What’s in a Name? The Jews-only State in Palestine.
Updated March 5th 2006
This article is a personal account of my reasons for using the phrase ‘Jews-only state in Palestine’ in preference to commonly accepted phrases such as ‘the Israeli state’ or ‘the Israeli government’. The catalyst for the change in terminology was a political protest. In September 2001 Jack Straw, the left-leaning British foreign minister, went on a tour of Middle Eastern countries in order to ascertain whether there was any common ground for reviving peace negotiations in Palestine. He promptly ran straight into a zionist brick wall. While he was on tour a letter he’d written prior to the tour was published and members of Ariel Sharon’s cabinet reacted to it with rage. "Mr straw, who started a four day tour of the middle east yesterday, prompted controversy by writing a letter in which he twice referred to Palestine. The Israelis do not recognize the term for that part of the middle east. An Israeli cabinet minister called Mr Straw’s comments an "obscenity" which, he said, turned Israel from the victim of terrorism into the accused." (Mirror 25.9.2001 p.5). In what would have been an unprecedented political rebuff, Ariel Sharon refused to meet him. The meeting went ahead only after the personal intervention of Tony Blair who agreed that henceforth his foreign secretary would comply with Sharon’s wishes. "The row began when Mr Straw said anger over the plight of the Palestinians was helping to breed terror. He also referred to Palestine, a term Israel does not recognize. Downing street said "no offence was intended" by Mr Straw’s remarks. The Prime Minister’s spokesman said the government will go back to referring to the "Palestinian controlled authorities" instead of Palestine. Mr Straw said, "I stand very firmly against the terrorism which the Israeli people have suffered."" (Mirror 26.9.2001 p.5). Just in case this might be thought to have been solely a matter between Britain and the Jews-only state it ought to be pointed out that according to one commentator, "(Jack Straw) dares to say the "P" word - Palestine - which Washington fights shy of." (Paul Routledge Mirror 26.9.2001 p.5). Despite my long acquaintanceship with middle east politics, I was shocked to learn of a ban on the word ‘Palestine’. How was it going to be possible to bring peace to Palestine when Jewish racists were able to force western governments to stop using the name of the country to which those governments were trying to bring peace? Thereafter, as a personal political protest, I stopped using the phrases ‘Israeli state’ or ‘Israeli government’. I tried various replacements such as ‘the Zionist state in Palestine’ before settling on the admittedly rather ugly, and convoluted, phrase ‘the Jews-only state in Palestine’ or ‘Jews-only state’ for short. I thought it objectionable to allow racists to define which concepts I should use. The use of racist concepts such as ‘the Israeli state’ makes racism seem normal and thus politically acceptable. Incidentally, Jack Straw returned to England a politically chastened man and thereafter never failed to reiterate the zionist line emanating from the Jews-only state. At the time I decided to stop using the word ‘Israel’ I supported the United Nations’ two state solution to the conflict in Palestine. I then came across an article by Joseph Massad proposing a single state solution. Without realizing it, I’d become so conditioned into supporting the conventional two-state solution it took me a long time to think through the merits of his arguments and change my mind. The more I agreed with Massad, the more redundant terms like ‘Israel’ and ‘Israeli state’ seemed to become. This added to the political necessity for finding an alternative formulation. One of the alternative phrases which attracted my attention was "the Jewish state". Its implication of a monocultural state seemed to correctly convey the Jewish racism rampant in Palestine. And yet gradually I realized the phrase was not merely far from satisfactory but highly dangerous. It was a phrase used by Jewish racists to indicate their desire for the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The big political advantage of their use of the phrase was that to non-racists it created a favourable impression of the Jews-only state as being as harmless as the British state or the French state. It implied ‘the Jewish state’ was as multi-cultural as Britain and France. But ‘the Jewish state’ is not multi-cultural - members of different cultures do not have exactly the same rights. On the contrary, it is a racist state. Jewish racists were thus cleverly using the phrase to parade their racist goals whilst camoflauging the racist nature of the Jewish state behind benign connotations of multi-culturalism. Whilst it was transparent that a Jews-only state was a Jewish state, it was not at all transparent that a Jewish state was a Jews-only state. There is surely something wrong with racists and anti-racists sharing a common terminology. I began using the phrase ‘Jews-only state in Palestine’ because it explicitly denotes an apartheid state. The Jews-only state denies Palestinians in the Jews-only state the same rights as Jews. The use of the phrase Israeli Palestinians was being used to deceive the world into believing that the Palestinians inside the Jews-only state had the same rights as Jews. Even today there are anti-zionists in the peace movement who promote the idea that Palestinians and Jews have the same rights within the Jews-only state. Whether these peace activists are ignorant of the truth or zionists just pretending to be Jews in order to promote zionist propaganda is difficult to say. But, either way, they shouldn’t be allowed in the peace movement. Of course, Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights, and thus no protection, from the Jews-only state. For instance, the Jews-only state in Palestine has recently decreed the newly elected Hamas government to be part of an axis of evil and has thus embarked on a policy of crippling the Palestinians’ economy in order to starve them into submission and perhaps even forceing them to leave their own country. Another benefit of the phrase Jews-only state was its historical accuracy. The Jews-only state is becoming increasingly a state only for Jews. Ever since the establishment of the Jews-only state Palestine has been acquiring an increasingly Jewish identity whilst correspondingly losing its Palestinian identity. For example, Palestinian villages have been demolished and all traces of Palestinians’ connection to the land deliberately eradicated. Even to this day Palestinian property homes continue to be expropriated and demolished. The Jews then build new homes to give the land a Jewish identity. Jennifer Loewenstein indicates the variety of ways in which the Jews-only state is removing all traces of Palestinian existence from Palestine. "With every new brick laid for the settlements, every new road paved to Ariel, Maale Adumim, Illit, Gush Etzion and beyond, with every permit denied for work, education, medical care and travel, every truck left waiting with rotting produce at Sufa and Karni, every tax and customs dollar stolen from a people interned on their own land, Israel parades its contempt for human decency and gets standing ovations in the US Congress and elsewhere." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006). Palestinians, whether inside or outside the Jews-only state, now own far less land in Palestine than they did in the past. Even if Palestinians still own land within occupied areas, the squatter state has placed so many restrictions on their freedom of movement that Palestinians’ attachment to their property is being increasingly severed. Historically, the Jews-only state is also increasing the political rights of Jews whilst decreasing the political rights of Palestinians. Eventually the Palestinians trapped inside the Jews-only state will be made as stateless as the Palestinians outside the Jews-only state, "Here we are really talking about almost genocide, in the future. Although I don’t think this will really happen and I hope that the world will not stand aside. But for the Palestinians in Israel, where this danger is not that imminent, the future means even less rights, social rights, civil rights, human rights, than they have now. They still have limited of these, but it will become worst. The Jewish state will become more ethnic, more racist, more exclusive, and anyone who is not a Jew, or is not regarded as Jew, will suffer from it more in the future than he or she suffers today." (Prof. Ilan Pappe quoted in Steve Zeltzer ‘Ilan Pappe on the Israel-Palestine conflict’ Labor Video Project cable TV program http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=16276 October 29, 2005). The phrase Jews-only state is also more politically accurate than its alternatives in the sense that it implies there are many Jewish racists in Palestine, and around the world, who want to deport, or exterminate, the Palestinians still left in Palestine. Genevieve Cora Fraser is but the latest commentator to conclude that the Jews are intent on genocide against the Palestinians. "If Israel gets its way, how long will it be before Palestine is in a similar situation – especially if, once again, Israel unleashes a reign of terror through unrelenting military assault? For nearly six decades Palestinians have been systematically ethnically cleaned - driven off their land, and Israel has all too often prevented food deliveries as well as access to medicines and water (as documented by hundreds of UN Resolutions against Israel). However, the complete economic deprivation that Israel insists on, in this writer’s opinion, is far beyond a slap in the face at democracy by refusing to acknowledge a Hamas-led government, but an attempt to commit genocide against the Palestinian people." (Genevieve Cora Fraser ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil" http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006). Yes indeed, for some Jews the best way to eradicate the stigma of living in an apartheid state would be to remove all traces of Palestinians from Palestine! What adds to the legitimacy of the phrase ‘Jews-only state in Palestine’ is a tendency amongst Jews in the west to set up ‘Jews-only’ organizations. In Britain, there is ‘Jews for Justice for Palestinians’; ‘Jews Against Zionism’; ‘Jews for a Just Peace’; ‘the Jewish Socialists Group’. In Scotland, ‘Scottish Jews for a Just Peace’. In America, ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’. A new organization has just been formed called ‘Jews against anti-Christian Defamation’. It’s objective is to do for Christians what the Anti-Defamation League has done for Jews! Is it possible we’re now going to get Jews spying, and compiling files, on Americans for the sake of protecting Christianity? These are just groups I’ve come across by accident so it has to be wondered how many more could be found with a bit of research. Personally, I’d never come across so many examples of political separatism outside of feminists’ women-only groups. The above mentioned groups are not blatantly jewish supremacist organizations like the World Zionist Organization or AIPAC dedicated to furthering the political dominion of Jews around the world. On the contrary, some are supposedly pro-Palestinian; others avowedly anti-zionist. But there is a self-evident common denominator between the Jews-only state and Jews-only organizations. Beyond the common elements of separatism and exclusivism, however, it has to be wondered how much the specialness or even supremacism of the former is dripping into the assumptions of the Jews in the latter organizations. Paul Oestreicher seems to have personal knowledge of some of those involved in a Jews-only organization which dispels any misgivings he might have had towards such organizations, "In Britain, Jews for Justice for Palestinians organises to give Jewishness a human face. Tell them they are anti-semites and they will laugh bitterly, for the charge hurts deeply and is a lie." (Paul Oestreicher ‘Israel's policies are feeding the cancer of anti-semitism’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329416218-103552,00.html February 20, 2006). Despite Oestreicher’s moral authority his personal ratification of Jews-only organizations is not going to make the doubts disappear. Jews-only organizations raise a host of questions about their real agenda. Why do Jews feel a need to organize by themselves? What are they hiding? What are they frightened about? Are they trying to promote a sense of Jewish victimhood? Why can’t they organize an anti-apartheid movement in which everyone could help to fight Jewish racism? Are they secretly trying to nullify Jewish opposition to the Jews-only state? Are they radical gatekeepers for criticisms of the Jews-only state? What are the benefits of excluding non-Jews? The questions go on and on. At the very least, non-Jews are going to waste time pondering on what these organizations are really up to. There is also the problem that such organizations will distract attention from the causes for which they are allegedly fighting. At worst, they are going to breed suspicion and mistrust. It is virtually impossible for such Jews-only exclusivism not to raise doubts about latent supremacism especially given the supremacism of Jewish racists in the Jews-only state. It is absurd for Jews-only organizations to copy the practices of the Jews-only state and then expect non-Jews to believe they are opposed to the Jews-only state. Israel Shamir’s quip about such organizations exposes their preposterous political stance, "The concept of Jews for Justice, Jews for Peace and other separatist all-Jewish groups in pursuit of common goals appears to me about as justifiable as that of Whites against Apartheid. Equality in South Africa was achieved by overcoming such dubious groupings, by the color-blind force of the ANC. It appears that the cause of justice in Palestine should not be different. Why, then, such groups exist?" (Israel Shamir ‘The New Bund at Old Tricks’ http://www.israelshamir.net/Left/Left1.htm July 11th 2005). Jeff Blankfort also questions such organizations but from a different perspective, "In this country it has been used to silence so many people. And this is one of the reasons I am against specifically Jewish organizations wanting to lead the fight for Palestine. What happens is that there are many anti-Zionist Jews, or who claim to be anti-Zionist, who say "we, as anti-Zionists Jews, should provide the leadership so that other people will see that not all the Jews are for Israel". And I am totally against that because all Americans pay their taxes and thus support Israel. And this is an American issue. And by putting it out that Jews are the leaders, that Jews, anti Zionists Jews are doing this, what it says to non-Jews is: they can do this because they are Jewish. It has been tried, so far it has been a failure." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006). The phrase ‘Jews-only state’ also acquires legitimacy because it encompasses the phenomenon of the holocaust industry’s myopic transformation of totalitarian slaughters during the 1930s and 1940s into a Jews-only slaughter. As someone who still regards the works of Hannah Arendt as being of profound political and historical significance, the massacre of Jews has to be understood within the broader context of the rise and fall of totalitarianism. During the lifetime of totalitarianism tens of millions of people were killed. However, today ask any British person (and probably any westerner) what they understand by ‘the Holocaust’ and they will almost invariably regurgitate "the slaughter of six million Jews". Although the nazis sent Jews, Communists, POWs, the aged, the sick, homosexuals, Seven Day Adventists, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, Gypsies, etc. into the concentration and extermination camps, the holocaust industry has transformed this avalanche of death into a Jews-only slaughter. Uri Avnery has described the way that many Jews have come to believe that Jews were the only people killed by the nazis or, even worse, that amongst those slaughtered the only people that mattered were Jews. "The centrality of the Holocaust in Jewish consciousness caused the Jews to insist on its absolute exclusiveness. We are shocked and furious when somebody tries to remind us that the Nazis exterminated other communities too, such as the Roma, the homosexuals and the mentally ill. We get very angry when somebody comes and compares "our" Holocaust with other genocides: Armenians, Cambodians, Tutsis in Ruanda and others. Really! How can one compare?" (Uri Avnery ‘Memory of the Holocaust - from Jewish property into human possession’ http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives.html#articles March 19th 2005). The highly profitable Shoah business has transformed totalitarianism into a racist Jews-only holocaust. A huge number of British people were killed during the second world war. It was one of the biggest losses the country has ever suffered. Since that disaster the British media has continually produced documentaries about, or dramas set against the backdrop of, the second world war. The British try to remember their losses, they honour their war dead each year, and celebrate their military victories which brought peace to Europe. And yet despite these losses, and there are still many people alive today who lost relatives or friends because of the war, despite the continual remembrance of those dark days, if you ask British people what is meant by ‘The Holocaust’ they will overlook their own history, their own suffering, and their own losses, and say, "The slaughter of six million Jews." Perhaps this concern for other people rather than themselves is just a product of the compassion of the British people. But it has to be suspected that this is not true. The British show next to no interest in the horrendous losses suffered by the Russians during the rise and fall of totalitarianism. It has been estimated that around twenty million Russians died during this time. In other words, three times more Russians were killed than Jews and yet nobody in Britain, or the west, ever mentions a Russian holocaust, or thinks about 20 million dead Russians, and there is no Russian Holocaust Day in Britain. This situation is even more anomalous since it could be argued that if the Russians had not sacrificed their lives in such vast numbers to defend themselves against, and help to defeat, the nazis then it is quite possible Britain would have lost the war. The British people therefore owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Russian people. And yet amazingly even though the Russians did far, far more than the Jews to help Britain in the war British people are not even aware of the need to feel any gratitude to the Russians but instead devote their sympathies to the Jews caught up in the so-called Holocaust. As a student I was an enthusiastic supporter of Hannah Arendt’s works ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ and ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’. I believe these works are still valid and I have not yet come across an author who has a better interpretation of the events leading to the rise and fall of totalitarianism or a better political analysis of this novel form of government. I remain confident about the facts she presented and on her political theory of totalitarianism. In the past I looked upon revisionists with contempt. However, after reading Norman Finkelstein’s book on the holocaust industry I became much more suspicious about the conventional view of the past and when I re-read Arendt’s great works I’ll keep in mind some revisionist questions to check the validity of her facts and analysis. I remain confident about the historical veracity of her works. I am not what I would call an empirical revisionist or an empirical holocaust denier. In other words, I do not challenge the facts about the rise and fall of totalitarianism. However, I have become a conceptual revisionist or a conceptual holocaust denier. What I deny, or more accurately condemn, is ‘the Holocaust’ as a Jews-only slaughter. Such a concept is inherently racist. I would indeed wear a badge "Conceptual Holocaust Denier" with pride. Totalitarianism is fading into the past but it has undergone a vital distillation so that politically it serves as a fundamental lesson of history, a warning of political dangers that ought to be avoided. However the slaughter of the Jews is not fading into the past. On the contrary, it has been hyped up out of all proportion, like a Hollywood blockbuster, into ‘The Holocaust’. Political emotions over the issue are constantly being fanned until it has become a fanatical secular crusade sucking everyone in the western world into a vortex of hysteria or guilt. Throughout his life Ariel Sharon denounced everyone who disagreed with him as a new Hitler – he even denounced George WMD Bush as a Chamberlain. Every single anti-Jewish comment no matter how mild or innocent is instantly reported to Jewish authorities and converted into cast iron evidence that the concentration camps are on their way back. These days whenever someone mentions ‘The Holocaust’ as the slaughter of six million Jews I usually retort ‘And what about the Jewish dehumanization, demonization, of six million Palestinians?’ It is the height of human folly to allow Holocaust propaganda to reach such levels of pathological irrationality that it can be used to bring about the genocide of six million Palestinians who played absolutely no part in the slaughter of Jews during the rise and fall of totalitarianism. Sympathy for the suffering of the Jews in the long distant past cannot under any circumstances be allowed to condone what the Jews-only state is currently doing to Palestinians. There is a clear difference between keeping the past alive as a guide to a civilized future and using it as a cudgel to re-enact the past. Jewish racists in the Jews only state are inflicting on the Palestinians what the nazis inflicted on European Jews. They are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from nazis. They cannot be allowed to play out their nazi nightmares on an innocent people such as the Palestinians. The phrase ‘Jews-only state’ is also superior to its alternatives in that it possesses obvious overtones from other apartheid systems where public signs such as ‘Blacks-only’ or ‘Whites-only’ were commonly in evidence. Considering the degree to which many Jews around the world have tried to pretend that the Jews-only state in Palestine is nothing like the former apartheid state in South Africa, the phrase ‘Jews-only state’ makes such a comparison unavoidable. It might also draw attention to the fact that a great deal of support for the racist Jews-only state currently emanates from former apartheid states in America’s deep south. Of course, Jews are free to define their state in whatever way they think fit. But I have no desire to use their concepts and provide them with any terminological justification for their illegal, murderous, racist, and genocidal, state. The Jews-only state, and its Jewish allies in the west, proclaims itself to be a modern, secular, liberal, democratic, western state but it is easy to dismiss such claims. It is time to get more fundamental and challenge the name that racist Jews give to their state. I believe the phrase ‘the Jews-only state’ is much more historically, politically, and morally, precise than the alternatives. For a more in depth look at the Jews-only phenomenon please see ‘The Jews-Only State in Palestine: The Utter Filth of Jews-only Racism’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mg.html The same work also appears on my blog site at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/2005/03/jews-only-state-in-palestine-part-one.html Commentators Highlighting Jews-Only Phenomena.
