Iran - the real target

Fabricated terror plot provides pretext for intervention following Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Obama administration’s fabricated terror plot blamed on Iran represents the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran set to take place within the next two weeks, according to confidential military sources who spoke with Alex Jones.


Israel is concerned that major powers like Germany are moving closer to smoothing relations with Iran and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program unimpeded. A two month window has been allocated during which Israel has the opportunity to launch a military assault, waiting until winter when the attack will be more difficult to pull off is not an option.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit was used by Israeli hawks to convince the United States that it should green light the attack. Less than 10 days later, a fanciful terror plot involving a used car salesman was invented to implicate Iran and create the pretext for a military assault.
“In recent weeks, intense discussions have taken place in Israeli military and intelligence circles about whether or not to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Apparently, the key question in the debate was how to ensure that the United States took part in the attack or, at the very least, intervened on Israel’s side if the initial strike triggered a wider war,” writes Patrick Seale of Gulf News.
That intervention has now been mandated by the announcement of the fabricated terror plot, which was actually concocted last month but only made public now.
While U.S. intelligence officials prepare to release claims about a “chain” of plots that will be blamed on Iran, Time Magazine reports that the Obama administration is preparing to use the accusations to take action beyond mere isolation tactics.
“If the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other forms of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama’s court,” writes Tony Karon. “Having made the case that Iran has crossed a red line, he will be under growing pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a “soft on Iran” charge.”



With neo-cons [TROTSKYITES/BOLSHIES/CFR] rushing to support aggressive measures against Iran, Obama will now be given right cover to pursue yet another act of regime change. As we postulated back in February last year, Obama is being blackmailed into supporting an attack on Iran as the only way to save his presidency. We also speculated that an assassination attempt would be used as the pretext to implicate Iran.
Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall.
Back in July, 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership.
Speaking with the Alex Jones Show today, former State Department official Steve Pieczenik, who has numerous inside intelligence sources having worked in several sensitive positions during the course of his career, also indicated that the terror plot was completely fabricated and that it would be used a pretext to justify a military strike against Iran.
Pieczenik also pointed out that Israel had recently taken delivery of a large amount of bunker buster missiles.
As we have documented, the alleged assassination plot against Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, which is now being cited by everyone from John Kerry to John McCain as a justification for a potential military strike, is a complete fantasy.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer has revealed that an FBI insider with a high security clearance told him no records whatsoever detailing the plot existed within DOJ channels, clearly indicating the whole episode was manufactured.
It has also now emerged that the alleged “mastermind” behind the plot was a drunk pothead who liked to frequent with prostitutes and was described by those who know him as a “joke”.
http://www.infowars.com/sources-us-gives-israel-green-light-for-iran-strike/

The Alex Jones Channel
October 15, 2011

Renowned trends forecaster Gerald Celente about the false flag op and the move toward World War Three. Celente forecasted that there will be a major war as the economy crumbles.

http://www.infowars.com/first-great-war-of-the-21st-century-is-here-with-gerald-celente/

see videos.....

Policy Wonk Plays Dumb Over Role in Iranian Escalation

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
October 15, 2011

Editor’s Note: For those not familiar with the “Which Path to Persia?” report, more information can be found here, and part II here.

October 15, 2011 - Kenneth Pollack helped literally co-author the blueprints for America’s current policy toward Iran. Titled, “Which Path to Persia?” and published in 2009 for the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, much of what was covered in the report had already gone operational before it hit the press. This includedtraining, arming, and supporting terrorists within Iran, sanctions, US-funded uprisings, and covert attempts to provoke Iran into war.

While pundits in the media and politicians behind their podiums talk about “extending hands,” “carrots and sticks,” and other trite, and ultimately contrived policies the US is supposedly pursuing in regards to Iran, there is in reality only Brookings’ plan – and it leads only to war.

