
Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.
While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.
If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.
After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.
As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:
"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy...the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Pirates of the Mediterranean
Paul Craig Roberts
V Dare
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
On June 30, the government of Israel committed an act of piracy when the Israeli Navy in international waters illegally boarded the “Spirit of Humanity,” kidnapped its 21-person crew from 11 countries, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Laureate Mairead MaGuire, and confiscated the cargo of medical supplies, olive trees, reconstruction materials, and children’s toys that were on the way to the Mediterranean coast of Gaza. The “Spirit of Humanity,” along with the kidnapped 21 persons is being towed to Israel as I write.
Gaza has been described as the “world’s largest concentration camp.” It is home to 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven by force of American-supplied Israeli arms out of their homes, off their farms, and out of their villages so that Israel could steal their land and make the Palestinian land available to Israeli settlers.
What we have been witnessing for 60 years is a replay in modern times, despite the United Nations and laws strictly preventing Israel’s theft of Palestine, of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers. An Israeli government spokesman recently rebuked the President of the United States, a country, the Israeli said, who stole all of its land from Indians, for complaining about Israel’s theft of Palestine.
I knew the “Spirit of Humanity” would fall to Israeli piracy the minute I received on June 25 from an official of an Israeli peace organization a “public advisory” that the government of Cyprus had withheld permission for the “Spirit of Humanity” to leave for Gaza. The US State Department had advised that “The Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any boats attempting to sail to Gaza will not be permitted to reach its destination.” The “Spirit of Humanity” obtained permission to leave Cyprus when all aboard signed a waiver absolving Cyprus of all responsibility for the crew’s safety at the hands of the Israelis.
As President Obama has called for humanitarian aid to be sent to Gaza, and as the International Red Cross has damned the inhumanity of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the question that immediately comes to mind is why did not the United States send sufficient US Navy escort to see the “Spirit of Humanity” safely through international waters to Gaza? We send ships against Somalian pirates, why not against Israeli ones?
We all know the answer. The US talks a good “human rights” game, but never delivers–especially if the human rights abuser is Israel. After all, Israel owns the US Congress and President Obama. Israel even has an Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces as the Chief-of-Staff in Obama’s White House. Israel owns millions of American “Christian Zionists” and “rapture evangelicals.” When it comes to Israel, the American government is a puppet state. It does what it is told.
Macho Americans might stand tall, but not when Israel snaps its fingers.
Israel, of course, will get away with a mere act of piracy. After all, Israel has been getting away with its war crimes and violations of international law for 60 years. If the UN tries to do anything, the US will veto it, as the US has done for decades.
What will happen to the kidnapped foreign nationals? Most likely they will be released and sent back to their respective countries. Israel, of course, will keep the stolen “Spirit of Humanity” to foreclose any further attempts by human rights activists to run Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza.
On the other hand, Israel might declare its captives to be terrorists on the ground that the Gazans elected in a free election Hamas as their government. Hamas, unlike Israel, is declared to be a terrorist organization by the puppet American State Department in Washington. Thus the human rights activists onboard the “Spirit of Humanity” are aiding and abetting terrorists by delivering goods to them. The US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutes American citizens and charities for sending aid to Palestinians on the grounds that Palestinians, if not everyone a terrorist, are governed by terrorists.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nobel Laureate and a former member of the US House of Representatives, along with the rest of the crew, are handed over to the Americans for indefinite detention and for torturing and waterboarding in the American torture facility at Bagram. I am certain that “Homeland Security” and the US Government are desperate to be rid of all of critics, and knocking off a Nobel Laureate and a member of the House sets a precedent for getting rid of the rest of us.
Meanwhile, California, which has become a failed state, has been denied bailout money from Washington. Israel, which has been a failed state for 60 years, can, unlike the American state of California, always count of Washington to deliver the money and the weapons to keep Israel going.
The same week that “our” government in Washington told the Governor of California “not one red cent,” President Barak Obama handed over $2.775 billion to Israel.
Online Journal (June 29) reported that the handover to Israel of the unemployed Americans’ tax dollars took place in a “tiny Capitol room” to which members of the press were denied access. I mean, really, who wants the media writing about US taxpayer dollars for Israel’s nuclear weapons while Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Not that, of course, the “Christian” supporters of Israel would mind.
Unlike every other recipient of US military largesse, Israel is permitted to bypass the Pentagon and to deal directly with US suppliers. Consequently, the Israel Lobby’s influence multiplies, because military suppliers fight for Israel in congressional committees in order to get Israel’s business. This lets Israel turn the screws on Iran. According to Grant F. Smith writing in Online Journal, Republican US Representative Mark Steven from Illinois has received $221,000 in campaign contributions from Israel political action committees (PACs). Therefore, it was a sure thing that he would introduce legislation preventing the Import-Export bank from providing loan guarantees to countries doing business with Iran.
Americans think that they are a superpower, but in fact they are a stupor-power. A puppet state if truth be known.
There is a great deal of evidence, even in Time magazine that Israel is a child abuser. “God’s Chosen People” routinely abuses captured Palestinian children. The Israelis also abuse Palestinian children by shooting them down in the streets.