Edward S. Herman. "Second, the Israeli state has been allowed to ignore numerous Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding its occupation of the West Bank, as well as the International Court of Justice ruling on its apartheid wall, and simply dispossess the Palestinians of a large fraction of their land and water, demolish thousands of their homes, cut down many thousands of their olive trees, destroy their infrastructure, and create a modern network of roads through the occupied West Bank for Jews only while imposing serious obstacles to Palestinian movement within the West Bank." (Edward S. Herman ‘Western Approval for Long-Term Israeli Ethnic Cleansing’ Z Magazine March 2006). Jennifer Loewenstein. "Judea and Samaria which are, or were, the northern and southern West Bank, have been subdivided and parceled out over decades to hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers for their houses and orchards and gardens. They have been crisscrossed and circled with Jewish-only roads that bind the land, the houses and orchards and gardens, to Israel. They have been manned with guards and gunmen and tanks and blue and white Israeli flags that defend, protect and assure the settlers, their houses and orchards and gardens, that they are in fact Israelis belonging to a single Jewish state." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006). Ilan Pappe. "Israel controls the life of two groups of Palestinians: there are the Palestinians citizens inside Israel and there are the Palestinians under Occupation. These are very two different groups. I think the group under Occupation is under grave threat, there is still a very serious possibility that this people will be ethnically cleansed, once again, and that mass killing will be performed against it." (Prof. Ilan Pappe quoted in Steve Zeltzer ‘Ilan Pappe on the Israel-Palestine conflict’ Labor Video Project cable TV program http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=16276 October 29, 2005). John Spritzler. "This is why Israel makes Palestinians prisoners inside of refugee camps and inside areas surrounded by military checkpoints, why it subjects them to harsh curfews, excludes them from Jews-only roads …." (John Spritzler ‘Should People Opposed to Bigotry and Anti-Semitism Support Israel?’ http://newdemocracyworld.org/War/Should-People.htm February 6, 2005).
The Jewish Nazis’ Final Solution.
Hamas’s victory in the january 25th 2006 palestinian elections was a turning point for the jews-only state. "According to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, the Palestinian people have made their government part of the 'Axis of Evil' along with Syria and Iran. As a result, "punitive measures" will be taken by Israeli forces against all the Palestinian people, he stated." (Genevieve Cora Fraser ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil" http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006). The jews have vilified hamas to such an extent that they are now prepared to starve the palestinians out of palestine. This is a new policy – albeit one to which they have been heading remorselessly over the last few years by deliberately destroying the palestinian economy. It is their final solution to the ‘Palestinian problem’. Almost immediately after hamas’s victory the jews’ announced they would not talk to a new hamas government and refused to hand over tax returns belonging to the palestinians. They were intent on totally isolating the palestinians from the rest of the world. The jews sat back and waited for the world’s reaction. "With every new brick laid for the settlements, every new road paved to Ariel, Maale Adumim, Illit, Gush Etzion and beyond, with every permit denied for work, education, medical care and travel, every truck left waiting with rotting produce at Sufa and Karni, every tax and customs dollar stolen from a people interned on their own land, Israel parades its contempt for human decency and gets standing ovations in the US Congress and elsewhere." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006). The jews received a positive response from the war criminal, and shabbat goy, tony blair and europe’s neocon rulers who decreed they will no longer continue to provide any aid for the palestinians. Once the jews realized they had diplomatically and economically isolated the palestinians they felt safe to let it be known they were going to starve the palestinians into submission. In 2001 sharon decided to refuse to talk or negotiate with yassir arafat because he was a terrorist. He forced bush into foisting democratic elections on the palestinians in order to try and get rid of arafat but arafat won. So jews and their american minions forced the palestinians into holding presidential elections to elect someone with whom the jews could negotiate with. But no sooner had abbas been elected than sharon announced he wouldn’t negotiate with him. "After boycotting Yasir Arafat since his election in 2001, it was assumed that the Sharon government would be more forthcoming with his moderate and democratically elected successor who, after all, ended the intifada. It wasn’t. Sharon refused to negotiate with Abbas and simply ignored Israel’s responsibilities under the roadmap (freezing settlement expansion, for one). Other than calling Abbas a "partner," Sharon treated him no differently than Arafat, and the Americans didn’t press him. He ended violence and got almost nothing in return. To Palestinians, Abbas looked like a dupe." (M.J. Rosenberg ‘Who Elected Hamas?’ http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/feature.html February 27, 2006). It was not surprising then that when the palestinians elected hamas, the jews refused to negotiate with them. The pattern is obvious: the jews won’t negotiate with any palestinians because all palestinians are terrorists. They don’t want peace with the palestinians they want to deport the palestinians. "Zionism is all about running Palestinians off the land. "I support compulsory transfer," or ethnic cleansing, declared David Ben-Gurion in 1937. "I don’t see anything immoral in it." For Zionists, the Palestinians are "the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path," as Chaim Weizmann saw it. Weisglass’ mentor, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, believed there was "no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel." According to Yitzhak Avira, a Haganah Intelligence Service officer, the Zionist view in 1948 was that "the [Palestinian] Arabs are nothing. Every [Palestinian] Arab is a murderer, all of them should be slaughtered, all the [Palestinian] villages that are conquered should be burned." Of course, in 2006, it would be impossible to kill every Palestinian and burn every Palestinian village, so instead the Zionist state has decided to slowly asphyxiate the Palestinians." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Olmert: Starving Palestinians to Death’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=251 February 27th 2006). The jewish nazis are implementing a genocidal policy – whether this is a policy which could be described as filthy is a question of conscience. Gideon Levy. "The Hamas team had not laughed so much in a long time. The team, headed by the prime minister's advisor Dov Weissglas and including the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, the director of the Shin Bet and senior generals and officials, convened for a discussion with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on ways to respond to the Hamas election victory. Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter. And, indeed, why not break into laughter and relax when hearing such a successful joke? If Weissglas tells the joke to his friend Condoleezza Rice, she would surely laugh too." (Gideon Levy ‘A Chilling Heartlessness: As Israel's Hamas Team Laughs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/levy02202006.html February 20, 2006). Jennifer Loewenstein. "Hamas' reward for coming to power just in time to provide all the aspiring Sharons the most perfect, served-up-on-a-silver-platter pretext for continuing their well-worn policies with a vengeance, has been for the Kadima party - the party of the future - to announce that it will put the Palestinians on a starvation diet for presuming to exercise their rights." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006). Genevieve Cora Fraser. "For nearly six decades Palestinians have been systematically ethnically cleaned - driven off their land, and Israel has all too often prevented food deliveries as well as access to medicines and water (as documented by hundreds of UN Resolutions against Israel). However, the complete economic deprivation that Israel insists on, in this writer’s opinion, is far beyond a slap in the face at democracy by refusing to acknowledge a Hamas-led government, but an attempt to commit genocide against the Palestinian people." (Genevieve Cora Fraser ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil" http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006). Kurt Nimmo. "It should now be obvious Israel fully intends to starve as many Palestinians to death as possible." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Olmert: Starving Palestinians to Death’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=251 February 27th 2006).
Americans groveling at the feet of their Jewish Masters.
Published February 26th 2006
America is more than just the world’s most powerful military. It spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together. It is a hyper-power. Under these circumstances, it might be expected that american politicians, business people, religious leaders, as well as ordinary americans, would be determined to protect and enhance their country’s political, economic, and military, interests. It would hardly be surprising if they were prone to extreme displays of patriotism. What would be more natural than outbursts of american supremacism? And yet what is evident is the exact opposite of such expectations. The phenomenon of americans grovelling at the feet of their jewish masters is certainly one of the most shocking historical phenomenon of the 21st century. Whilst america is a hyper-power, americans have sold their country and their souls to the jews-only state in palestine. They are traitors not merely to their own country but to themselves. This phenomenon affects virtually all americans – few seem immune to this zionist infestation. "That is the state of American politics today. The Israeli lobby has put together so much money power that we are daily witnessing US senators and representatives bowing down low to Israel and its US lobby." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). * American politicians are bought by america’s biggest jewish lobby, aipac. "Founded in 1959, with each passing year, the organization gets bigger and stronger. With a base in Washington, offices across the country, 85,000 energized members, a staff of 165, and a $33.4 million annual budget, AIPAC is at the pinnacle of a massive complex of Jewish organizations and Political Action Committees (PACS) across the country, from the national to the local, that are devoted to maintaining Israel’s privileged status in the nation’s capitol." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). Aipac has bribed american politicians to vote in favour of policies that are in the interests of the jews-only state in palestine but contrary to america’s interests. "The reason that the pro-Israel lobby has to give so much more money to the politicians than the other lobbies such as arms manufacturers, oil, etc., is that supporting Israel is arguably not in the US interest from any perspective and the contributions are necessary to buy the politicians' cooperation." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’ May 24th 2005). Blankfort points out that, "In 2002, an Israeli-American, Haim Saban, donated $12.3 million to the Democratic Party. All of the arms industry PACs together gave $14 million to both political parties the same year. It was headlines when Enron was reported to have given the Republican Party $6 million over 10 years, but the item on Saban’s donation - twice as much in only one year - rated only a few paragraphs in the NY Times. Moreover, Mother Jones 400 list of the leading individual donors for the 2000 election showed that 8 of the top 10 were Jews, and 13 of the top 20, and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jewish. At that point I stopped counting. While these donors obviously had other interests besides Israel, "There’s only one thing members [of Congress] think is important to American Jews -Israel, Sen. Bernard Metzenbaum, told the 500 delegates to the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council in 1991 (Forward, 2/22/91)." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’ May 24th 2005). * American politicians prefer to fund the jews-only state in palestine rather than improve conditions for americans themselves, "Over the years Congress has been at the ready to give Israel additional funding, even when money has been unavailable for essential domestic programs, as happened in 2002 when the Senate, after defeating a bill that would have provided $150 million for inner-city schools that had been impacted by 9-11, turned around and tucked an additional $200 million for Israel into the Homeland Security Bill as if Israel had been targeted that day and not New York and Washington." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). * The bush administration allows aipac to write legislation which is then passed by the jewish-owned congress. "And they also write the legislation that Congress passes regarding the Middle East. For example, the recent Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was passed a couple of years ago and which lead to what we see in Lebanon and Syria today was written by AIPAC which later bragged about it. It is not a secret. The only people that pretend they don't know it is the Left. It's on AIPAC's website, it is in their publications." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006). * Successive american administrations pretend that aipac is not a lobby for a foreign government even though that is precisely what it is. "In every hearing in the Congress that involves Middle East issues, you have staff members of AIPAC sitting in these committee hearings. No other lobbies, foreign lobbies, have this privilege." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006). * The jewish-owned american congress has frequently passed legislation, written and promoted by the jewish lobby, which boosts the political or military interests of the jews-only state in palestine whilst undermining the economic interests of the united states, "as a result of pressure that pro-Israeli groups were able to exert on Congress, a set of antiboycott laws was passed that severely limit [US] business in the Arab world. As a result, American companies and the United States economy suffer an estimated $1 billion loss per year." (Professor Cheryl Rubenberg quoted in Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). * American presidents have provided military protection for the jews-only state in palestine which has alienated arab/moslem countries thereby undermining america’s economic interests. In 1973, president nixon airlifted weapons to the jews-only state in palestine to help it defeat arab armies even though he must have known this would result in economic retaliation. The arab countries organized an oil embargo which threw the american, and global, economies into a decade long recession. * American presidents have initiated boycotts against other countries in favour of the jews-only state in palestine even though this undermined the interests of america’s biggest multi-national corporations. In 1995, president clinton banned american energy companies from investing in iran to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. The consequence has been that over the last decade america’s oil industries have lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. For more details please see ‘How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mm.html * Israelis currently control vast slabs of the bush administration. "The neoconservatives … control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898 February 21, 2005). Wayne madsen has suggested they’re aiming to take control of the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) - America's premier electronic surveillance body. "What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America's virtual "Fort Knox" of intelligence treasures and secrets." (Wayne Madsen ‘The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press’ http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052405Madsen/052405madsen.html May 24th 2005). * In the past, america’s foreign policies were designed to promote the interests of american multi-national corporations around the world. However, in the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union, the jews-only state in palestine, and its israeli supporters in america, have taken complete control of america’s foreign policies in the middle east. America’s middle eastern foreign policies are almost exactly the same as those pursued by the jews-only state. But even this was not enough. In recent years israelis have acquired such extensive control over the bush administration they have focused america’s foreign policies almost exclusively on the middle east whilst ignoring foreign policy issues in south america and the far east. Over the last few years, a number of south american countries have undergone a political transformation which poses a considerable threat to american interests and yet the bush administration virtually ignores these developments because the israelis in his administration are concerned solely with the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. "The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests - has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be." (Ronald Bleier ‘Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas’ http://desip.igc.org/ConvergingAgendas.html April 2003). * Successive american presidents have refused to recognize the existence of the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons. As far as american politicians are concerned the jews-only state in palestine is not a nuclear power. "The U.S. government has never acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, even though the world knows otherwise, thanks to the whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu. (London Sunday Times, Oct. 5, 1986) The continuing policy of denial can only hinder efforts to "rein in" Israel in the event of a nuclear crisis. One could hardly imagine a more explosive mix." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003). * The american military seems willing to sacrifice its own troops, and their own honour, to fight wars for the benefit of the jews-only state. * There is no such thing as a wasp military industrial complex. There is however, what blankfort calls a the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex, "In other words, what JINSA represents can best be described as the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003). * Tens of millions of american christians have become zionists who now believe in the judaic god of vengeance not the christian god of forgiveness. They care more about the jews-only state in palestine than their own country. See, ‘The Prospects of a New Race War’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mk.html * American oil companies allowed their country to be pushed into an invasion of iraq they didn’t support. Perhaps even more remarkable is that america’s gigantic multi-national oil companies failed to protect their vast investments in new orleans because the bush administration was more concerned about providing tribute payments to the jews-only state in palestine – despite the fact that both george bush and dick cheney have connections to the oil industry. See the chapter ‘Katrina Exposes the dominance of Zionism over America’s Oil Industry’ in The Amazing Spectacle of America’s Self-Destruction: Zionists and Katrina (Part Three) http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/2005/11/amazing-spectacle-of-americas-self.html * American trade unionists invest their pension funds in the jews-only state in palestine and thus have an economic incentive for supporting the racist state even at the expense of palestinian workers. "While not officially part of the lobby, since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the AFL-CIO has been one of its most solid cornerstones. It has provided millions of dollars for pro-Israel Democrats; it has blocked all international efforts to punish Israel for its exploitation and abuse of Palestinian workers, and it has encouraged its member unions to invest millions of dollars of their pension funds in State of Israel Bonds, thereby linking their members' retirement to the health of the Israeli economy. Over the past year, the lobby has cemented ties with the Christian evangelical right, which gives it clout in states where there are few Jews and access to hundreds of thousands of new donors to Israel's cause." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). When the jews-only state launched an illegal invasion of lebanon, june 6th 1982, it was supported by the AFL-CIO which took out a full page ad in the NY Times, declaring "We Are Not Neutral. We Support Israel!" paid for by an Israeli lobbyist with a Park Avenue address." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). * American universities also invest funds in the jews-only state in palestine and thus have an economic incentive to propping up the apartheid state. "investing in Israeli companies and in State of Israel Bonds of which US labor union pension funds, and many states and universities have purchased hundreds of millions of dollars worth. These purchases clearly obligate those institutions to lobby Congress to insure that the Israeli economy stays afloat." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). * American lefties have been duped by the chief rabbi of the left, noam chomsky. These neo-lefties blame their own country for what the jews-only state in palestine is doing to the palestinians rather than ariel sharon and the racists in the likud party, "He (chomsky) would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). Chomsky is to the left what richard perle is to the right. See also http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26n.html#Chomsky * American greens sold out ralph nader for the sake of the racist, pro-war, democratic party. The greens running the green party are neo-greenies – see the article ‘Zionist Machinations in the American Green Party?’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26j.html * America’s peace movement refuses to criticize the war-mongering apartheid state in palestine. Jeffrey blankfort provides one of many examples of the attitude of the neo-peaceniks, "Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace's statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). See the article, ‘2004: The Year of the Traitors’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mc.html#00 * America’s liberals have been duped by the holocaust industry. It’s bad enough that jews profit from the tragedy that befell the jewish people during the second world war. But it’s even more amazing when the holocaust industry makes americans feel guilty for what happened to the jews in order to push them into supporting the racist jews-only state. * Given that america is a hyper-power what is so remarkable about america’s leaders is their slavish devotion to another country, their identification with another country, their public expressions of loyalty to another country, and perhaps most shocking of all, their willingness to lay down their lives for another country. The following is just a smattering of examples which suggest americans are suffering from a total collapse in their national identity. Daniel Inouye. "In September 1991, with the war over, the Bush administration presented AIPAC with its greatest crisis since the battle with Ford. In the midst of the administration’s efforts to assemble the cast for what became the Madrid "peace conference," much to the consternation of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israel sprang a surprise on the President–a demand for $10 billion dollars in US guaranteed loans over a five year period. Congress, of course, was ready to jump through Israel’s hoops again over the opposition of President Bush. Angered at Israel’s demand and fearing, perhaps, that approval of the loan guarantees would allow Israel to withdraw from the conference while antagonizing the Arab invitees, Bush asked Shamir to postpone the loan application for 120 days, and made its approval conditional on Israel freezing Jewish settlements. When Bush indicated that he was going to ask for the delay, Arens recalled, "[Sen. Daniel] Inouye [D-HA] was not equivocal at all. He said, ‘I am putting on my yarmulkle; we’re going to war." (It was no coincidence that his first paying job after getting out of the Army after WW 2 had been as a salesman for State of Israel Bonds)." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). Tom Delay. President Bill Clinton. "I would die for Israel." Kay Arthur. Kay arthur is a popular "Christian Zionist" author and minister, who blurted out, "I love America. But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel." (Quoted in Justin Raimondo ‘Putting Israel First’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=0 March 6th 2005). Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi seems perfectly willing to push the world into a third world war to protect her beloved jews-only state, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology." (Nancy Pelosi quoted in Joshua Frank ‘Israel Comes First: Pelosi at AIPAC’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05312005.html May 31, 2005). In conclusion, the neocons, israeli traitors living in america, control the american media, the republican and democratic parties, (not forgetting many fringe parties such as the green party), congress, the pentagon, the office of homeland security, the cia, the defence intelligence agency, the state department, the national security council, and the presidency. "The Congress, the Executive branch, state and local governments, and national and local media have all come under the influence of the Jewish "lobby’s" pro-Israel agenda to the point that none or few dare to criticize Israel or its US representatives." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005). It is as if americans have totally lost sight not only of their country’s national interests but their national identity and their patriotism. It’s almost as if the zionists have hypnotized them into becoming their devoted slaves. Americans have become the world’s white niggers, eunuchs to the court of the terrorist, war criminal, ariel sharon. Americans even seem willing to sacrifice their own freedoms, their own constitution, their own values, the values of western civilization, solely in order to serve their racist jewish masters. The scale of jewish indoctrination of americans is so staggering that americans can’t see what a laughing stock they are, what ridiculous idiots they’ve become. It can be suggested that as a result of the west’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, western civilization can now be portrayed by the man on the cross – you know, the one with the electrodes attached to his legs and arms.