Recently, Pollack penned a column for the Daily Beast titled, “Iran’s Covert War Against the United States.” In it, Pollack, addressing a readership almost assuredly ignorant of his work on “Which Path to Persia?,” claims that Iran appears to be irrationally wandering down a misguided path, waging what might be a “covert war” against America, highlighted by the contrived “Iran terror plot” targeting a Saudi ambassador. Pollack, a former analyst for the CIA, seems to humor the recent allegations against Iran as plausible despite his own cautionary words regarding jumping to conclusions and despite the growing factual basis that exists to entirely dismiss the plot. Additionally, Pollack’s feigned astonishment over why Iran has been taking a tougher stance against the US recently is a case study in duplicity, as he was one of the chief architects of the various provocations Washington has used to provoke Iran into such a stance. Pollack’s disingenuous editorial does however lend us some insight into the current mindset of the “Which Path to Perisa?” co-authors, and ultimately into the mindset of those for whom the report was prepared for and who are eager for war.


“Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution 2009 .pdf

To understand American policy toward Iran, one must understand who the authors are of such policy and what their motivations are. The Brookings Institution itself was created by and for the corporate-financier elite. It is a policy think-tank that represents the collective interests of the big oil corporations, banks, and military contractors that fund it. Quite obviously then, policy toward Iran, or any nation for that matter, from within the halls of the Brookings Institution will revolve around expanding the global financial, social, political, and military hegemony of its corporate sponsors.

Iran is a nation of 70 million, has a developed infrastructure, as well as a tremendous wealth in natural resources, including oil and natural gas. A Western dominated banking system lording over 70 million people, telecommunications companies supplying services to this vast population, and the immense consumerist troughs that could be laid out before these people alone serves as a compelling incentive to attempt to domineer Iran. War against such a nation would be a trillion dollar endeavor, utterly bankrupting the American people, but enriching the military industrial complex beyond imagination. Of course, construction firms such as war-profiteering Halliburton and Bechtel would make fortunes rebuilding amidst the destruction of such a vast nation – as untold of billions have already been made by these same corporations in Iraq, a nation with but a fraction of the land area and population of Iran. Iran’s oil fields flowing once again into the tankers, pipelines, and coffers of Anglo-American oil companies also serves as an attractive incentive, as do the geopolitical implications.

China would be essentially dependent entirely on oil controlled by the Wall Street-London “international order,” as would all nations. The development of the modern nation-state is dependent on energy. By controlling access to energy, one controls the development of nations. While many analysts suggest the continental United States contains enough energy to meet America’s needs for the foreseeable future, tapping into this supply and abandoning holdings overseas would catapult the developing world into direct competition with America on almost every front. It would also allow nation-states worldwide to defend themselves against what has essentially been a free reign of financial piracy perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other Western contrived “international institutions” used to manipulate and exploit the planet.







Image: Just some of Brookings Institution’s corporate & institutional financial sponsors. For the full list please see Brookings’ 2010 annual report (page 19 of .pdf). It should be noted that many of the managing directors, chairmen, and CEOs of these corporations also populate Brookings’ Board of Directors producing a conflict of interests of monstrous proportions. Boycotting these corporations is an absolute necessity for anyone seriously interested in stopping the global corporate-financier elite’s agenda. (click image to enlarge)
….

With this in mind, it is quite clear why the corporate-financier interests that fund Brookings have thrown their support behind executing the recommendations made in “Which Path to Persia?” and continue marching the United States ever closer to war with Iran. The report itself, most likely never intended to reach the American public on a large scale, and using language and length inaccessible to the average “bread and circus” crowds, fully acknowledges that Iran’s leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The report also notes that Iran would use its nuclear weapons only as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of the report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran’s national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests. The report also acknowledges on multiple occasions that Iran is not looking to provoke the West, and that the West, or Israel would have to proactively work to provoke Iran into war instead.