Don’t take my word for it. The Geneva-based Defense for Children International says, according to Time Magazine, that “the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child prisoners appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized, suggesting complicity at all levels of the political and military chain of command.”
According to Time Magazine, “Often, children suffer lasting traumas from jail. Says Saleh Nazzal from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs, ‘When soldiers burst into a house and drag away a child, he loses his feeling of being protected by his family. He comes back from prison alienated from his family, his friends. They don’t like going back to school or even leaving the house. They start wetting their beds.’ Says Mona Zaghrout, a YMCA counselor who helps kids returning from prison: ‘They come out of prison thinking and acting like they are men. Their childhood is gone.’ And they often turn to another father figure–the armed militant groups fighting the Israeli occupation.’”
And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel need the Americans’ taxpayers money to that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, need more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil.
And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year
V Dare
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
On June 30, the government of Israel committed an act of piracy when the Israeli Navy in international waters illegally boarded the “Spirit of Humanity,” kidnapped its 21-person crew from 11 countries, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Laureate Mairead MaGuire, and confiscated the cargo of medical supplies, olive trees, reconstruction materials, and children’s toys that were on the way to the Mediterranean coast of Gaza. The “Spirit of Humanity,” along with the kidnapped 21 persons is being towed to Israel as I write.
Gaza has been described as the “world’s largest concentration camp.” It is home to 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven by force of American-supplied Israeli arms out of their homes, off their farms, and out of their villages so that Israel could steal their land and make the Palestinian land available to Israeli settlers.
What we have been witnessing for 60 years is a replay in modern times, despite the United Nations and laws strictly preventing Israel’s theft of Palestine, of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers. An Israeli government spokesman recently rebuked the President of the United States, a country, the Israeli said, who stole all of its land from Indians, for complaining about Israel’s theft of Palestine.
I knew the “Spirit of Humanity” would fall to Israeli piracy the minute I received on June 25 from an official of an Israeli peace organization a “public advisory” that the government of Cyprus had withheld permission for the “Spirit of Humanity” to leave for Gaza. The US State Department had advised that “The Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any boats attempting to sail to Gaza will not be permitted to reach its destination.” The “Spirit of Humanity” obtained permission to leave Cyprus when all aboard signed a waiver absolving Cyprus of all responsibility for the crew’s safety at the hands of the Israelis.
As President Obama has called for humanitarian aid to be sent to Gaza, and as the International Red Cross has damned the inhumanity of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the question that immediately comes to mind is why did not the United States send sufficient US Navy escort to see the “Spirit of Humanity” safely through international waters to Gaza? We send ships against Somalian pirates, why not against Israeli ones?
We all know the answer. The US talks a good “human rights” game, but never delivers–especially if the human rights abuser is Israel. After all, Israel owns the US Congress and President Obama. Israel even has an Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces as the Chief-of-Staff in Obama’s White House. Israel owns millions of American “Christian Zionists” and “rapture evangelicals.” When it comes to Israel, the American government is a puppet state. It does what it is told.
Macho Americans might stand tall, but not when Israel snaps its fingers.
Israel, of course, will get away with a mere act of piracy. After all, Israel has been getting away with its war crimes and violations of international law for 60 years. If the UN tries to do anything, the US will veto it, as the US has done for decades.
What will happen to the kidnapped foreign nationals? Most likely they will be released and sent back to their respective countries. Israel, of course, will keep the stolen “Spirit of Humanity” to foreclose any further attempts by human rights activists to run Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza.
On the other hand, Israel might declare its captives to be terrorists on the ground that the Gazans elected in a free election Hamas as their government. Hamas, unlike Israel, is declared to be a terrorist organization by the puppet American State Department in Washington. Thus the human rights activists onboard the “Spirit of Humanity” are aiding and abetting terrorists by delivering goods to them. The US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutes American citizens and charities for sending aid to Palestinians on the grounds that Palestinians, if not everyone a terrorist, are governed by terrorists.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nobel Laureate and a former member of the US House of Representatives, along with the rest of the crew, are handed over to the Americans for indefinite detention and for torturing and waterboarding in the American torture facility at Bagram. I am certain that “Homeland Security” and the US Government are desperate to be rid of all of critics, and knocking off a Nobel Laureate and a member of the House sets a precedent for getting rid of the rest of us.
Meanwhile, California, which has become a failed state, has been denied bailout money from Washington. Israel, which has been a failed state for 60 years, can, unlike the American state of California, always count of Washington to deliver the money and the weapons to keep Israel going.
The same week that “our” government in Washington told the Governor of California “not one red cent,” President Barak Obama handed over $2.775 billion to Israel.
Online Journal (June 29) reported that the handover to Israel of the unemployed Americans’ tax dollars took place in a “tiny Capitol room” to which members of the press were denied access. I mean, really, who wants the media writing about US taxpayer dollars for Israel’s nuclear weapons while Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Not that, of course, the “Christian” supporters of Israel would mind.