Summary Dismissal from Antiwar.com
I’ve just been summarily removed from antiwar.com’s email group. I thought I would publish the exchange of messages leading up to my removal so that readers can judge for themselves whether the decision had merit. Under the heading ‘Filthy Jewish Nazis’ I posted Genevieve Cora Fraser’s article ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil"’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006. I posted no comment on her article as I thought the outrageousness of the jews-only state’s new policy of starving the palestinians into submission was obvious enough. The following exchange ensued. From Norm Cohen February 24th 2006 Message 43483 Hi John, Wow. You must have had a tough day. Hope you feel better now that you've got this all off your chest. But don't despair. Sasha Cohen didn't get gold. The evil Jews don't always win. ;-) Norm From mundi February 24th 2006 The phenomenon of americans grovelling to their jewish masters is certainly one of the most shocking historical phenomenon of the 21stc. America might be the world’s hyper-power but americans have sold their country to the jews-only state – traitors to their own country. American politicians bought by jack abramoff and aipac; the christian zionists; the american oil companies which allow their country to be pushed into wars they don’t want and fail to protect their vast investments in new orleans because subsidies have to be paid to the jews-only state; the trade unionists who invest their pension funds in the racist jews-only state; the lefties duped by the chief rabbi of the left noam chomsky; the greens selling out ralph nader; the american military who sacrifice their own troops and their own honour to fight wars for the benefit of the jews-only state; the peace movement which never criticizes the war-mongering apartheid state in palestine; and the liberals duped by the holocaust industry. It is as if americans have totally lost sight not only of their national interests but their national identity and their patriotism. It’s almost as if the zionists have hypnotized them into becoming their devoted slaves. Americans have become the world’s niggers, eunuchs to the court of the terrorist, war criminal, ariel sharon. Americans even seem willing to sacrifice their own freedoms, their own constitution, their own values, the values of western civilization, solely in order to serve their jewish masters. The scale of jewish indoctrination of americans is so staggering that americans can’t see what a laughing stock they are, what ridiculous idiots they’ve become. From mundi February 24th 2006 Hi Norm, Came across a quote I thought you might like, "Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace's statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). Looks like you’ve been outed! Sorry I don’t know who sasha is. I’ve been supporting the Palestinian delegation at the winter olympics. With all those wonderful facilities the jewish master race provides for its captive slaves I expect the palestinians to be near the top of the medals league table. Best of all I hear the olympics committee is going to introduce some new winter sports which I’m sure the palestinians will do well at. Firstly, dodging bullets from filthy jewish racists. Secondly, dodging attacks by F-16s being flown by filthy jewish racists. Thirdly, seeing how many palestinians can be crammed into a walled off open prison. Fourthly, seeing how long palestinians can go without resources until the filthy jewish racists starve them to death. cheers john From bill_by_the_river February 24th 2006 Much of this would be accurate if applied to israel, or even zionists in general, but the fact of the matter is that most American Jews were not advocates of the invasion of Iraq and a much higher percentage of American Jews are advocates of withdrawal from Iraq than Americans in general. "Approximately 70 percent of Jews in the United States oppose the war in Iraq, compared to 28 percent who support the war" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/660353.html My guess is that even many zionist Jews were opposed to the Iraq invasion. Saying that the Iraq war is due to "Jewish control" of the US government doesn't pass the smell test. The indication is that if Jews, in general, controlled the US government then we would NOT have invaded Iraq. Once again, you're identifying the more aggressively zionist Jews with every Jew in the world, which is a highly inflated falsehood. From mundi February 24th 2006 Message American jews, like non-jewish americans had the chance to vote for an anti-war presidential candidate in the 2004 presidential elections. They voted overwhelmingly for pro-war candidates. I agree that the jews who pushed america into the war against iraq, the same ones who are pushing america into a war against iran, are primarily elite jews in the jewish dominated media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned congress, and the israelis in the bush administration. I believe that most american jews accept the policies of their jewish leaders. There is no civil war within the jewish community over support for the zionist proxy wars against iraq and iran. I don’t hear american jews protesting about what the jews-only state in palestine is doing to the palestinians. In american there is no jewish opposition to the theft, racism, and the state terrorism being carried out by the jews-only state. Most american jews are as arabophobic as their jewish counterparts in the jews-only state. Making statements like, "Once again, you're identifying the more aggressively zionist Jews with every Jew in the world, which is a highly inflated falsehood." is just a means of covering up jewish racism and the jewish theft of palestinian resources. Do jews really want to be known as a people who use god to steal other people’s resources? ------------------------- It was at this point that an entirely new poster suddenly appeared on the scene. During the eighteen months I’ve been on antiwar.com he had never once posted a message. ------------------------- From Sam Bradley February 25th 2006 Hi Mr. Carbonomics, Even though, I`m not Jewish, I would take offense of the term, "Filthy Jewish Nazis". While I`m in total aggreement with your opposition to the Israeli occupation, I dissaprove of your rather anti-semetic tone that you chose to use in redressing your justified grievance. Do you wish Israel to be wiped off the map as well? Do you support Hamas? We must learn to separate our justifed grivance over the occupation from any inflammatory rhetoric that could be misconstued as antisemetic. The Jewish people suffered a great deal under Fascist oppression,and to even suggest that becuse of rhe occupation, that they must be Nazis, that would be equivalent to calling a black person a member of the Ku Klux Klan or a "cracker". I think you owe the jewish people, and those whose grandparents that suffered under Fascist oppression, an apology. Be against the occupation, but don`t call them, "Filthly Jewish Nazis". Peace & Power to the People!, Sam. ------------------------- Sam bradley then seemed to undergo something of a personality change when he quickly posted a follow up message. ------------------------- From Sam Bradley February 25th 2006 Mr.Lynch, I`m redress my grievances at your intolerable anti-semetic remarks. You sound no different than Hamas or the Nazis, (see, your`e the filthy Nazi). I happen to like Sasha Cohen, & I think she should have won. Don`t take it out on Jewish people for the war or the occupation of Palestine. This should not be a forum to express hate. To do that would be to give in to the right-wing extremists would use this to divide us as they did with COINTELPRO in the `60s. I am very grateful for the many jweish people that I have come to know as friends, neighbors, classmates, etc. I remember when I was a kid, I came home from school, my folks and sister were out, and I was locked out of my house, but a nice Jewish family let me stay with them until my folks returned. Half of my girlfriends were Jewish,as well as my teachers, plus, I was born in a country that had a President of the Jewish pursuation. (it was Panama, surprised?). As I write this, in Downtown Orlando, U.S.A., there`s is a Fascist rally taking place, I`m sure if they heard the rhetoric you`ve shamelessly displayed, they would welcome you, and perhaps, invite you to speak. Be against the war. Be against the occupation of Palestine, but don`t you use them as a justifaction for your anti-semetic propaganda. BTW, Sasha won a Silver. How do you feel about Black. (and proudly say, BLACK), people? Say a big "Seig Heil" to your friends in Hamas. Sincerely, (I think), Sam. This is what I think of you & your Fascist remarks. ------------------------- I posted the following message to antiwar.com but yahoo informed me they weren’t accepting my posts. ------------------------- From mundi February 26th 2006 Sam. It’s funny that neither you nor norm say anything about the article I posted in which the jews-only state has started on the final lap of trying to starve the palestinians into submission – possibly as a prelude to their deportation. I do indeed support hamas. I support hamas in the same way that I support the jewish resistance in warsaw to the nazis. Hamas have used the same tactics as ariel sharon. As to your inflammatory rhetoric concerning whether I would like to see the jews-only state wiped off the map. Yes, indeed, I support the one state solution in palestine where jews and arabs live peacefully together under non-racist laws. John
The Global Intifada against the Jewish Master Race.
In 2000, ariel sharon marched into the al aqsa mosque protected by a couple of thousand heavily armed jewish troops. He wasn’t protesting about any infringement on his freedom of movement. He was acting as a provocateur in the hope of provoking a violent response from palestinians which would bring to an end all peace negotiations with the palestinians and enable the jews-only state in palestine to carry out even more repressive measures against palestinians. But he was also warmongering. He was making a statement of intent that one day jewish racists would demolish the al aqsa mosque and push all palestinians out of their own country. The palestinians responded violently not because they are violent by nature nor because they were upset that someone had trespassed on sacred moslem land or had insulted their prophet but because the world’s most renown terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal, was announcing an act of war against them. In the hail of a million and a half bullets, the heroic palestinians battled against one of the most highly trained, and barbaric, armies in the world. Five years later, the same warmongering tactic was used by europe’s jewish-owned media. Once again racist jews were announcing their promise of another war against the moslem world in the hope of provoking a violent reaction from moslems which would help to boost popular support in the west for such a war. Anyone who believes the cartoon issue is about freedom of speech is seriously out of touch with current political realities. It is ludicrous to believe that the large numbers of commentators in the western media who see the cartoon issue as a question of free speech, care anything about human rights when they have done nothing to protest about the gross infringements of human rights in palestine. Whilst these highly educated, highly sophisticated, buffoons were trying to turn the publication of the cartoons into a matter of free speech, the people on the streets in the moslem world saw what cartoons were really about – an announcement by the jewish racists controlling the european media of a war against the innocent people of the middle east. The jewish- commissioned cartoons were not merely blasphemous and anti-moslem, they were a declaration of war by europe’s jewish racists against the decent people in the middle east who are revolted by the racism of the jews-only state in palestine. "The publication of the 12 cartoons, and the reaction on both sides, is a classic case of how propaganda of the crudest sort is utilized to mold mass attitudes and whip up entire populations into a state of hysteria. Hate and fear are created out of thin air by the most skillful means, and stereotypes take the place of reality as the world prepares for war. That's what this is all about: the hate propaganda emanating from certain quarters in Europe and the U.S. amounts to preparations for war just as much as the manufacture of arms and the mobilization of armies at the border. We are being psychologically prepared for another world war, and the first shots are being fired from the pages of Jyllands-Posten. I have the sinking feeling that they won't be the last…" (Justin Raimondo ‘Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512 February 8, 2006). The jewish owned media in europe declared war against the islamic world and they got a war like response from people sick to death of having to suffer because of jewish racism. It would have been better for moslems to have reacted against these jewish racist cartoons not with violence but with peaceful and dignified street demonstrations and a political boycott of danish goods to try and show the danes, and their european allies, that europe’s jewish neocons are a threat to the economic and national interests of denmark and all other european countries. It is to be hoped everyone will help to boycott danish goods. It is important to punish the danes as an example to all those who pledge their allegiance to the cause of jewish racism and jewish supremacism. Hopefully it will make the danes realize their national and economic interests are the opposite of the interests of the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish traitors who seem to have infiltrated danish society and politics. The palestinians are leading the way in resisting jewish racism and jewish world domination. It is up to the rest of the world to join them in their intifada against the evil jewish empire.
The Left, and Right, Wing Anti-War Commentators Promoting the War on Iran
Originally published as ‘Mike Whitney Promoting war on Iran?’ February 3rd 2006
Updated March 11th 2006
Preamble. A number of commentators hold that the primary reason america will attack iran is to defend the dollar as a global currency. Iran is alleged to be threatening the role of the dollar as the sole currency for oil transactions by setting up an oil bourse on which oil can be bought and sold for euros – just as saddam threatened the dollar by selling iraqi oil for euros. Paradoxically, most of those supporting such an hypothesis are anti-war commentators – both on the left and the (paleo) right wing. The big political danger of the petro-dollar explanation of the war against iran is that both left, and right, wing anti-war activists are in effect providing a justification for the war they are supposedly seeking to avert. Although the proponents of the petro-dollar hypothesis are anti-war, and personally do not regard the petro-dollar hypothesis as a justification for an american attack on iran, it has to be suggested that for many americans this hypothesis would provide sufficient justification for war. If americans are told that iran is devaluing the dollar in their pocket and threatening to bring about the collapse of the american economy they are going to want to know why america hasn’t started bombing iran. In their eyes, such a war would be self-defence, defending their way of life. There is a considerable danger that anti-war critics are going to find their explanation for the likelihood of an american attack on iran is a self fulfilling prophesy which helps to win popular support for the war. This article highlights the commentators promoting the petro-dollar hypothesis but does not seek to examine the merits of this hypothesis. For an exploration of the merits of the petro-dollar hypothesis please see the chapter ‘The Dollar as a Global Currency’ in ‘The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran’. The Economic Origins of the Petro-Dollar/Oil Bourse Thesis. The idea that iran’s proposed oil bourse would pose a threat to the global supremacy of the dollar started primarily as an economic speculation. William Clarke. "The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse. In 2005-2006, The Tehran government developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market." (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html October 27th 2004). Krassimir Petrov. "The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006). Emilie Rutledge. "This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars. The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB)." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ http://english.aljazeera.net/english/Templates/YourComments.aspx?NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2fC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%2ehtm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7bC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest November 03 2005). Craig Paul Roberts. "The US has become the world's largest debtor, in hock to foreigners for one-fourth of our Gross Domestic Product. The ratio of US external debt (what we owe to foreigners) and US exports is approaching the crisis ratios of banana republics. It is inevitable: America's mounting debts will produce a crisis. The dollar's value will plummet, and US living standards will drop. Everything will become more expensive for Americans. The perilous condition of the dollar is one of the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. What keeps the overvalued dollar up is the fact that it is the currency in which the Middle East bills its oil. Every country has to purchase dollars in order to pay for its oil, and these purchases keep the dollar afloat. Just prior to the US invasion, sanctions on Iraqi oil had run their course and were about to be removed. Saddam Hussein intended to bill Iraqi oil in Euros, which could have started the abandonment of the dollar by the oil producing countries. Instead of fixing our economic problems, we started a war." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘War, Outsourcing and Debt’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09292004.html September 29, 2004). He continued to support such an idea even up to the beginning of 2006, "Indeed, a number of thinkers (William Clark and Krassimir Petrov, for example) have concluded that the reason that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran is Iran's intention to establish an international oil exchange in which anyone can buy or sell oil in any currency. Such an exchange, it is argued, would spell the dollar's death as the currency in which oil is billed. With countries no longer needing dollars in order to pay their oil bills, the demand for dollars and dollar denominated assets would decline. The dollar would further depreciate, bringing crisis to import-dependent America." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01232006.html January 23, 2006).
The Left Wing, Anti-war Commentators who have taken up the Oil Bourse Thesis. The left/anti-war wing of the political spectrum (in both america and britain) is so dominated by jews that it will support any fantasy to avoid blaming the jews-only state in palestine, the jewish owned media in america, the jewish lobby in america, and the israelis in the bush administration, for pushing america into an invasion of iraq and an attack on iran. The petro-dollar hypothesis has three main advantages for the jewish dominated left wing, anti-war movement. Firstly, it reinforces the idea of an american empire thereby implying that the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish lobby in america are insignificant agents of american global power. Secondly, it suggests that america’s economic/financial interests are under threat when they are not. Thirdly, it diminishes the role played by the jews-only state in palestine, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby in america, and the israelis in the bush administration, in pushing america into a war against iran for the benefit of the jews-only state. The jewish dominated left finds it impossible to countenance the idea that jews have taken control of the american political system and are using america’s colossal military power to boost the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine – at the expense of american interests. For the jews on the left, the petro-dollar hypothesis is invaluable because it helps to protect the jews-only state in palestine from adverse political criticism. The influence of jews on the left/ anti-war movement has become so poisonous and corrupting that in order to protect the jews-only state in palestine they are willing to promote a thesis which provides the american public with a rationale for an attack on iran. Although left wing jews pretend they are opposed to the war against iran many would secretly applaud such a war because of the benefits it will bring to the jews-only state in palestine - even though it will have calamitous consequences on america’s economic and military interests. Mike Whitney. "Iran's future oil and natural gas wealth foreshadow its growth into a regional competitor to Israel as well as an energy-independent powerhouse. Their stated intention to sell resources via their own, homegrown bourse, is a direct threat to the existing economic system. It would greatly increase trade in petro-euros and send the dollar into a downward spiral. The importance of this cannot be overstated. The heart-and-soul of the empire is the Greenback; that flaccid, debt-ridden hoax that props-up the entire rickety structure of state-terror. The $8 trillion dollars of accumulated debt that underwrites the greenback requires that the world continue to buy oil in dollars. The transition from dollars to petro-euros is a direct assault on a system that forces the lavish debt of the wealthiest nations onto the shoulders of the world's poorest people." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). See also, "the proposed "euro-based" bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006). Thierry Meyssan. "At the same time, Iran is preparing « a world without Israel and the USA ». Tehran is optimistic about putting in place an oil spot market which doesn’t accept dollars. This is already working at an experimental stage. If no nation has officially announced its participation, many are encouraging participation through private companies acting as intermediaries. Now, the dollar is an overvalued currency whose value is maintained essentially by its role as a petro-currency. Such a spot market, once really up and running, would provoke a collapse of the dollar, comparable to hat of 1939, even if its transactions only amounted to a tenth of the world turnover. US power would be undermined by the falling dollar and, in time, Israel would also find itself bankrupt." (Thierry Meyssan ‘The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885 February 4, 2006). Michael Keefer. "The coming attack on Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its primary motive, as oil analyst William Clark has argued, is rather a determination to ensure that the U.S. dollar remains the sole world currency for oil trading. Iran plans in March 2006 to open a Teheran Oil Bourse in which all trading will be carried out in Euros. This poses a direct threat to the status of the U.S. dollar as the principal world reserve currency - and hence also to a trading system in which massive U.S. trade deficits are paid for with paper money whose accepted value resides, as Krassimir Petrov notes, in its being the currency in which international oil trades are denominated. (U.S. dollars are effectively exchangeable for oil in somewhat the same way that, prior to 1971, they were at least in theory exchangeable for gold)." (Michael Keefer ‘Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936 February 10, 2006). Geov Parrish. "It preferably wants regime change before Tehran follows through on its threat to convert the currency in which it sells its oil from dollars to euros - a precedent-setting move that could have dire global consequences for the dollar as the international currency of choice, and, hence, ugly long-term consequences for the debt- and trade-deficit-riddled American economy." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367 February 15th 2006). Toni Straka. "A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the US has only a minority market share." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html Aug 26, 2005). John Pilger. "the prospect of an American attack on Iran, which is very real and probably imminent. Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked." (John Pilger ‘The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006A.shtml February 10th 2006). The Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe. "The Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020. The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran: - on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ; - on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward[1]. These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system." (The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020 ‘Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis’ http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3513&Itemid=85 February 25 2006). Heather Wokusch. "In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran's worst transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March 2006. Iran's plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break the dollar's monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the US economy." (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006). Whilst heather wokusch’s sympathies clearly lay on the left and are anti-war she does surprisingly manage to slip an extreme right wing zionist idea into her article, "It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran's, potentially sparking increased global terrorism." (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006). She even peddles chomsky argument that turkey will support a zionist attack on iran, "Given what's at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it's doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council. Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey's crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there's been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be "informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened" and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran "on the day in question." (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006).