In one breathtaking quote, the Brookings report states in regards to initiating a large scale airstrike against Iran:

“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)”

This quote alone, not to mention the entire content of this report, compiled by some of America’s most prolific policy makers and funded by America’s largest corporations and banks, demonstratively executed over the past several years, makes everything that follows regarding the sanctions, covert military operations, US-funded uprisings, US-funded terrorism via the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and now these most recent, entirely contrived allegations regarding a supposed “bombing plot,” all unjustified acts of war on America’s behalf. The reckless self-serving nature of this gambit puts in danger the lives of hundreds of millions of people as these craven megalomaniacs edge us ever closer to war with Iran.

Pollack, in his Daily Beast op-ed, seems to almost relish the converging paths bringing us closer to war. While he fills his editorial with disclaimers regarding the believability of the recent Iranian plot allegations, his infinite duplicity is exhibited by omitting the role he has played in developing policy designed to purposefully provoke a war with Iran it had actively sought to avoid. Should readers know this, they would not only dismiss him as a meddling, treasonous, warmonger, but dismiss the latest allegations against Iran as yet another contrived attempt to stoke the fires of war.

Readers need to take a good look at Brookings’ sponsors. These are the people conspiring to send your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers off to war. These are the people that intend to bleed you dry financially as you pay them to wage a war you neither want nor will benefit from. These are the ones that will ultimately profit while both America and Iran suffers immeasurably.

These corporations need to be put out of business, and instead of wringing our hands and hoping for salvation from our clearly compromised, corporate-fascist government, we can begin today by boycotting these corporations and putting our money instead into local businesses, entrepreneurship, and solutions that benefit we the people. Even just beginning to boycott them, cutting back in our daily life and working toward the eventual goal of complete local self-sufficiency will scale down both the reach and ambitions of these corporations. It will also spur change within, as sagging profits motivate individuals within these corporations to abandon those advocating exploitative, parasitic agendas and business models.

We can speak up to expose the fraud, speak out to stop the war, but it is essential, above all,to begin changing the balance of power that has allowed for our nation to be led to the edge of such a precipice in the first place.

Tony Cartalucci is the writer and editor at Land Destroyer Report

http://www.infowars.com/us-policy-toward-iran-one-way-ticket-to-war/

Weekly Standard: Editor and Cofounder
Emergency Committee for Israel: Board member
Foreign Policy Initiative: Cofounder
Keep America Safe: Board member
Institute for the Study of War: Board member
Project for the New American Century: Cofounder

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 by a number of leading neoconservative writers and pundits to advocate aggressive U.S. foreign policies and “rally support for American global leadership.” One of the group’s founding documents claimed, “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”1

PNAC, which phased out most operations by 2006 and let its website expire temporarily in May 2008,2 was perhaps best known for its ability to attract divergent political factions behind its foreign policy agenda, which the group repeatedly demonstrated with its numerous sign-on letters and public statements. PNAC forged an influential coalition of rightist political actors in support of its calls for an aggressive “war on terror” aimed largely at the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq. Although some observers have exaggerated its impact—two scholars, for instance, argued in the Sociological Quarterly that PNAC almost single-handedly “developed, sold, enacted, and justified a war with Iraq” 3 —the group was arguably the most effective proponent of neoconservative ideas during the period between the beginning of President Bill Clinton's second term and President George W. Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.4

PNAC's 1997 "Statement of Principles" set forth an ambitious agenda for foreign and military policy that William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC’s founders, described as "neo-Reaganite."5 Signatories of this charter document included many leading figures from the Christian Right and other conservative political factions. The statement argued, "We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the U.S. global responsibilities."6

Among PNAC's staff and directors were Kristol (chairman), Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann, Ellen Bork (deputy director), Gary Schmitt (senior fellow), Thomas Donnelly (senior fellow), Reuel Gerecht (director of the Middle East Initiative), Timothy Lehmann, (assistant director), and Michael Goldfarb (research associate).7 In addition, a host of mainly conservative figures supported PNAC’s various sign-on letters and policy statements. (See "A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers," Right Web.)