Unlike every other recipient of US military largesse, Israel is permitted to bypass the Pentagon and to deal directly with US suppliers. Consequently, the Israel Lobby’s influence multiplies, because military suppliers fight for Israel in congressional committees in order to get Israel’s business. This lets Israel turn the screws on Iran. According to Grant F. Smith writing in Online Journal, Republican US Representative Mark Steven from Illinois has received $221,000 in campaign contributions from Israel political action committees (PACs). Therefore, it was a sure thing that he would introduce legislation preventing the Import-Export bank from providing loan guarantees to countries doing business with Iran.
Americans think that they are a superpower, but in fact they are a stupor-power. A puppet state if truth be known.
There is a great deal of evidence, even in Time magazine that Israel is a child abuser. “God’s Chosen People” routinely abuses captured Palestinian children. The Israelis also abuse Palestinian children by shooting them down in the streets.
Don’t take my word for it. The Geneva-based Defense for Children International says, according to Time Magazine, that “the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child prisoners appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized, suggesting complicity at all levels of the political and military chain of command.”
According to Time Magazine, “Often, children suffer lasting traumas from jail. Says Saleh Nazzal from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs, ‘When soldiers burst into a house and drag away a child, he loses his feeling of being protected by his family. He comes back from prison alienated from his family, his friends. They don’t like going back to school or even leaving the house. They start wetting their beds.’ Says Mona Zaghrout, a YMCA counselor who helps kids returning from prison: ‘They come out of prison thinking and acting like they are men. Their childhood is gone.’ And they often turn to another father figure–the armed militant groups fighting the Israeli occupation.’”
And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel need the Americans’ taxpayers money to that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, need more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil.
And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Israel threatens to shoot international activists
The postwar humanitarian crisis in Gaza takes a turn for the worse with the Israeli Navy intercepting a relief ship headed toward the coastal strip.
A group of 21 activists sailing to Gaza said Tuesday that Israeli forces had threatened to gun down their boat unless they changed direction.
"There is a patrol boat around us and we were told that if we did not turn back they would open fire," Reuters quoted Irish activist Derek Graham as saying.
"We are continuing our course to Gaza," he added.
The Free Gaza Movement activists had left the Cypriot port of Larnaca earlier on Monday to deliver three tons of medical supplies, some tool kits and copper wiring to Gaza.
The activists onboard included an Irish Nobel peace laureate and a former US congresswoman.
Tel Aviv has tightened a blockade on Gaza, which is home to some 1.5 million people, since the democratically elected government of Hamas took power of the strip two years ago.
Israel's consistent blockades have cost Palestinians dearly with unemployment and poverty rates in the territory being amongst the highest in the world.
According to the official statistics agency of the Palestinian Authority, a steady decline is to be expected in the economy of the West Bank and Gaza.
With more than six months after Israel's three-week attack on the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are fighting to survive the acute shortages of fuel, food and medical supplies.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Friday that Israel's full-scale offensive on Gaza has taken a heavy toll on the territory's agriculture sector and has heightened risks of food insecurity and undernourishment.
A group of 21 activists sailing to Gaza said Tuesday that Israeli forces had threatened to gun down their boat unless they changed direction.
"There is a patrol boat around us and we were told that if we did not turn back they would open fire," Reuters quoted Irish activist Derek Graham as saying.
"We are continuing our course to Gaza," he added.
The Free Gaza Movement activists had left the Cypriot port of Larnaca earlier on Monday to deliver three tons of medical supplies, some tool kits and copper wiring to Gaza.
The activists onboard included an Irish Nobel peace laureate and a former US congresswoman.
Tel Aviv has tightened a blockade on Gaza, which is home to some 1.5 million people, since the democratically elected government of Hamas took power of the strip two years ago.
Israel's consistent blockades have cost Palestinians dearly with unemployment and poverty rates in the territory being amongst the highest in the world.
According to the official statistics agency of the Palestinian Authority, a steady decline is to be expected in the economy of the West Bank and Gaza.
With more than six months after Israel's three-week attack on the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are fighting to survive the acute shortages of fuel, food and medical supplies.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Friday that Israel's full-scale offensive on Gaza has taken a heavy toll on the territory's agriculture sector and has heightened risks of food insecurity and undernourishment.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Brookings Publication mentions possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion
Jurriaan Maessen
Prisonplanet.com
June 29, 2009
In a recent policy paper published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the new world order, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.
The group of authors- a cozy little convergence of globalists- contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but is really nothing more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.
To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:
‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’
This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):
‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’
But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.
‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’
Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.
‘We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’
As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:
‘Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’
And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.
‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’
Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:
‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’
Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):
‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:
‘Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’
The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:
‘The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’
Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?
All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.
Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
Prisonplanet.com
June 29, 2009
In a recent policy paper published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the new world order, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.
The group of authors- a cozy little convergence of globalists- contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but is really nothing more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.
To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:
‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’
This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):
‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’
But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.
‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’
Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.
‘We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’
As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:
‘Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’
And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.
‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’
Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:
‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’
Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):
‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:
‘Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’
The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:
‘The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’
Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?
All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.
Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)