The Right Wing, Anti-War Commentators who have taken up the Oil Bourse Thesis. Ron Paul. "It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting "our" oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm February 15, 2006). Paul Sheldon Foote. Paul sheldon foote accepts the iranian oil bourse thesis. He circulated an article highlighting the supposed dangers of an iranian bourse, "The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) have been lying about exporting American democracy and values. These are some of the real reasons why these American traitors want to bomb Iran and establish a totalitarian regime for the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists." (pfoote@fullerton.edu February 5th 2006). The Bush Administration’s Disinterest in the Petro-Dollar/Oil Bourse Thesis to Promote a War against Iran. Despite the fact that both left and right wing anti-war commentators believe that the real reason for the war against iran is the establishment of iran’s oil bourse nobody in the bush administration or the neocon media has made any comment about it. The Right Wing use of the Petro-Dollar/Oil Bourse Thesis to Promote a War against Iran. The petro-dollar hypothesis is a legitimate economic speculation but politically it could be used to provide america with a seemingly legitimate excuse for a war against iran. This section highlights the commentators seeking to do precisely that. Jerome R. Corsi The first right wing commentator to start using left wing arguments to support the war is jerome r. corsi who acknowledges the source of his ideas, "Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi points out that, "Today, about 70 percent of the world's international foreign currency reserves are held in dollars. If the petroeuro begins to challenge the petrodollar, this percentage could diminish drastically. The United States depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits. What if foreign-exchange portfolios from oil sales fell to 60 percent being held in dollars – would that cause a crisis in the U.S. economy? Or would it take 55 percent? Most Americans are completely unaware of this threat Iran represents to the U.S. economy." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). He points out the dangers of a challenge to the petro-dollar to america’s poor, "Clearly, any threat to petrodollar holdings could undermine social programs in the U.S., including Medicare and key welfare programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). He concludes, "If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." "In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource. This book reveals the conclusions reached by Dr. Thomas Gold, a professor at Cornell University, in his seminal book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" (Copernicus Books, 1998) and accepted by many in the scientific community that oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." (Review of Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith ‘Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil’ http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1769 c.February 2006). Critics of the Petrodollars Hypothesis. Paul Craig Roberts. It was pointed out above that craig paul roberts was one of the main economists highlighting the danger of iran’s oil bourse. He has recently changed his mind. "Will an Iranian oil bourse hurt the dollar? Not really. The dollar's value depends on the world's willingness to hold dollar denominated assets, not on the currency used to pay oil bills. If payments were not made in dollars, there could be a slight negative impact on the dollar from countries reducing their dollar cash balances and from the psychological shock of pricing oil in Euros (or some other currency). However, what really counts is what do the oil producers, for example, do with the currency that they are paid. If they are paid in dollars, but exchange the dollars for Euros or Yen and purchase equities or bonds or real estate in Europe and Japan, it doesn't help that oil is billed in dollars. Or if they are paid in Euros but exchange the Euros for dollars and purchase US assets, it doesn't hurt that the oil is billed in Euros." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). "The negative impact on the dollar will be far greater from the additional red ink necessary to finance an attack on Iran than from an oil bourse." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). Jeff Blankfort. Blankfort sent out the following email concerning michael keefer’s article ‘Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation’ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00157.htm February 15th 2006. "I am forwarding this, not because I agree with the writers' premise, that there will be a US attack on Iran -which I don't -but because it has become typical of the scholarship, or lack of same, that has come to distinguish what passes for the opposition to US foreign policy. I am also aware that it will be spread by unthinking, well-meaning others as the gospel truth. Apart from the glaring absence of any mention what effect an attack on Iran would have on the situation in Iraq which has a very long border with Iran, Keefer's noting that "Michel Chossudovsky wrote in May 2005, [about] widespread reports that George W. Bush had "signed off on" an attack on Iran," is but one example of the lack of scholarship as well as analysis on the writer's part, a failing he shares with other pundits who have taken that allegation seriously. First, there were no "widespread reports" of Bush taking this action. It was dropped as an aside by Scott Ritter, in February, 2005, when he was speaking in Seattle, and neither he nor anyone else has been able to substantiate it. Why Ritter, an ex-Marine and now a famous ex-WMD inspector (as well as a strong supporter of Israel, who acknowledges having worked with Israeli intelligence under Barak) would have access to such information, he and no one else, did not seem to trouble those who were sure that the US was going to bomb Iran last June as Ritter had stated (and which he subsequently rationalized when it didn't happen as did the unoriginal Chussodovsky in the statement below). It is also curious that when Ritter recently stated and has written that John Bolton's speech writer told him that he has already written the speech Bolton will make at the UN to justify a forthcoming US attack, that no one, at least publicly, has wondered why this speech writer would not only violate a speech writer's required anonymity, but why he would tell this to someone who appears, at least publicly, to oppose the US war on Iraq. So let me express my wonderment and my doubts, not only about that but about the US attacking Iran, at all. What Keefer and the others never write about is critical and its absence from their analysis is inexcusable, namely, that given that a sizeable segment of the Iraqi troops being trained in Iraq are loyal to the pro-Iranian SCIRI and Dawa parties, both of which were founded in Iran in 1982, it is logical that their guns would be turned on the US and British soldiers as Mokata Sadr has already promised to do with his Mahdi army should the US attack Iran. Add to this, the ability of Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz and block shipping in the Gulf would be devastating for the world oil market and, sooner or later, for all of the Western economies. In an election year, gas at $6 and $7 a gallon is not what the voters want to see. The conversion of Iran to euros, also mentioned, as a reason, does not stand up to analysis either. What we are seeing is a game of international poker, with the US spreading this disinformation about a pending attack as a high stakes bluff, aided, ironically, by a host of the administration's critics whose shallow analysis seems to be part of our daily email fare. The Iranians know they have the winning hand for this round, at least." (Jeff Blankfort" jblankfort@earthlink.net February 15th 2006). Chris Cook. Whilst commentators talk as if iran’s oil bourse will definitely be established in march 2006, iran is nowhere near to opening the doors of its new exchange. One of the financial directors involved in setting up the bourse is amused at the prospect that he is about to bring down the global economy, "It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros." (Chris Cook ‘What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA21Ak01.html Jan 21, 2006). He points out the difficulties he’s experienced setting up the bourse. Firstly, the "turf battles between the Oil Ministry and the Ministry for the Economy". Then, after the election in 2005 of the new iranian president, the three attempts to appoint a new oil minister. "Three times over a period of three months an oil minister was nominated by the new president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, from among his trusted colleagues and three times they were turned down by the majlis (Iranian parliament), until finally an experienced insider was appointed in early December." Further delays followed because, "Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he favors transparency in the Iranian oil market. As anyone familiar with the City of London and Wall Street will know, transparency is the enemy of private profit, and it is this factor that was behind the delays in developing the bourse project." Mathew Maavak. The iranians have not even decided on a marker for the oil to be sold. "The Iranians so far have not indicated whether they have come up with an oil marker - a euro-denominated oil pricing standard - like the dollar denominated West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006). Ann Berg. "If you're waiting for the Iranian oil bourse (IOB) – the proposed euro-based petroleum futures exchange in Tehran – to overthrow the global dollar-based economy, don't hold your breath. Establishing a futures-trading mechanism to compete with the powerhouses of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for the oil trade is as probable as U.S. energy independence in our lifetime." (Ann Berg ‘Is the IOB DOA?: The Iranian oil bourse: theory and reality’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=8612 February 28, 2006).
The Rise of the Jewish Empire: The Jewish Conquest of America.
America may have lost the war against vietnam but it has never been invaded or conquered by external forces since its declaration of independence. But since the second world war and, in particular the establishment of the terrorist jews-only state in palestine, it has been conquered from within. Wasps no longer have any significant control over american politics or its foreign policies The israelis in america control the republican party and the democratic party and even the green party. They control the left wing of american politics (noam chomsky, stephen zunes) almost as much as they control the extreme right wing. They control congress. Jack abramoff apparently had in the region of 60 members of congress on his payroll. And these were not insignificant members of congress either since he funded tom delay who provided dick cheney’s power base. This israeli was not only funding american goys but terrorists in the jews-only state. And this is the political influence of just one jewish billionaire. When aipac and all the other jewish lobbying groups in america, whose prime loyalties are to the jews-only state in palestine, are taken into consideration, the jews are financing virtually all members of congress. These days when american politicians talk about the need to defend their country from external threats what they mean is any challenge to the jews-only state in palestine. Despite the fact that one of aipac was being investigated for treason, a majority of members of congress attended its annual meeting. "Despite AIPAC being named in a major espionage indictment involving Steve Rosen, head of its foreign policy department and Keith Weissman, head of its Iran desk, US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice gave the keynote address at AIPAC's convention (May 22-24, 2005). Leaders from Congress and the Republican and Democratic parties also spoke, declaring their unconditional support for AIPAC, Israel and Ariel Sharon. The list included Senator Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican) and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Based on previous year's attendance, more than half of the US Senate and one-third of US Congress members were in attendance." (James Petras ‘Them or Us: AIPAC on Trial’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras01072006.html January 7 / 8, 2006). The israelis control vast slabs of the bush administration. "The neoconservatives … control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898 February 21, 2005). Wayne madsen has suggested they’re aiming to take control of the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) - America's premier electronic surveillance body. "What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America's virtual "Fort Knox" of intelligence treasures and secrets." (Wayne Madsen ‘The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press’ http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052405Madsen/052405
madsen.html May 24th 2005). Israelis own and control the american media. They compose the largest group of billionaires in america who fund a vast network of political research organizations which determine the views of america’s jewish owned media and america’s jewish funded politicians. In 1950s america, as in many other western countries, there were taboos preventing people from talking about a range of social issues such as homosexuality, incest, male rape, etc, etc. These days nobody would think twice about discussing these issues. The only taboos in the western world these days have to do with jews. There is a taboo about jewish funding of political parties (in america and britain). There is a taboo against the influence of the jewish lobby on american politicians. There is a taboo about jewish attempts to take over the russian economic and political system. There is a taboo about the tribute payments that america makes to its jewish masters in the jews-only state in palestine. "The Congress, the Executive branch, state and local governments, and national and local media have all come under the influence of the Jewish "lobby’s" pro-Israel agenda to the point that none or few dare to criticize Israel or its US representatives." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005). The israelis have even transformed christianity in america. There are now tens of millions of so-called christian zionists who have come to believe in the zionist god of vengeance rather than the christian god of forgiveness. They no longer live on a god given planet but focus solely on the god given land of palestine. The devotion of these dechristianized zionists to the sacred jewish land of palestine and jews-only state in palestine is such that one of them blurted out at a major conference the logical outcome of their beliefs. 'I love America,' Arthur said, her voice quivering with emotion. 'But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel.'" (Christian Zionist author, Kay Arthur of Precepts Ministries quoted in Justin Raimondo ‘Putting Israel First’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=0 March 6th 2005). There is not the slightest doubt that the american military is by far and away the most formidable military power in the world. But who controls that military is an entirely different matter. The american politicians who dictate military policy are not wasps but israelis - agents of the jews-only state in palestine. So, in effect the jews-only state controls american politicians who control the american military which wages war for the sake of jewish world domination. There is no such thing as an american empire. America does not have an empire. On the contrary, america has become part of the jewish empire which dictates america’s domestic and foreign policies. The policies that america is pursuing in the middle east have nothing to do with america’s national interests – on the contrary, over the last four decades it has been forced to fight the wars on behalf of its jewish master. In the so-called yom kippur war of 1973 the americans were forced to back the jews-only state against the encircling arab armies which resulted in an arab oil boycott that pushed america and the world economy into a recession which lasted nearly a decade. If america had sided with the arabs it would have enjoyed an economic bonanza selling american goods to secular arab consumer societies. If the jews-only state did not exist there would have been peace and stability in the middle east which would have boosted global prosperity. Instead, america’s jewish masters have cost america vast economic losses, the losses of many american troops, and the enmity of the arab and islamic world. "The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests - has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be." (Ronald Bleier ‘Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas’ http://desip.igc.org/ConvergingAgendas.html April 2003). Iran’s so-called acquisition of nuclear weapons is a non-issue. And yet the jewish empire has managed to coerce america, and thus the security council, into believing the utter fantasy that it is a dire threat to world peace which must be placed at the top of the global political agenda. Iran poses no military threat whatsoever to america, china, russia or europe and yet they have all made this issue their most important foreign policy. Watching america, china, russia, and europe, dancing to the paranoid fantasies of the jews-only state in palestine is proof of jewish world domination. There may be those who argue that just because america implements the foreign policies of another state doesn’t mean to say that there isn’t an american empire which pursues american interests around the rest of the world. But this is not the case. America’s jews-only foreign policy has drained american military resources so they cannot be used in other places around the world. The jews in american politics and their shabbat goy colleagues have become so focused on the middle east to protect the sacred judaic headquarters of the jewish empire that they have ignored, or been unable to combat, the rise of democratic forces in south america from where america imports a substantial amount of its oil. Why is american foreign policy and military intervention focussed almost solely on the middle east when countries on its own doorstep which provide it with vast amounts of oil are being allowed to drift out of american control? America’s policies towards russia have been shaped for the last forty years by neocons originating from the office of the right wing democratic senator henry jackson. They managed to abolish nixon’s détente with russia which could have resulted in a vast, mutually beneficial, economic boom between the two countries. The neocons, however, didn’t want any american rapproachment with the russians because russia poses the danger of nuclear obliteration to the jews-only state in palestine. Once again, jewish interests predominated over american interests and americans carried out the orders of their jewish masters. Israeli traitors control the american media, the republican and democratic parties, congress, the pentagon, the office of homeland security, the cia, the defence intelligence agency, the state department, the national security council, and the presidency. The american military is implementing the foreign policies of the jews-only state in palestine. There is nothing american left about america. It is not true that, "The neoconservatives are the greatest threat America has ever faced .." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898 February 21, 2005). The battle for american independence was lost before most americans realized they were under attack. America is now the biggest and most powerful colony in the jewish empire. "The conventional wisdom which perceives world imperial powers dictating policy to lesser regional powers clearly fails to deal with the US Middle East Wars. The reason why this common sense notion is inadequate is because it fails to deal with a series of unique (at least in modern history) phenomena affecting the policy-making structure of the US Empire – the active role of a privileged and influential minority deeply embedded in the decision-making structure and whose primary loyalty is to another state. It is as if the State of Israel has ‘colonized’ the main spheres of political power in the imperial state. These ‘colons’ however are not exactly transplants or emigrants from their "mother country". Rather they have mostly grown up and have been educated in the imperial center, they have pursued lucrative careers in the US and have, in most instances, been strong supporters of US imperial expansion and militarism. They have risen to and influenced the highest spheres of political power. They have not been discriminated against, nor have they suffered any economic, social or political exclusion. They have not been marginalized - they are integrated in the centers of power. Yet they have set themselves apart from the rest of the US citizens and conceive of themselves as having a special mission - of being first Jews who unconditionally support the State of Israel and all of its international projections of power. How can we explain this irrational embrace of a militarist state by a set of individuals who only vicariously share its life and destiny?" (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005). Americans are mere slaves doing the bidding of their jewish masters. American slaves need to fight back against the jewish empire rather than pretending they have an empire that acts in their name. They should see the palestinians as the leaders in the fight against the world’s jewish oppressors. "The fact -the fact leftists bust a gut to ignore -is that The Big Corporations would be far, far better off if the US switched sides completely, and supported the Palestinians to the hilt. It is difficult to argue this just because it is so screamingly obvious. The Big Corporations want oil: Israel pisses off the oil producers, bigtime. Israel does not, contrary to leftist orthodoxy, help the US control the oil." (Michael Neumann ‘A Study in Dogma: The Palestinians and the Party Line’ http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11182005.html November 18, 2005). Americans need to liberate themselves before they start helping to liberate the rest of the world, "Regardless of the particular causes or principles that most move us, that are closest to our hearts, no issue is of greater urgency than breaking the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political, social and cultural life. As long as this power remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of history and current affairs, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the US political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace." (Mark Weber ‘The Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power in an Era of Global Struggle’ http://www.ihr.org/other/thechallenge.html July 16, 2005); "As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).