Origins and Agenda Before establishing PNAC, neoconservatives and their allies among hardline nationalists, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, began aggressively promoting ideas meant to replace the militant anticommunism that dominated U.S. policy during much of the Cold War. A key step in this process was the 1995 establishment of the Weekly Standard by two scions of the neoconservative movement—William Kristol (son of Irving) and John Podhoretz (son of Norman). Together with Fred Barnes, a former correspondent for The New Republic, they secured funding from media mogul Rupert Murdoch to support the magazine, which quickly replaced Commentary as the high-profile outlet of neoconservative ideas.

In 1996, Kristol and Kagan wrote an article for Foreign Affairs that become a sort of founding statement for the new neoconservative agenda. Entitled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," the article established several pillars of a post-Cold War foreign policy agenda, including maintaining a benevolent hegemony based in part on a willingness to use force unilaterally and preemptively. Kristol and Kagan asked rhetorically: “What should the U.S. role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the 'evil empire,' the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world."8

The main enemy was internal; in Kagan and Kristol’s opinion, it was “time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism." They added: "In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence."9

PNAC served as an institutional vehicle for advocating the ideas laid out in this article. Housed in the same Washington, D.C. office building as the American Enterprise Institute, PNAC was staffed by a number of emerging neoconservatives who generated statements and open letters on various themes and marshaled the gathering of signatures of elite political actors. The founding of PNAC marked a "complete generational transition" in neoconservatism that occurred somewhere "between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Bosnian war," write conservative scholars Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke in their 2004 book America Alone. "By the later half of the 1990s, Kagan, William Kristol, [Joshua] Muravchik, [Richard] Perle, [and Paul] Wolfowitz ... had assumed the leadership roles that had long been held by Nathan Glazer, Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Norman Podhoretz. The younger neoconservatives had filled a space left by the increasing inability of older neoconservative views to provide a sufficient interpretative framework for the changing realities of international events in the 1990s."10

PNAC's June 1997 statement of principles repeated many of the same goals laid out in Kristol and Kagan’s Foreign Affairs article, including the use of preemptive force.

The statement argued that "the history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." Responding to what they saw as the confusion of the Clinton administration, the statement called for a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" that would be based on several key pillars.

"We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."11

Establishing the format that would be used in later PNAC publications, the statement of principles was published letter-style and signed by an impressive list of supporters. Although many of the signatories to the statement of principles (and other PNAC documents) were neoconservatives, young and old—such as Elliott Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, George Wiegel, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, and I. Lewis Libby—there were also representatives from other political and social sectors, including Religious Right leaders like Gary Bauer; mainstream Republicans like Steve Forbes, social conservatives like William Bennett; hawkish nationalists like Peter Rodman, Rumsfeld, and Cheney; and prominent academic proponents of some neoconservative ideas like Francis Fukuyama and Eliot Cohen. This range of support demonstrated PNAC’s success as an instrument for building a broader coalition of influential militarists around the neoconservative ideas and objectives of its founders. Nearly a dozen of the original signatories would, some four years later, obtain posts in the George W. Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Abrams, and Libby.12


much more

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

translation: ALL FOR ISRAEL.

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. -- No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. -- The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

Obama should return to his original approach and test the Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement. Engaging with Iran, putting its nuclear program under some kind of supervision and finding areas of common interest (such as Afghanistan) would all be important goals...

Strategic engagement with an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in that country. That's how Washington dealt with the Soviet Union and China in the 1970s and 1980s. Iran is a country of 80 million people, educated and dynamic. It sits astride a crucial part of the world. It cannot be sanctioned and pressed down forever. It is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. We need a strategy that combines pressure with a path to bring Iran in from the cold.

zone wrote:Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget


The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.
1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.
7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.
11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
12. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.
13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

Abiding wrote:Shes scary looking