Lovelock Squeaks the End is Nigh
James lovelock, perhaps the world’s greatest living scientist, has written an interesting article promoting his new book, 'The Revenge of Gaia'. (‘The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years’ January 16th 2006). It is his starkest warning so far about the prospects for ooman survival – putting him clearly on the mundi club wing of the environmental movement. He believes "as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics." This is more than enough to kill off most life on Earth. As the mundi club has suggested this could even destroy the life of the Earth but lovelock refuses to indicate what will stop a runaway global burning disaster from creating venus like conditions on Earth. Lovelock coins the new phrase "fool's climate" because he correctly points out that it is oomans’ devastation of the Earth’s ecological systems which is causing global burning whilst, contrary to environmental beliefs, fossil fuel pollution is currently limiting the rise in global temperatures. After the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings the united states government banned all aircraft flights over america for a few days. The absence of fossil fuel pollution from aircraft during that time was enough to increase local temperatures by a couple of degreesC. There will be instant global burning if the fog of ooman pollution is lifted. Lovelock predicts, "before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." For anyone who knows little about lovelock’s thinking the following sentence will be puzzling, "By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge." All the evidence shows that oomans have made next to no effort to regulate the climate – what they have done is inadvertently destabilize the climate and refuse to heed scientific warnings about the destabilization they are causing. What lovelock is getting at here is his fear that if oomans (sorry I can’t use the phrase ooman civilization because this is a contradiction in terms) suddenly realize the need to prevent global burning they will ask their so-called Earth scientists to implement a range of technological cures to reduce global temperatures. Lovelock believes all of these techno fixes will eventually fail or just make things worse. There is only one solution to global burning and that is to return one third of the planet back to ooman-free wilderness, one third to be used to adjust the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover to regulate the climate, and the final third would be Forest based economies in which oomans would acquire all their resources from regional Forests. As lovelock states, "we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth's skin - its forest and ocean ecosystems - as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth." For the scale of the global destruction of the Earth’s ecological systems please see ‘The Destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic Capacity: The Earth's Life Support System - Third Edition’. Lovelock’s prognostication for the brutish isles is, well, quite brutish. He scoffs at britain’s so-called environmentalists, "We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous." What lovelock doesn’t say because his disdain for politics is that although all of us could survive on second world war rations this will happen only if all the land is used for the common good. In reality what will happen is that britain’s aristocratic landowning elite, including all of our laughable green leaders such as the windsors, goldsmiths, porritts et al, will continue to graze livestock Animals on their privately owned land because even in times of scarcity the rich will want to continue eating meat even if this means the masses will starve to death. It is the Animal exploitation industry that has destroyed the Earth’s ecological systems and brought about a global burning disaster not fossil fuels whose pollution is limiting the rise in global temperatures. The windsors, goldsmiths, porritts, et al and the rest of their Fox hunting, Animal murdering, chums – like those who managed to get into the house of commons and confront labour ministers who weren’t providing enough welfare benefit subsidies to the country’s biggest landowners - will never give up their support for the Animal exploitation industry and support veganism. They are more concerned with maintaining ancient aristo traditions like Fox hunting and their social and political ties with britain’s aristocratic landowning elite than they are with promoting green politics. Britain’s ancient class struggle over land will eventually descend upon us and amongst those leading the defence of private property for private good, and to hell with everyone else, will be our very own green elite – charles windsor; edward, ben and zak, goldsmith; and jonathon porritt. Charles windsor and ben goldsmith are married to members of the camila parker bowles, Fox hunting, landowning elite. Lovelock states we have very little time left to act. This is true. However, what he is incapable of doing because of his steadfast political disinterestedness is pointing out the political forces preventing action from being taken. He simply will not denounce the zionists in america for putting zionist expansionism at the top of the global political agenda over the last four decades. In the 1970s and the 1980s the global agenda was dominated by the issue of jewish ooman rights in russia so that russian jews could be forced into palestine where they would help the jews-only state to murder palestinians and dispossess their land. In the 1990s it was saddam’s threat to the jews-only state in palestine and, in the 21st century, the global agenda has been dominated by the so-called terrorist threat to the jews-only state which has required not merely the invasion of iraq but is leading invariably toward the nuking of iran. Zionists have determined the world’s political agenda for the last four decades. It is possible to put the environment at the top of the political agenda only by dismantling global zionist domination. Lovelock is the voice of geophysiological sanity but the voice of political inanity.
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part One: The War against Iran is getting Closer.
Updated March 7th 2006.
The Israelis’ Domination of the Bush Administration. The neocons, mainly israelis, were primarily responsible for lying and manipulating america into the invasion of iraq in march 2003. And yet, by the end of 2004, despite the increasing economic, and military, damage suffered by america as a result of the invasion, and despite the public exposure of their lies over iraq, the neocons had consolidated their dominance of the bush administration. "Most indicative is the fact that not a single neocon has been given his walking papers. So long as they are running the show, substantive change is unlikely." (William S. Lind ‘Last Exit Before Gas’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=4050 November 25, 2004)." John hulsman concluded, "Simply put, despite Iraq, despite the failure of the "greater middle east" project, despite a non–existent Iran policy, despite it all – there is no doubt that the neo–conservatives have emerged victorious in their struggle with realists for control of American foreign policy during the remainder of the Bush administration. In fact it was a rout." (John C Hulsman ‘Bush’s home run: neocon victory, realist world’ www.openDemocracy.net November 23rd 2004). The people currently being purged from america’s intelligence agencies are not the israelis who fabricated phoney evidence for a war against iraq but those who refused to go along with such traitorous activities, "It appears as though the long knives are out in Washington. Career operatives in the CIA and State Department who opposed the neocons’ attempt to "sex up" the intel during the run-up to the Iraq War are being purged wholesale."In america, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jewish dominated media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration who, with the help of the jews-only state in palestine, manipulated the country into a war against iraq are now busy repeating the same tactics as regards iran. "Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and intelligence are being fit to meet the policy". It’s the same here. No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Bush once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The Big-3 would be better off sending arms and ammo to Iran so the people can defend themselves once the bombs start dropping." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005). America’s jewish elite pushed the bush administration into a proxy zionist war against iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and it is currently pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. When will the War Start?The bush administration is following the same tactic of trying to win international support for a war against iran that it followed in the lead up to the war against iraq. In february 2006 it won support amongst countries on the international atomic energy agency to refer iran to the security council. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006). It is hoping the security council will either impose economic sanctions on iran, as it did against iraq in 1991, or issue an ultimatum to iran that will lead eventually to war. If america’s jewish elite fails to get the security council to take any action against iran, then it will pressure the bush administration into declaring the united nations redundant and taking unilateral action. This is what happened when bush failed to win security council approval for the invasion of iraq. The main question then is when the attack will be launched. A number of commentators believed the attack would happen in june 2005. Many believe the most likely date is the end of march: some argue it will be before iran establishes its new oil bourse whilst others point out that it is unlikely to take place before the jews-only state has elected a new jews-only government. The most confident speculation that could be made is that it will be before the russians provide nuclear fuel to start up iran’s bushehr nuclear reactor. But basically the bush administration has the luxury of choosing the best time for such an attack. Over the last few years, america’s jewish elite has primed the american public for a war against iran. "The public mindset has been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda against Iran, extending over many years and gradually escalating in volume and tone. Iran has been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil: the foremost sponsor of terrorism, pursuing nuclear weapons, intent on harming America, harboring al-Qaeda, hiding arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, oppressing its own people, intent on destroying Israel and the West." (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 February 20, 2006). As a consequence, america could go to war at any time with a popular wind behind it. The latest barrage of anti-iranian propaganda began after january 14th 2006 when iran broke the united nations’ seals on its nuclear facilities, and within a matter of weeks opinion polls showed there was a majority of americans willing to support a war against iran. "Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found." (Greg Miller ‘57% Americans support military action in Iran’ Los Angeles Times January 27 2006). It is possible the war will not take place for many years. When the neocons were unable to get the gulf war allies to invade iraq in 1991, they insisted the united nations should impose severe sanctions against iraq which lasted for 12 years before the invasion eventually materialized. The same could also be true of iran. "The regionalization of the war, and the widening split in Islam, are successes so far as the War Party is concerned. "Creative destruction is our middle name," says neoconservative guru Michael Ledeen, and there is no better phrase for a civil war. For the Iraqis and U.S. policymakers – as well as the Republicans – the chaos in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. For the neocons, however, it is a great victory. They have achieved half of exactly what they wanted, and now it remains for them to lure us into war with Iran and push their project to completion. If they have to do that under a Democratic administration, then so be it. Whether the Republican establishment succeeds in keeping John McCain at bay, or whether he bolts the party to lead a "Bull Moose" bipartisan coalition, the neocons – the vanguard of the War Party – will prove strategically flexible enough to attach themselves to whomever is left standing. In any case, they see this as a long-term commitment: it took them a decade to foment this war, and it will doubtless take another decade – they figure – to win it." (Justin Raimondo ‘On the Road to Empire’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8622 March 1, 2006).There are still many reasons for suggesting the bush administration will not launch an attack on iran. When bush ordered the invasion of iraq many americans were still angry about the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings and demanded retaliation against those responsible. They were pleased with the successful invasion of afghanistan and the routing of the taliban and had become confident the american military could quickly overpower any nation. The american economy was ticking over. As a consequence, there was widespread public support for bush’s invasion of iraq. Today, however, the political and economic conditions in america are much different and do not lend themselves to another war especially another military invasion. Much of the american public has become weary of america’s continued occupation of iraq and many have become opposed to it. The president is becoming increasingly unpopular since many americans believe he lied about the pretext for the invasion of iraq. However, it has to be suggested these are not critical factors that could deter a war against iran. It is more than likely that the first shots in a war against iran would instantly transform public attitudes and lead, at least in the short term, to a huge boost in the president’s popularity.Iran’s Desire to Exploit Its Natural Resources.Why the Rush to War? Jewish advocates for an american war against iran are whipping up a sense of urgency over the issue by claiming that iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. According to one leading israeli in america, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060130/30edit.htm January 30th 2006). Another israeli living in america concurs, "Some experts estimate that Iran will need only three more years to build its first nuclear bomb, and it will pass the point of no return much sooner. Within six to 12 months, Tehran might be able to finish the enrichment facilities that will make the Persian bomb a foregone conclusion." (Max Boot ‘Iran's threat, Bush's dilemma’ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot25jan25,0,5533737.column?coll=la-news-columns January 25, 2006). But this is just another israeli lie.Most objective, impartial experts estimate that iran is about a decade away from constructing a nuclear bomb. "In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives."" (Mark Gaffney ‘Iran: A Bridge too Far?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm October 26th 2004); "Even if Iran wanted to develop nuclear weaponry, the CIA estimates that it would take years before anything of any significance could be produced." (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDGB790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "And, again, just how imminent is this "grave threat"? "We don't see a clear and present danger," Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has just told Newsweek. Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb – in three years." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Another Undeclared War? http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8405 January 18, 2006); "Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate: "Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not. "The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Hillary Clinton, War Goddess’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428 January 23, 2006).The israelis in america pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran allege that iran’s bushehr reactor could be used to produce nuclear weapons. This is another israeli lie. "Just as there are many different kinds of nuclear reactors, there are different forms of plutonium, distinctions that are almost never made in public discussions of nuclear proliferation. There are two different kinds of reactors, heavy-water or graphite-moderated reactors; and pressurized, or "light water" reactors (PWRs). The Dimona nuclear power plant in Israel is an example of the former. The Bushehr plant is the latter. The Israeli plant is ideal for yielding the desirable isotope of Plutonium (Pu 239) necessary for making bombs. The Iranian plant will produce plutonium, but the wrong kind. It will produce the heavier isotopes, Pu240, Pu241 and Pu242 - almost impossible to use in making bombs. Crucial to extracting weapons-grade plutonium is the type of reactor and the mode in which it is operated. The Israeli-type plant can be refueled "on line," without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously. In the Iranian plant, the entire reactor will have to be shut down - a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources - in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin." (William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer ‘Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)’ http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=1b68abecee07b0cb8cf9ed0bc9de5954 Jun 26, 2003); "The reactor at Bushehr was specifically designed to use light-water to make recovery of plutonium more difficult." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003); "It is worth noting the admission of many nuclear experts, including Mike Levi of King's College of London, that "it is impossible to enrich uranium to weapons grade in bomb quantities using the pilot facilities that the Iranians have"." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Russia's Iran gamble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA18Ak02.html Jan 18, 2006).The reason jews in america and palestine are lying about the immediate threat posed by iran is to prime the american public for a war so the bush administration can launch an attack when the political and military conditions are most favourable. Basically all the jewish lobby needs to do is continually exert pressure on politicians to agree to a war in principle so the attack can take place when the time is right. The slightest incident with iran, which will doubtlessly be fabricated by mossad, or its chums in the bush administration, will provide the justification for the bush administration to conclude it is time to launch the war.Iran has a Right to develop Civil Nuclear Power. As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, iran is legally entitled under international law i.e. the non-proliferation treaty, to develop civilian nuclear power although it is not legally entitled to acquire nuclear weapons. The ZOGs do not want Iran to use Civilian Nuclear Power. The zionist occupied governments (zogs) of america, britain, and palestine, are trying to overthrow the non-proliferation treaty because it provides iran with the right to develop civilian nuclear power. They have decided the most effective way of deterring iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is by using the threat of military power to prevent it from developing civilian nuclear power. "For example, American and European officials said the statements made clear that the West would not tolerate Iran's enriching uranium for civilian nuclear energy, despite international accords that allow it." (Steven R. Weisman ‘Europe and U.S. Agree on Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Iran’ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12iran.html?ex=1111208400&en=635e786cbef515b0&ei=5070 March 12, 2005). They are unwilling to go down the path of allowing iran to develop civilian nuclear power but prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons by instituting a stiff regime of united nations’ inspections. In general, therefore, the zionist occupied governments of america, britain, and palestine, are saying that no country which is not subservient to their military power will be allowed to develop civilian nuclear power.Why does Iran want Nuclear Power when it has so many Oil and Gas Resources?The israelis in the bush administration are whipping up public support for a war against iran by asking why iran needs nuclear energy when it has vast fossil fuel resources. Surely, the question implies, the only reason it seeks to acquire nuclear power is because it wants to develop nuclear weapons. Even the shabbat goy george bush has asked this question and come to such a conclusion, "I'm, kind of, wondering why they need one, since they've got all the oil." (‘Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran: Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel’ http://www.irmep.org/GBU.htm May 1st 2005). There are several reasons why iran wants to develop nuclear energy.Firstly, to exploit its vast uranium resources. "Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year." (George Jahn Associated Press ‘Diplomats: Iran Readying Nuke Processes’ November 19th 2004).Iran has a growing nuclear industry to economically exploit its abundant uranium resources. It mines uranium; it is creating milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium; conversion plants to create uranium hexafluoride; and can manufacture gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants. "Furthermore, Iran has uranium mines in Yazd and is in the process of constructing milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium and conversion plants that convert it to UF6 gas. Iran has also begun manufacturing its own gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium." (Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster ‘A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences’ CNS Research Story September 9, 2004). Iran’s nuclear power industry could process the country’s vast uranium resources and export nuclear fuels around the world making substantial profits. Secondly, iran’s nuclear power industry could generate huge amounts of nuclear electricity and export it to surrounding countries in order to make even more profits.Thirdly, another major consideration is that the domestic consumption of nuclear energy would enable iran to export more fossil fuels, "They have a reasonable explanation for why they want to develop nuclear power. Oil is their biggest and most valuable export. The less they use for domestic purposes, the more they will have to export." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8421 January 21, 2006).The fourth major factor is that a nuclear energy industry would extend the life of iran’s fossil fuel resources. Given that, in the future, the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels will boost the price of fossil fuels, then current efforts to preserve fossil fuels will eventually reap huge financial benefits. The Factors pushing Iran Towards the Development of a Nuclear Power Industry.Another important factor pushing iran towards the development of nuclear energy is a problem commonly discussed in the west – looming energy shortages brought about by the depletion of fossil fuels. Although iran currently possesses an abundance of fossil fuels, it too faces the prospect of a depletion in its fossil fuel resources and thus, in the long term, energy shortages. Iran’s predicament is rarely discussed in the west – primarily because it make iran’s plans for development of nuclear power seem much more rational. What makes the nuclear option even more attractive to iran is its peculiar demographic problem. Half of iran’s population is currently under the age of 16. This is a considerable demographic time-bomb which will have significant economic repercussions in the decades to come. "Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances ..." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html Jan 24, 2006); "If Dr. Rice has done her homework, she is aware that in 1975 President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, Dick Cheney, and his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, bought Iran's argument that it needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements. This is what Iranian officials are saying today, and they are supported by energy experts who point out that oil extraction in Iran is already at or near peak and that the country will need alternatives to oil in coming decades." (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006).Controlling Iran’s Nuclear Power Industry through Uranium Imports.The russians and europeans are trying to mediate between the israeli dominated bush administration and iran by suggesting it might be possible to allow iran to use civil nuclear power without developing nuclear weapons if they were given control over uranium supplies to iran. George bush has acknowledged russia’s offer to do this, "Vladimir Putin pledged increased vigilance of expended uranium and the fuel cycle as part of Russian assistance in the construction and operation of Iranian reactors. President Bush mentioned this progress in Iran and even empathy for their development goals during his April 28, 2005 press conference: "As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do. And I appreciate that gesture. And what Russia said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you and then we'll collect it. And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there."" (‘Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran: Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel’ http://www.irmep.org/GBU.htm May 1st 2005).The europeans are also interested in such a strategy, "The Europeans are aiming to get Tehran to cease all uranium-related activity permanently and depend instead exclusively on imports of low-enriched fissile material produced by the Europeans for Iran's civilian nuclear program. This is totally unacceptable to the Iranians." (Dilip Hiro ‘The Iranian Nuclear Issue in a Global Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5952 May 14th 2005).In other words, the russians and the europeans want to prevent iran from exploiting its own uranium resources and force it to pay vast amounts of money to import a commodity which it has in abundance. It’s good to think that they are trying to uphold the moral principles of the non-proliferation treaty rather than finding a means for promoting their material interests.The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ attitudes towards Iran concerning Energy Shortages.It is hypocritical for the zogs of america, britain and palestine, to use nuclear energy and yet deny iran such a right. Over the last few years, increasing numbers of politicians in the over-industrialized world have been advocating an increase in their countries’ use of nuclear energy to meet predicted energy shortages so it is hypocritical for them to stop other countries using this form of energy. Iran has just as much right as any other country around the world to develop nuclear energy. (This statement is not meant to imply support for nuclear energy. It is designed only to put pressure on all to give up the civil use of nuclear power).Whilst the blair government insists that iran stops any further development of nuclear energy it is also demanding that britain needs to increase its reliance on nuclear energy. Blair wants to revive britain’s nuclear power industry in order to combat a predicted energy shortage even though there are plenty of energy saving measures that could make nuclear energy redundant. The blair government sees no contradiction in its bizarre double standards. "Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and has worked on several diplomatic fronts to resolve its problems with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, Israel is yet to join the NPT community and is under no pressure to do so. Israel’s superior stance continues despite the call made by the IAEA’s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei to surrender its nuclear weapons and to sign the non-proliferation treaty." (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=6927 August 13, 2005).
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Two: Iran’s Right to Militarily Defend Itself.
Updated March 7th 2006.
The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ attitudes towards Iran concerning Nuclear Proliferation. It is also hypocritical for zog governments to possess nuclear weapons and yet deny iran the same rights. The israelis in the bush administration are squealing about iran’s move towards civilian nuclear power because they fear nuclear proliferation and yet iran is the only country they are picking on over this issue, "The Bush administration continues an escalating spiral toward conflict with Iran, using Iran's nuclear policy as its primary focus. At the same time, the administration is reducing restrictions on other emerging nuclear states that pose a far more serious and immediate threat to world peace. The United States also recently removed nuclear restrictions imposed upon India for their thinly disguised nuclear weapons program. Much of the impetus for this reportedly came from the head of the export licensing arm of the Commerce Department, who is lobbying for a job as ambassador to India and who has a very cozy relationship with the Defense Department's neoconservative leadership. Brazil is now defying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding questions over its nuclear program, which is not benign. This would violate the long-standing U.S. determination to keep South America nuclear- free. And the U.S. response? No seismic rumbles of the kind directed toward Iran are apparent here. And forget South Korean enrichment efforts - clearly they were "just a mistake."" (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDG
B790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "New Delhi is keen to vote with the U.S., despite domestic opposition, in order to finalize and implement a nuclear cooperation deal initialed with Washington last July. This would effectively legitimize India's nuclear weapons and help resume civilian nuclear commerce with it." (Praful Bidwai ‘Iran Confrontation in the Cards’ http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8481 February 1, 2006); "In a now-all-too familiar display of hypocrisy, the IAEA resolution which Bush has now successfully strongarmed India to endorse, sends the Iran issue to the UN Security Council to punish it for its so-called breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and lack of confidence that it is not trying to make weapons. The text of the resolution expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program.'' It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations'' to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," and it requests IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, to "report to the Security Council" with steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions. So, India, a producer of nuclear weapons and a nonsignatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, will get nuclear favours from Bush in exchange for supporting Bush's ramp-up for a seemingly imminent attack on Iran, an NPT signatory, for which there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program." (Ingmar Lee ‘The Smiling Buddha Blast and Canada's CANDU Snafu’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lee02272006.html February 27, 2006); "President Bush effectively tore up the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by announcing this week that "as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states." Translation? Even though India refused to be a Party to the NPT, because India has developed and tested nuclear weapons, India should now "acquire the same benefits and advantages" that the NPT bestows on the five "nuclear-weapons states" – US, UK, France, Russia and China. Specifically, even though all NPT signatories not having nukes are required to subject all their nuclear programs to a full-scope Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the five NWS are allowed to unilaterally decide which of their nuclear programs – if any – they subject to such an agreement. Prime Minister Singh announced India was prepared to "assume the same responsibilities and practices" of the five NWS." (Gordon Prather ‘Tearing Up the NPT’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6729 July 23, 2005). Iran’s Military Justification for Acquiring Nuclear Weapons. Iran believes it is militarily justified in acquiring nuclear weapons for its own defence. It is surrounded to the west by the jews-only state in palestine which possesses nuclear weapons; to the east by pakistan and india which have nuclear weapons; and to the north by russia which has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. In recent years it has also been surrounded by america. Firstly, through its military occupation of afghanistan and iraq. And, secondly, through the establishment of military bases in many countries surrounding iran, "The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005). There are also military bases in kuwait and the united arab emirates. "The reality is that there are U.S. troops in Dubai, over 1,000 of them, and the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is a part) is one of our staunchest allies in the region. We have also signed a defense pact with Abu Dhabi, and the emirate has been used as a base from which to pre-position U.S. troops bound for Iraq. Our planes refueled at Dubai's al-Dhafra air base on their way to patrol Iraq's no-fly zone during the run-up to the invasion. Dubai has borne the costs in fuel and facilities maintenance of these U.S. military operations, and receives not a dime in "foreign aid." In addition to hosting over 1,000 U.S. troops at various air and naval facilities, the U.A.E. is contributing to the maintenance of U.S. military bases in Germany. The Gulf states are islands of U.S. influence in an Arabic-Muslim sea of Middle Eastern hostility: to insult them in so flagrant a manner would be to effectively sink the pro-U.S. governments that have so far remained our only faithful allies in the region. Fearful of Iran, the U.A.E. has cozied up to the U.S. like no other country in the Middle East, except, perhaps, Kuwait." (Justin Raimondo ‘Hating Arabs’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587 February 22, 2006). Thirdly, iran faces an even more intense encirclement through the expansion of nato’s role in the middle east, "NATO expansion project to include the US allies had been explicitly requested in a report submitted by the former Spanish Prime Minister José-María Aznar, L’OTAN, une alliance pour la liberté in which he talked about the possibility of including not only Ukraine and Georgia, but also Japan and Australia, and why not Israel. The Alliance would become then a permanent coalition for the service of Good as defined by the White House. Including Israel in the Alliance would create an obligation for all member States to provide assistance to the Jewish State if attacked by Iran, even though it was in self-defense." (Munich Conference: accession of Israel to NATO and attack Iran’ http://www.voltairenet.org/article135669.html February 15th 2006). The iranians thus believe they have legitimate military reasons for possessing nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their nuclear-armed neighbours. If the jews-only state in palestine has nuclear weapons this legitimizes iran’s possession of such weapons. (Once again, these arguments are not meant to support nuclear weapons but to support the abolition of all such weapons). It is true that iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty. But it is legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty if it believes this would be in its national interests. The jews-only state illegally occupying palestine has refused to sign the treaty so this provides less incentive for the iranians to continue abiding by it. Indeed, the best moral and legal justification that iran has for developing nuclear weapons are the threats being made against it by the zionist occupied governments of palestine, britain, and the united states. The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ fears concerning Terrorists’ Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons. The neocons in the western world have been stirring up fears about iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons by arguing it would be madness to allow iran’s religious leaders whom they regard as ‘irrational, islamic psychopaths’ to acquire such weapons. However, the fact is that ‘irrational, jewish psychopaths’ have such weapons so why not iran? Even more frightening for iran is the possibility that mad judaic mullahs will eventually take complete control of the jews-only, theocratic state so the only way for iran to curb their expansionist malignancy would be by acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would be safer in the hands of iranian mullahs because they are far more civilized in comparison to the irrational, judaic lunatics in the jews-only state who believe in fantasies such as the jews-only holocaust. What is more, whilst the jews-only state in palestine is a racist, apartheid state the iranian state is not. Justin raimondo has pointed out that if the bush administration is worried about terrorists getting hold of iranian nuclear bombs there is an even bigger risk of this happening in pakistan and yet it expresses no concern about this. "To begin with, proliferation of nuclear weaponry is bad in and of itself: we don't want another Pakistan on our hands, in which we nervously await an internal eruption to empower some Islamic nutball to launch a nuclearized jihad. On the other hand, we've endured the Pakistan situation for this long, and its potential consequences in terms of getting nuclear arms directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden & Co. are far more likely – and more horrendously lethal – than the prospect of Tehran acquiring nukes." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006). Iran is More of a Democratic State than the Jews-only State in Palestine. The racist, apartheid, jews-only state in palestine, and the israelis controlling the bush administration, say they want to attack iran in order to establish democracy in that country. However, it has to be pointed out that iran already has a political system with a substantial democratic component. "But how many Americans are aware that women may vote and hold political office in Iran? How many Americans are aware that the president of Iran is a reformer who is intensely disliked by the conservative Islamist establishment? How many Americans are aware that religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Iranian parliament, and that Judaism is far more tolerated there than in almost all of the Muslim nations which are currently subsidized as our "allies"? How many Americans are aware that there are Christian members of the Iranian parliament, while there are no Muslim members of the American Congress?" (Steven LaTulippe ‘A Few Thoughts Before We 'Liberate' Iran’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe35.html November 24, 2004). Juan cole has sought to counter the neocons’ lies that iran has no democracy, "Goldberg criticizes me for saying that the 1997 presidential election in Iran was more democratic than the Jan. 30, 2005 election in Iraq. His complaint is that the four candidates for president were vetted and approved by Iran's Guardianship Council. It is certainly the case that although Iran has elections, they are flawed because many candidates are excluded on ideological grounds. To say that, however, is not to say that the popular will can never unexpectedly make itself known in Iran. In the 1997 election the vetting was lax, and a relative liberal, Muhammad Khatami, was allowed to run. He had earlier been fired as minister of culture for being too liberal. He wrote about Habermas and civil society and democratization in Iran (he had lived in Germany several years and read Habermas in German). The four presidential candidates in Iran were all known by name, unlike the candidates for Iraq's parliament, most of whom remained anonymous to voters in the weeks leading up to the election. I'd say that is a sign of greater transparency in Iran. The Iranian participants were not in danger if they campaigned or ran, one of the criteria of a successful democratic election according to international watchdog groups. In this respect, too, Iran in that year was superior to Iraq in 2005. Khatami's victory in 1997 was a big surprise. He was put in by the youth vote and the women's vote, against the wishes of the hardline clerics. If a candidate wins who wasn't expected to, that is a sign of lack of manipulation of the results. Khatami was elected by 69% of the Iranian electorate, and 76 percent of eligible voters voted. The latter number is higher than will be true for Iraq. In every way, from the transparency of candidates and platforms, to safe conditions for voters, to unexpected results, to the percentage of eligible voters who voted and the percentage of the electorate that directly chose Mr. Khatami, his election was more democratic than the elections just held in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005). There was also a surprise election victory in 2005 for mahmud ahmadinejad which once again reinforces iran’s democratic credentials. Power is not fixed in concrete in iran. One commentator has pointed out the limits to the power of the iranian president, "Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member "Assembly of Experts" who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn't control the High Council of the Nation's Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar. Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-115704-7804r Feb. 17th 2006). But another commentator has suggested that since coming to power mahmud ahmadinejad has managed to transform a number of iranian institutions to extend his power base. "Lack of progress on the economic and social-justice front notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad has introduced massive changes to the face and operations of the executive branch. Virtually all provincial governors have been replaced by Ahmadinejad loyalists, who tend to be young and hail from the Islamic Republic's security establishment, in particular the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC - or the Sepah-e-Pasdaran). Moreover, Ahmadinejad has replaced most senior bankers and other important figures in charge of the country's finances. Furthermore, many of the country's most experienced diplomats have been recalled from abroad and replaced by less experienced figures, with backgrounds in the Sepah-e-Pasdaran and other security outfits." (Mahan Abedin ‘Ahmadinejad on the warpath’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak02.html February 18th 2006). This hardly suggests that iran is a fossilized theocracy. It is much more like a flexible democratic country. A vitally important part of any democratic system is the protection of minorities. Given iran’s ancient history this might have been fertile ground for the appearance of persian supremacists wanting to create a new persian empire by conquering arab countries and acquire arab land. And yet such tendencies have not appeared since the islamic revolution. If anything the exact reverse has been the case. Iran’s admiration for islam leads it to respect and honour arab countries which also promote islam. As a consequence it would be anathema to the iranian state to persecuting its arab minorities. "Furthermore, claims that Arabs in Iran constitute a persecuted minority are as false as they are amusing. In fact, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has gone out of its way to promote the Arabic language (at the expense of Persian) in its drive to "Islamize" Iranian society. It is also important to note that Iran's current defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an ethnic Arab from Khuzestan. Claims by Khuzestani separatists that the Iranian regime is engaged in the persecution of minorities is particularly strange when one considers the fact that the Islamic republic has shown extreme sympathy for Arab causes both inside and outside of Iran." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005). On a more mundane level, quite how western neocons could argue that wars are a means for establishing democracy after what has happened in iraq is not explained and is not explicable. If iraq is anything to go by, war is the worst possible means for bringing about democracy. The more that the jews in america and palestine bring about devastation in iran, the less likelihood there is of democracy rising from the ruins. It has to be suggested that iran’s political system is much more democratic than that prevailing in the apartheid jews-only state in palestine. So why isn’t the west trying to democratize palestine? Jews in america spend more of their time, effort, and resources, on trying to push america into wars for the benefits of the jews-only state than they do in trying to reform the racist nature of the jews-only state in palestine. The Promotion of Democracy in Iran will boost demands for Iranian Nuclear Weapons. The israelis in the racist, apartheid, jews-only state and the bush administration believe a major benefit of attacking iran and democratizing the country would be that iranians would lose interest in their country obtaining nuclear weapons. However, all the evidence suggests that if iran became more democratic this would increase popular demands for the country to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually every iranian, whether secular or religious, supports the idea of their country acquiring nuclear weapons. "But the mullahs are unlikely to give up their nuclear weapons efforts, which are popular among Iranians of all political persuasions …." (The New York Times ‘Military rumblings on Iran’ http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/
articles/2005/01/27/opinion/ediran.html January 28, 2005). The possession of nuclear weapons is popular in all countries which possess them so it is not surprising they are popular in iran. Of course, if iran is attacked this would automatically boost iranians’ support for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran’s Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons will bring Peace to the Middle East. Since the racist, jews-only state in palestine already possesses nuclear weapons the best way to neutralize, and perhaps even abolish, such weapons is for iran to acquire similar weapons. In other words, the best way to bring peace to the middle east is to encourage iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran and the jews-only state in palestine can then negotiate to eradicate such weapons through a multi-lateral agreement. According to roger howard, the reason the jews-only state in palestine is opposed to iran getting nuclear weapons isn’t the military threat posed by such weapons but their political consequences for mutual disarmament. "It seems likely, then, that there are other, more convincing, reasons why Israel is concerned about an Iranian bomb. One possibility, for example, is that Tel Aviv is deeply concerned that such a development could potentially create deep splits in the U.S.-Israel alliance. Consider, for example, what would happen if Tehran, having developed a warhead and withdrawn from the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, offered to reduce the size of or even eliminate its own nuclear arsenal in return for similar moves – all UN-monitored – by Tel Aviv." (Roger Howard ‘Why Israel Really Fears Iranian Nukes’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/howard.php?articleid=4065 November 27, 2004); "Now that Saddam is defeated, Israel must seriously consider foregoing its nuclear weapons as part of a grand bargain with Iran. And the other Arab states, which are covertly developing the possibility of going nuclear, must open up and renounce the effort as Libya recently did." (Jonathan Power ‘The Danger of an Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article
=60411&d=14&m=3&y=2005 March 14th 2005). This position has recently been endorsed by justin raimondo, "Insofar as it would make all-out war unthinkable, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran would, ironically, stabilize as much as destabilize a volcanically volatile region. As it stands now, the entire Middle East lives in the shadow of a possible Israeli first strike against a perceived threat – as exemplified by a recent round of speculation about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. This is inherently destabilizing, as it means an increase in "fourth generation" terrorist tactics employed by Israel's enemies, and opens up the possibility that a future Israeli prime minister – perhaps an extremist elected by a radicalized Israeli majority – might one day really pull the nuclear trigger. On the other hand, having leveled the playing field, the Iranians would render the Israeli first-strike strategy inoperable. A war between Israel and its adversaries in the Middle East, rather than ending in the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and every major Muslim city in the region, would instead have to mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) – that old specter of the Cold War that the neocons found so insufferably irritating at the time, and which stood in the way of their dreams of "regime change." (It happened anyway, albeit without their intervention, but that's another story…)." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006). The real reason, however, why the jews-only state does not want iran to acquire nuclear weapons is because this would neuter the jews-only state’s ability to use its nuclear weapons to blackmail america into fighting zionist proxy wars. The jews-only state would no longer be able to blackmail america into providing a constant supply of economic assistance, military hardware, and cutting edge military technology. The neocons, israelis who are traitors to america, continually resort to propaganda in the hope of undermining opposition to an attack on iran. They have occasionally floated the idea that america should not only prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but should try to remove those in the jews-only state in palestine. But, the idea that the israelis who have colonized america’s media/congress/administration/presidency will pressure the jews-only state in palestine into giving up its nuclear weapons for the sake of encouraging middle eastern countries such as iran to abide by the non proliferation treaty is preposterous. When in april 2004 bush recognized "the facts on the ground" concerning zionists’ illegal occupation of palestine he was also taking the first step in recognizing the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons. Whether the bush administration forces the jews-only state in palestine to abide by international law and give up its nuclear weapons or whether it uses its military power to ensure the jews-only state’s monoploy of nuclear weapons in the middle east, is a good indicator of the extent of jewish global domination. Given that iran is not currently a military threat to either europe or america, and given that its possession of nuclear weapons would not pose a military threat to either europe or america, the fact that western countries are treating the iran issue as their primary foreign policy issue suggests they are all acting under orders from the jews-only state in palestine. Watching american, european, russian and chinese, politicians dancing to the zionist tune over iran provides conclusive proof as to the existence of jewish world domination. The jews-only state has taken over political leadership of the western world. Whatever policies are promoted by the jews-only state in palestine are then adopted by the zionist occupied governments of america and britain and then imposed on the rest of the world. America’s policies towards iran have nothing to do with american interests. On the contrary, they run counter to american interests. The foreign policies being pursued by the american, british, french, and german, governments are policies first formulated by the jews-only state solely for the benefit of the racist state in palestine. The jews-only state, and the jewish lobby in america, pushed the nixon administration into supporting the jews-only state in the 1973 middle east war, the proxy zionist gulf war in 1990, and the proxy zionist invasion of iraq in 2003. The west has suffered huge economic and military losses as a result of its implementation of the foreign policies of the jews-only state in palestine. It shows just how many sacrifices that western governments are willing to make for their jewish masters. But what is even more remarkable is that nobody in the western world seeks to blame the jews-only state for such losses. The west currently seems willing to sacrifice even more of its wealth and ooman lives on yet another proxy zionist war for the benefit of its jewish masters. The Environmental Implications of Preventing Iran from Using Civil Nuclear Power. Since the turn of the millenium, an increasing number of politicians in the over-industrialized world have proposed an expansion of nuclear energy firstly, to combat future energy shortages and, secondly, to combat global burning. Both blair and bush support an expansion of their nuclear power industries. The same is also true of european governments, "But now, some EU countries – including Germany – are having second thoughts about phasing out nuclear power. For one thing, replacing Germany's nuclear power plants with coal-fired plants would result in an increase of more than 170 million metric tons in carbon dioxide emissions. Well, Bush apparently really does want to revive nuclear power." (Gordon Prather ‘Placating the Greenies’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8599 February 25, 2006). After a couple of decades of silence since the three mile island disaster, the global nuclear power industry is becoming increasingly vociferous that a vast expansion of nuclear power is the best solution to combating climate change because it releases fewer Carbon emissions than fossil fuels. As regards the energy shortage issue: If iran is not going to be allowed to generate nuclear energy, what is it going to use for energy when its fossil fuels are exhausted? Iran has abundant fossil fuel resources but even these are going to run out so what is it going to do once they have gone? As regards the climate change issue: Western governments are demanding that the west increases its reliance on nuclear power to reduce its Carbon emissions and thus help to combat global warming. In other words, they want to prevent iran from adopting what they believe is the best option for combating global warming. Western governments pretend they want to reduce Carbon emissions from fossil fuels and yet they are forcing iran to continue using fossil fuels which will pollute the atmosphere and destabilize the climate. The west sees no contradiction in this bizarre double standard. It seems the west is going to use its military power to allow only their allies to use nuclear energy. When the oil runs out, the rest of the world is going to have to survive without oil, gas, or nuclear energy. Only the west’s allies are going to be allowed to combat climate change and the increasing costs of fossil fuels by switching to nuclear energy. The rest of the world is going to have to pay more and more for fossil fuels until eventually they become too expensive. Poor countries will end up becoming even poorer because they have no energy resources. Prior to this inequitable policy it was hoped that all countries around the world would eventually become rich and that the divide between the first, and third, worlds would disappear. This new international policy will prevent this from happening. By denying countries access to nuclear technology, the over-industrialized world is also preventing other countries from developing industrially. In other words, the rich world is going to keep the poor world in a permanent state of poverty. It seems as if the bush administration has concluded it cannot just ban countries from exploiting nuclear power leaving them bereft of energy. It has come up with an idea for helping countries to develop nuclear energy without increasing nuclear proliferation. "Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney Department of Energy just announced plans to form a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, through which the U.S. "will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste, and minimize proliferation concerns." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). Gordon prather believes the chinese have developed a nuclear reactor which cannot be exploited to provide nuclear weapons. This new advanced nuclear reactor is also supposedly safe from a meltdown and comes in handy size packs that can be mass manufactured for use all over the globe, "The proliferation-proof, meltdown-proof pebble-bed technology development began in Germany more than 30 years ago and was continued in South Africa, but has apparently now been perfected in China. If, as planned, similar units are produced modularly in factories in China, by 2020 China will be the world's only supplier of first-rate nuclear power plants." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). As to where the nuclear waste from these pebble-dashed nuclear reactors will be stored once its useful energy has been extracted is not known but then only "eco-wackos", as prather refers to them, would raise such an issue. Whether these nuclear reactors are bomb proof is another matter not mentioned.
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Three: Initiating the war against Iran.
Updated March 7th 2006.
Who will start the War against Iran? An increasing number of commentators have pointed out that the jews-only state in palestine, and the jews in america who give primary loyalty to the jews-only state, are at the forefront of the campaign to push america into a war against iran. (Please see ‘Jews Stirring up World War Three: The Zog War Against Iran’. However, which country, america or the jews-only state, would initiate an attack on iran is a matter of speculation. There are four options. Firstly, it is possible the jews-only state in palestine will launch the initial raid. However, despite the jews-only state’s formidable military capabilities some commentators do not believe it has the capability for destroying iran’s nuclear facilities, "As for the Israelis, they would attack Iran in a New York second – if they had the capability, and I don't believe they do. If they take a northern route, they will need permission from Turkey to use its airspace. They won't get it. If they fly to the south through airspace we control, they would need our permission, and that's not at all certain. Moreover, they don't have the planes capable of taking enough ordnance to do sufficient damage to fortified, underground installations that are widely dispersed." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8421 January 21, 2006). Virtually all commentators discussing this issue assume the jews-only state will use its airforce to attack iran. But this is not its only option. It could launch a missile attack - it might even be tempted to use some of its nuclear missiles. Another possibility is to launch cruise missiles from one or more of its submarines just off the iranian coast in the persian gulf, "Israel’s acquisition from Germany a few years ago of three Dolphin-class submarines capable of launching conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles? The 1,720-ton diesel-electric submarines are among the most technically advanced subs of their kind in the world. Each can be equipped with four cruise missiles, which Israel reportedly tested in the Indian Ocean in 1999. (Uzi Mahnaimi and Matthew Campbell, "Israel Makes Nuclear Waves with Submarine Missile Test," London Sunday Times, June 18, 2000). The subs will cruise the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and, ominously, the Persian Gulf -which tends to confirm the views of the late Israeli scholar, Israel Shahak, a leading dissident, who argued that Israel’s strategic goal is hegemony from Morocco to Pakistan. (See Israel Shahak, Open Secrets, 1997, chapters four and eight)." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003); "Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html)." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Nuclear War against Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714 January 3, 2006). The second option as regards who will initiate the attack on iran is that the jews-only state in palestine and america will launch a co-ordinated attack. This is feasible given the level of integration between the two forces but politically america would prefer the jews-only state not to get involved because of the likelihood that it would stimulate even greater opposition to the war within the arab/moslem/persian worlds. The third option is that the jews-only state will use its political power to push or blackmail the bush administration into initiating the war whilst the zionists sit on the sidelines - as happened in the first gulf war and america’s invasion of iraq. Why would the jews-only state launch the initial attack, or even get involved in the war at all, if it can get the americans to do its dirty work? Justin raimondo suspects the jews-only state won’t attack iran because it believes it can get the americans to initiate the war, and suffer the consequences. "The Israelis are now engaging in a bit of blustering, hinting broadly that they are ready to nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud by conducting a raid similar to that carried out at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed Saddam's nascent nuclear facility. That probably isn't going to happen in this case, however, for two reasons: (1) The geographical spread of the various suspected nuclear sites prevents any attempt to knock them out in a single blow, or even several blows, and (2) Instead of fighting their own battles, the Israelis would much rather use the U.S. to do their dirty work, whenever possible – and that seems highly possible given their past success in this area." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006). To date, the bush administration seems to have been following the same international preparations for an attack on iran as it pursued in the run up to its attack on iraq. Raimondo, however, rather surprisingly seems to believe the bushies are resisting the wishes of their jewish masters. "When it comes to Iran, though, their (israelis) strategy is just beginning to be put into practice – and is running up against a major roadblock in the reluctance of the Bushies to climb on board." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006). He even believes the american host is about to expel its zionist parasites, "When a parasite invades, it hides as long as it can, sucking the vital juices and draining the energy of its host. Yet there is a limit to what the host can tolerate: eventually, it either builds up an immunity to the depredations of its "guest," or it is sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death. Having used up nearly all available military and economic resources in Iraq, the U.S. has a choice: it can either build up an immunity to Israeli influence, even a partial one, or it can let itself be turned into a dry husk, a casualty of Tel Aviv's ambitions." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006). Raimondo’s analysis of the bushies probably derived from jim lobe, "That the administration, which promulgated and then implemented a doctrine of preventive war against presumed enemies allegedly bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, should come under attack from all these sources for excessive passivity is ironic. But it is also testimony to the degree that it has been forced by its Iraq adventure to adopt what can only be described - to the disgust of the neo-conservatives, in particular - as both a new humility and a new realism with regard to Tehran. Noting how Iraq had overstretched US ground forces, officials who bragged in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that "everyone wants to go to Baghdad, [but] real men want to go to Tehran", now admit that such an option is completely out of the question. The most Washington can do militarily, in their opinion, is to use air power to take out as many nuclear-related sites as possible - reportedly more than 300, requiring three days of non-stop bombing - and hope for the best. But the military option - exercised early and eagerly in Iraq - is seen as the absolute last resort by the administration. Contrary to its neo-conservative and Democratic critics, the White House concedes that the potential costs of an attack - skyrocketing oil prices, a renewed Shi'ite insurgency in southern Iraq, a wave of terrorist attacks by Lebanon's Hezbollah, and new schisms in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance that Washington has tried hard to mend - could very well outweigh the benefits." (Jim Lobe ‘The Iranian neo-cons love to hate’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA26Ak04.html Jan 26, 2006). Ok, let’s pretend the bushies are refusing to countenance a pre-emptive american attack on iran and decide to disobey their jewish masters. What are the likely consequences? Politically, the jewish lobby in america will do its best to bring about the election of hillary clinton as next president of the united states since she’s agreed to do the jews’ dirty work for them. "In short, if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton: "I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond." Hillary is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political hardball." (Quoted in Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437 January 25, 2006). Militarily, if the jews-only state in palestine realizes it cannot lobby the bush administration into attacking iran, it might use its nuclear weapons to politically blackmail america into launching a war against iran. In 1973, the jews-only state in palestine used nuclear blackmail to force the nixon administration into sending military hardware to the jewish army to defeat the advancing arab armies – even though the result of this american intervention was an arab oil embargo that pushed america and the rest of the world into a decade long recession. In 1990, the jews-only state once again used nuclear blackmail against the bush senior administration to force it into removing saddam from kuwait even though saddam had been a loyal ally to america over the previous decade. In 2003, jews pushed america into the invasion of iraq – although whether this was the result of nuclear blackmail or political pressure from the jewish lobby in america is not known – although the latter is more likely. The fourth option is that the jews-only state in palestine will launch a token attack against iran in order to provoke retaliation from iran. George wmd bush has promised to defend the jews-only state from any attack by iran. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006). In effect then if iran retaliates it will trigger a war with america. If it retaliates against american forces in the middle east then america will obviously respond. If iran retaliates only against the jews-only state this too will bring in the americans. The only reason the jews-only state will initiate an attack on iran is to force america into the conflict when iran retaliates against the attack. According to pat buchanan, bush is now in a dire political situation: he has either got to attack iran or he’s got to rebuff the jews-only lobby, and the jewish media, in america and prevent the jews-only state in palestine from launching a pre-emptive military attack on iran. "If America does not strike, Mofaz is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could produce the same results as an American attack, without the same assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he does not want a wider war." (Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437 January 25, 2006). In other words, bush has either got to obey his jewish masters or suffer the consequences of disobedience – just as his father suffered at the hands of the jewish lobby. Let’s develop this scenario and assume the unimaginable: the bushies refuse to follow the advice of america’s jewish lobbies and resist the jews-only state’s nuclear blackmail. Once the jews-only state realizes it cannot politically shift the bushies, it will conclude that’s its only remaining option is to launch a token attack on iran. There is virtually nothing the united states could do to stop such an attack. What happens when the freebie jets that the bush administration recently gave to the jews-only state to enable it to bomb iran, start flying over american occupied iraq on their way to iran? Is bush going to order the american military to shoot down these american warplanes with their israeli pilots to prevent them from reaching iran? Or is he going to pretend he can’t see them and hope the iranians won’t retaliate against either america or the jews-only state thereby propelling him into what will be the third proxy zionist war in the middle east? What is going to happen if the jews-only state tries to use one of its submarines in the arabian sea to launch a nuclear cruise missile attack on iran? Is george going to order his navy to sink the sub before it fires? The jews-only state knows only too well that once iran retaliates against america or the jews-only state there will be no chance for bush to keep america out of the war. The jews-only state knows that if it attacks iran and iran retaliates against either the jews-only state or american forces in the middle east then there will be a huge public outcry in america for a war against iran. This will invariably push bush into the war he supposedly doesn’t want. Basically, the jewish lobby in america and the jewish dominated american media is better at manipulating american public opinion than the bush administration. No matter how much the bushies are opposed to such a war (and there is no evidence they do) the jews will exploit any attack on american forces in the middle east or the jews-only state in palestine to whip up public demands in america for revenge against iran. America will get rapidly sucked into the conflict. The jews-only state has got the americans by the balls. It’s just a question of how hard they want to squeeze. As jeffrey blankfort has pointed out, "There is considerable speculation that Israel will attack Iran, even if the US is hesitant, because this is an election year and Israel knows and the lobby knows that anything Israel does at such times will be applauded by Congress and we may end up with the same result in Iraq." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006). The reality of the situation is that there is nothing the bushies can do to stop the jews-only state from entangling america in a war against iran. This is why america’s jewish elite rules america not the president of the united states. Even worse is that if the jews-only state participates in an american war against iran in order ‘to support its american ally’, americans will love the jews-only state even more – despite the fact that they have just been manipulated into committing political, economic, and military suicide. By the time the war is over, america will have been "sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death" (justin raimondo). But at least americans will have had the pleasure of serving their israeli masters and boosting jewish world domination. The point of the jews-only state launching a pre-emptive, token, attack on iran would not be to destroy iran’s nuclear facilities but merely to provoke iranian retaliation in order to bring the americans into the war since they have the military power to destroy iran’s nuclear industry and its nuclear infrastructure. One strike will probably be enough to force iran into retaliating which will almost inevitably bring in the americans. In effect, the americans are checkmated by jewish warmongers. The Bluffing Game. Jeffrey blankfort has stated, "What we are seeing is a game of international poker, with the US spreading this disinformation about a pending attack as a high stakes bluff, aided, ironically, by a host of the administration's critics whose shallow analysis seems to be part of our daily email fare. The Iranians know they have the winning hand for this round, at least." (Jeff Blankfort ‘Critique: Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation’ February 15th 2006). The implication of the bluffing thesis is that the bush administration is behind all the manoeuvres in the bluffing game – aided unintentionally by his critics. It is probably true that the bush administration is placing stories in the media to exert pressure on iran to give up its nuclear energy dreams. But many of the media reports are probably concocted by jewish zionists trying to pressure the bushies into a war. If they can hype up the threat enough then bush will have to go to war against iran whether he’s bluffing or not. The jews-only state has little to lose from the war and everything to gain from pushing america into a war. What does it matter to them that thousands of american troops might get slaughtered in iraq as a result of such a war? They don’t care about america other than using it to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. It is possible the bushies are opposed to a war against iran and are just bluffing about an attack on iran. But it is highly unlikely the jews-only state is bluffing. Firstly, it has got the bush administration by the balls and it is highly unlikely it is going to waste the opportunity of using america to do its dirty work against iran. Secondly, the jews-only state cannot afford to be seen to be bluffing. It has twice threatened to use its nuclear weapons against the arab world in order to blackmail america into supporting the jews-only state – firstly in 1973 during the arab-jew war and then in 1991 removing saddam from kuwait. If the jews-only state bluffs over an attack on iran then america will never again take seriously the jews-only state’s attempts at nuclear blackmail and the jews-only state will have lost a critical grip over the world’s biggest military. In the end it is irrelevant whether the bushies are bluffing or not about a war against iran. If they are bluffing and iran calls america’s bluff then bush has no other option but to go to war because otherwise his reputation and that of the american military will be shattered. The ability of america’s jewish elite to manipulate america into wars that benefit only the jews-only state is a clear indication of jewish supremacism over america. This is why america is just a colony of the jews-only state in palestine. America’s jewish elite controls america’s vast military power which enables it to promote jewish world domination. It doesn’t matter to Iran who starts the War against Iran. From iran’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether it is attacked first by america or by the jews-only state in palestine because, given that bush has vowed to protect the jews-only state, as soon as it retaliates against either american forces in the middle east or against the jews-only state then america will attack iran. Even if iran is careful to retaliate only against the jews-only state, america will immediately become involved in the war. If the jews-only state initiates the attack on iran, the iranians will blame america for a number of reasons. If iran is attacked by air it will blame america firstly, for allowing the jews-only bombers to pass over iraq. Secondly, because america provided the jews-only state with these aircraft, and bunker busting bombs, to attack iran. "The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…" (Mark Gaffney ‘Iran: A Bridge too Far?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm October 26th 2004). If iran is attacked by missiles launched from the jews-only state’s submarines then iran can blame america for financing these weapons. In the following analysis the phrase zog war will be used to cover all three options for the initial attack on iran. There are virtually no significant political or military differences between a war against iran that is initiated by the zionist occupied government of america or by the jews-only state in palestine or by both.
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Four: The Consequences of an Attack on Iran.
Updated March 7th 2006.
The Scale of a Bombing Campaign against Iran. The israeli neocons are lying and manipulating america into a second proxy zionist war – this time against iran. They are trying to cover up the terrible disasters that could be unleashed as a result of such a war by suggesting that all that is needed to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons is to bomb the country’s sole nuclear reactor. They conjure up images of the jews-only state’s illegal aerial attack on iraq’s osirak nuclear reactor in june 1981 to stop saddam from developing nuclear weapons. In other words, a simple surgical strike on a single target that could be over and done with in a matter of minutes with few civilian or american military casualties. It is possible the zogs might confine themselves to hitting a single target. However, they know this will deter iran from developing nuclear energy/weapons for only a short period of time. One commentator has outlined a minimalist attack on iran, "Iran might need 100 buildings in good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years - and perhaps longer because it would become harder or impossible for Iran to buy the materials it bought when its efforts were still secret. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs. More than 35% of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components currently under U.S. embargo, and which the locals cannot copy. Aircraft regularly fall out of the sky because Iranians are unable to reverse-engineer spare parts." (Edward N Luttwak ‘In a Single Night’ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113937026599968085.html February 8, 2006).If the zogs want to delay iran’s nuclear development over the medium term they will have to attack all of iran’s nuclear industry. This would necessitate a wide-scale bombing campaign. Douglas herman makes some reasonable speculations on the first moves in a war against iran indicating the scale of the bombing campaign needed to wreck iran’s nuclear industry, "The ironically named Bushehr nuclear power plant crumbled to dust. Russian technicians and foreign nationals scurried for safety. Most did not make it. Targets in Saghand and Yazd, all of them carefully chosen many months before by Pentagon planners, were destroyed. The uranium enrichment facility in Natanz; a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak; the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit; the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan; were struck simultaneously by USAF and Israeli bomber groups. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs were destroyed." (Douglas Herman ‘Day One – The War with Iran’ Rense.com January 9th 2006). Wayne madsen concurs, "Likely targets for saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site in Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar Abad, and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).It is possible the zogs might limit their attacks to only the publicly known nuclear sites. However, it is possible they might also want to attack sites they suspect are a part of iran’s nuclear industry. The zogs insist they do not know the location of all iran’s nuclear facilities and, being paranoid, suggest there are large numbers of secret sites all over the country. "according to U.S. military planners, nuclear facilities are now hard to find and target from the air. During Operation Desert Fox in 1998 - an air campaign designed to cripple Iraq’s capability to produce nuclear weapons - it became apparent that the United States had no idea where such Iraqi weapons facilities were located (later the Bush administration found out the hard way that they didn’t have any). The Iranians have learned from Israel’s successful surprise attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. They have hidden, hardened, buried or placed their nuclear facilities in heavily populated areas. For this reason, according to The New York Times, U.S. military planners admit that the Iranian nuclear program is best dealt with by diplomacy rather than by military force." (Ivan Eland ‘Next Target: Iran?’ http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=4157 December 14, 2004). If the zogs decided to attack all targets suspected as being a part of iran’s nuclear industry this would require a bombing campaign lasting many weeks perhaps even months.If the zogs are to launch anything more than a single strike against a single target they will also have to attack iran’s military defences and its ability for military retaliation. This will mean destroying iran’s aircraft and airfields, military bases, radar sites, communications systems, etc. "Other first targets would be Shahab-I, II, and III missile launch sites, air bases (including the large Mehrabad air base/international airport near Tehran), naval installations on the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, command, control, communications and intelligence facilities." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006); "Israel will probably lead the assault taking out the potential nuclear sites with the US close behind in a mop-up role; bombing the 45 chemical, biological and conventional weapons facilities. This will ensure that Iran will be effectively de-fanged well into the future." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005). This would considerably add to the scale and duration of any bombing campaign and dramatically increase civilian and military fatalities.Even if an aerial bombing campaign was successful in taking out many iranian nuclear facilities, the zogs know the iranians have the capability for learning how to produce nuclear weapons and long range missiles and that within a decade or so the nuclear threat from iran could re-emerge. "Even if Natanz, Arak, and Bushehr were destroyed in a preemptive strike, Iran probably has duplicate equipment that can be activated and has the know-how to produce more, to pursue a more vigorous and unabated nuclear weapons program in the long term." (Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster ‘A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences’ CNS Research Story September 9, 2004). The idea that a single surgical strike will be sufficient to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons is simply jewish propaganda to persuade the world to accept the principle of an attack on iran so that a more wholesale and devastating war can be launched. In reality, the jews advocating an attack on iran are hoping for a comprehensive war that will bring about fundamental changes in iran and the middle east as a whole. The jews-only state in palestine not only wants the destruction of iran’s nuclear and military facilities but the obliteration of iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure to make it even more difficult for iranians to start up a nuclear weapons programme. What this means is that any industry which contributes to the nuclear power industry thus becomes a legitimate target for destruction i.e. electricity power stations, water/sewage systems, telecommunications systems, bridges, etc. "Secondary targets would include civilian airports, radio and TV installations, telecommunications centers, government buildings, conventional power plants, highways and bridges, and rail lines. Oil installations and commercial port facilities would likely be relatively untouched by U.S. forces in order to preserve them for U.S. oil and business interests." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Considering that virtually all iran’s industries contribute in one way or another to its nuclear power industry what the zogs really want to do is to bring about the deindustrialization of iran – destroying any industry which could be used for military purposes to defend the country from the racists in the jews-only state. In other words, the zogs want to bring about the palestinianization of iran – a tactic they have already successfully inflicted on palestine and iraq. This would prevent the rise of iran as an economic and industrial superpower which would enable it to become a military rival to the jews-only state in palestine.The ZOGs’ Options for Permanently preventing Iran from going Nuclear. There are various ways for the zogs to permanently end iran’s nuclear weapons’ threat. Firstly, to bring about regime change that would lead to the establishment of a zionist friendly government. This government would prevent iran from starting up a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.Secondly, a partial invasion of iran. Mike whitney suggests the americans are not interested in invading the whole of iran only a tiny sliver of iranian land i.e. khuzestan. "Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006). They would hand over iran’s oil rich region to its indigenous arab population. "The majority of Iran's crude oil is located in Khuzestan, which borders Iraq and the Persian Gulf is the home to two of Iran's largest untapped oil fields - Yadavaran and Azadegan." (Joshua Frank ‘War with Iran: Of Nukes and Oil’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01262006.html January 26, 2006); "The Bush war plans for Iran also entail quickly seizing Iran's southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran's oil reserves and refineries are located. Khuzestan has a majority Shia Arab population that has close links with their ethnic and religious brethren in Iraq. The Bush plans call for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz and receive diplomatic recognition from the United States and a few close U.S. allies." (Wayne Madsen ‘BND leaks neo-con invasion plan for Iran’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ August 10, 2005); "At the end of the day, the US will need to invade the oil-rich Ahwaz region (perhaps, 90% of Iran’s oil) and create the rationale for a long-term occupation of the area. There’s no plan to deal with the 70 million Iranians who live beyond that region, although there will probably be an attempt to decapitate the leadership via cruise missiles or air-strikes." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005).Thirdly, and much more ambitiously, the zogs could break up the iranian state. "U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. After World War I, Khuzestan was annexed by Iran, then called Persia. There are also plans to incite rebellions among Iran's other minorities, including Azeris and Turkmenis in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Other minorities targeted by the neo-con planners are Iranian Kurds along the Iraqi and Turkish borders and Baluchis along the border with Pakistan. The neo-con plan seeks to separate Iran from its oil resources and create an "Irani triangle" centered around Teheran, Isfahan, Qom, and other historically Persian centers." (Wayne Madsen ‘BND leaks neo-con invasion plan for Iran’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ August 10, 2005). It has been argued, "The most determined opponents of the regime in Tehran may be in Iran’s ethnic minorities, who make up around half its 68m population, but even here the ground is unpromising for the US." (Gareth Smyth ‘Iran rejects US money for ‘promoting democracy’ http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b9397dbc-a30d-11da-ba72-0000779e2340.html February 21 2006).The jews-only state in palestine would like to hive off parts of north-western iran to its kurdish allies in iraq, currently in the process of establishing in iraq the independent state of kurdistan. This would give the kurds a chance to set up greater kurdistan incorporating territory from both iraq and iran. Even more ambitiously, if the syrians could be coaxed into a wider middle east war, the incipient kurdish state might also be given the opportunity to annexe land from syria. The israelis in the bush administration are creating the conditions for a wider war that would involve syria. Indeed, it is possible the united states will trigger a war with syria in order to coax iran into attacking american forces in the middle east thereby justifying a war the american public has little enthusiasm for at present. The jewish-owned john bolton, bush's unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations, is currently preparing the justification for an american attack on syria, "Bolton, a neoconservative warmonger, has managed to get the UN Security Council on Jan. 23 to instruct Syria to disband and disarm the Lebanese militias. Bolton's solution is a ridiculous attempt to turn Syria into a neocon proxy and to set it at war with the (lebanese shia) militias. Otherwise, Bolton intends to damn Syria for "noncompliance" and again threaten them with U.S. invasion." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8439 January 25, 2006). Incidentally bolton sought to publicize this decision solely through the media in the jews-only state, "If so, let that person read John Bolton's orders to Syria in the Jan. 24 online edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8439 January 25, 2006). The more the zogs can turn the war against iran into a regional war involving syria and lebanon, the greater the chance there is of breaking up these countries and helping to establish a greater kurdistan which would be behoven to the jews-only state in palestine.Obstacles to the Break up of Iran and the Creation of Greater Kurdistan. The bush administration is currently opposed to the break up of iraq. However, if the zogs trigger a regional war then the jews-only state might use the ensuing chaos to encourage their kurdish allies in iraq to a take over kirkurk, establish an independent state in iraq, and then annexe kurdish areas in iran and syria. An american administration might come to legitimize realities on the ground if it came to appreciate that a greater kurdistan could play a critical role in stabilizing the middle east, "Israel by the way, is the Kurds' major ally and regional sponsor, as Hersh reported in a previous New Yorker piece. Their agents, said Hersh, are crawling all over Kurdistan, even as they recognize that the American attempt to pacify the rest of Iraq is failing. This is their "Plan B," as Hersh calls it: if Iraq is being split apart at the seams, their best option is to grab a piece of it as it decomposes. That Kirkuk-to-Israel pipeline Chalabi promised his neocon backers may not be a pipe dream after all, especially if the Kurds succeed in their plan to shift the ethnic balance of oil-rich Kirkuk and seize control of the city they hail as their Jerusalem. This has American officers worried, and it contradicts the much-touted "pro-American" reputation of the Kurds as our trusted friends and allies: American commanders fear the Kurdish militias are about to precipitate a civil war, with our troops caught in the crossfire." (Justin Raimondo ‘The World's Most Dangerous Man: It's George W. Bush’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8185 November 30, 2005).It might be countered that turkey is bitterly opposed to the creation of an independent kurdish state in iraq and would be even more opposed to the creation of a greater kurdistan state. Gary leupp has argued, "The Turkish regime fears its large (20%?) Kurdish minority, and the Kurds' kindred in Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Kurds are the largest stateless people in the world and have been oppressed historically in all these nations. A key reason Turkey opposed war on Iraq was the prospect of confronting an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan on its border that might encourage its own Kurds to demand independence." (Gary Leupp ‘Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks: Targeting Iran and Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12302005.html December 30, 2005). Wayne madsen believes turkey is so frightened about the emergence of a kurdish state in iraq it is refusing to give military assistance to america for an attack on iran. "According to sources knowledgeable about the meeting, Erdogan promised Putin, who has become a close friend, that Turkey would not support the use of its bases by the United States in a military attack on Iran. That brought a series of high level visits to Turkey by Bush administration officials, including CIA chief Porter Goss, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Although Erdogan listened to Goss's and Rice's pleas for Turkish logistical, political, and intelligence help for an attack on Iran and Turkish Army Chief Yasar Buyukanit heard much the same from Pentagon officials during his recent trip to Washington, the word is that Putin now has enough clout in Ankara to scuttle any use of Turkey by the U.S. for an attack on Iran. [Mueller delivered Ankara intelligence "proof" of Iranian backing for Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas in Turkey. Intelligence agencies and business intelligence units around the world are now discounting any intelligence coming from the Bush administration as neocon propaganda invented by think tanks and discredited intelligence agencies in Washington, Tel Aviv-Herzliya, and Jerusalem]." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Juan cole also accepts this thesis, "Turkey is dead set against the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, for fear that its own Kurds might try to secede and join it." (Juan Cole ‘Talabani Condemns Jaafari for Turkey Visit’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 01, 2006).However, turkey might condone the creation of a greater kurdistan if the kurds renounced any goal of incorporating kurdish territory in turkey. Ivan eland has suggested that turkey couldn’t afford to object to the establishment of a greater kurdistan, "Some analysts argue that if Iraqi Kurdistan became a separate state or states, Turkey would invade because of fears that its own Kurdish minority would get ideas of separating from Turkey and perhaps merging with the new Kurdish state(s). Despite Turkey’s blustering over the issue, however, it has lived with de facto Kurdish self-rule in northern Iraq for more than a decade. Also, the Turks desperately want to become members of the EU, and any belligerent action against the Iraqi Kurds would nix that possibility. The desire for EU membership may be an important reason why the Turks have recently been more accommodating to the Iraqi Kurds. And if Turkey gets EU membership - which brings economic benefits and demands the recognition of minority languages and cultures - Turkish Kurds might be less likely to favor independence. The voting patterns of Turkish Kurds already indicate that a majority does not favor separation from Turkey. These realities should make Turkey less nervous about a new Kurdish state on its borders." (Ivan Eland ‘Policy Report: The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government’ http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16 January 2005).The jews-only state in palestine is currently helping the kurds move towards autonomy in iraq. If a zog war against iran becomes a regional war the jews-only state would probably encourage the establishment of a greater kurdistan to permanently diminish arab and persian power – even against the interests of america and turkey. It might be that kurds in syria and iran might not want to join a greater kurdistan but if iraqi kurds, with oil wealth and a well trained army behind them, cajole their kurdish brethren into such a state then they will likely acquiesce. These are extreme speculations about the course of events in a zog attack on the middle east. But, they are far from being idle speculations. They are realistic in the sense that they are extrapolations of what has already happened in iraq. A number of commentators have already pointed out that the zogs’ approach to the war against iran is following the same path as the lead up to the war against iran. The americans invaded iraq and established what was almost an israeli run authority to rule iraq. Not surprisingly the israelis instituted policies which have brought about the near disintegration of the country along ethnic lines. This break up is also being promoted by the jews-only state in palestine even though bush’s policy is to maintain iraq’s territorial integrity. If this is what is happening in iraq then why is it not possible that something similar might happen in iran? Ultimately the issue of greater kurdistan will be settled by one vital consideration: who else is going to help the zogs control the region if they won’t put their own troops on the ground?Many commentators in the jewish dominated american media have expressed fears about the rise of a shia crescent that could dominate the middle east. "A specter haunts the Middle East - at least in the minds of Sunni Arabs, especially Wahhabis, as well as a collection of conservative American think tanks: a Shi'ite crescent, spreading from Mount Lebanon to Khorasan, across Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf and the Iranian plateau. Seventy-five percent of the world's oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. Seventy percent of the Gulf's population is Shi'ite." (Pepe Escobar ‘The myth of the Shi'ite crescent’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI30Ak01.html Sep 30, 2005); "Now that the Shia crescent is spreading from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon .. And now the problem is how to turn back the Shia advance, which is increasing in power inside Lebanon as well through the Hezbollah and Amal movements." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8439 January 25, 2006). But there is another equally viable prospect - the break up of iraq, iran, and syria, to create a kurdish state which would help the zionists to control the arab, moslem, and persian, worlds in the middle east. There is no way that america or the jews-only state in palestine could hope to control the middle east without the aid of a powerful kurdish state. Iran’s Response to a Zog Attack.Possible Iranian Tactics.Given that an intense, conventional, air and missile, strike against iran’s nuclear reactor, nuclear facilities, and nuclear infrastructure, could force the iranian government to crumble very quickly, iran’s best defence might be to act as quickly and as dramatically as possible to spread the war around the middle east. The more intense the zogs’ air and missile strikes, the more quickly and comprehensively the iranians would need to respond.One of iran’s most effective responses would be missile strikes against america’s military forces in saudi arabia, kuwait, afghanistan, dubai, the united arab emirates, and iraq. "In a counter-attack, Iran would immediately launch its Shahab I and II missiles at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad, the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, the US Navy base in Bahrain, Camp Doha base in Kuwait, Al Seeb airbase in Oman, Baghdad International Airport, the U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Iran could also respond with guerilla attacks against american bases in the region. It has been pointed out above that iran has ethnic minorities which might fight on the zogs’ side. But, conversely iran has lots of allies in surrounding countries who might fight on its side. In afghanistan: "Iran's allies in Afghanistan were the Tajiks, the Uzbeks and especially the Hazaras. The Hazaras are Afghan Shiites. They form about 15% of the Afghan population. The Hazaras' main political vehicle was the Hizb-i Vahdat or Unity Party, which was and is closely allied with Iran. Tajik warlords in the Northern Alliance like Ismail Khan, who are Sunnis, also have strong ties of language and patronage to Iran." (Juan Cole ‘Iran in Bush's Sights’ July 21 2004). It would be relatively easy for iran to sponsor guerilla attacks on american troops in iraq. "If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). Iran also has allies in other middle eastern states, "Intelligence and military officials around the world are also bracing for the results of a U.S. attack on Iran. This includes the distinct possibility of a major Shia retaliatory attack in Iraq, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Afghanistan against U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic targets in the region." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).The iranians might be tempted to launch a guerilla attack against the american military in kuwait because this is the route americans use to re-supply their forces in iraq. "Without the Kuwaitis, the U.S. military would not have a staging area for the thousands of G.I's going into and out of Iraq. Without Kuwait, the U.S. would lose a key logistical base. Hundreds of trucks per day carry supplies from Kuwait to American soldiers in Iraq. Without the Kuwaitis' refineries, U.S. troops in Mesopotamia would lose a reliable supplier of motor fuel. Without motor fuel, American soldiers would be patrolling Baghdad and Tikrit on foot." (Robert Bryce ‘The Problem with Cutting US Oil Imports from the Middle East: Is Bush Serious?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce02032006.html February 3, 2006). If, as a result of being attacked by america, iran organized guerilla attacks on american troops scattered throughout both iraq and kuwait then they would be in serious trouble.Michael schwartz fears that, "The increasingly desperate circumstances that constrained Bush administration actions when it came to the developing Iranian-Iraqi relationship were addressed by Middle East scholar Ervand Abrahamian, who pointed to a similarly precarious American situation in Afghanistan. He concluded that the U.S. could not afford a military confrontation with Iran, since the Iranians were in a position to trigger armed revolts in the Shi'ite areas of both countries: "If there's a confrontation, military confrontation, there would be no reason for them to cooperate with the United States. They would do exactly what would be in their interests, which would be to destroy the U.S. position in those two countries." A "senior international envoy" quoted by Christopher Dickey in NewsweekOnline, offered an almost identical opinion: "Look at what they can do in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon. They can turn the whole Middle East into a ball of fire, and [American officials] know that." (Michael Schwartz ‘The Ironies of Conquest: The Bush administration's Iranian Nightmare’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6915 August 10th 2005). Iranian political leaders also seem to believe they have given america an easy ride so far in the middle east. "The Iranian mullahs, meanwhile, are chuckling - literally. Some months ago, when the Iranian vice-president visited the United Arab Emirates for a regional summit, he was asked by the sheikhs whether he feared a US intervention in Iran. The Iranian leader roared with laughter: "Without us, the US could never have occupied Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that and we know that invading Iran would mean they would be driven out of those two countries."" (Tariq Ali ‘The logic of colonial rule’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1576657,00.html September 23, 2005); "Gholamali Haddad-Adel, "speaker" of Iran's parliament – in Cuba, last week – dismissed the possibility of a U.S. preemptive attack against Iran, finding it "impossible" to believe that the U.S. would want "to repeat the experience of Iraq. We hope the United States is not so stupid," he said." (Gordon Prather ‘March Madness’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8580 February 21, 2006).One commentator believes iran might launch a conventional military attack on american forces in iraq, "It could also do something that would come as a total surprise to Washington and cross the Iran-Iraq border with four to six divisions, simply rolling up the American army of occupation in Iraq. Syria might well join in, knowing that it is only a question of time before it is attacked anyway. We have no field army in Iraq at this point; our troops are dispersed fighting insurgents. A couple dozen Scuds on the Green Zone would decapitate our leadership (possibly to our benefit). Yes, our air power would be a problem, but only until the Iranians got in close. Bad weather could provide enough cover for that. So could the Iranian and Syrian air forces, so long as they were willing to expend themselves." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006). However this tactic is unrealistic. Iran would be idiotic to use conventional military force against america. Iran can win only if it fights a guerilla war not a conventional war in which it will be slaughtered. Iran could launch missile attacks against america’s warships and cruisers in the persian gulf and the arabian sea. One commentator believes that iran’s russian built sunburn anti-ship missiles could sink some of america’s largest aircraft carriers or warships.The iranians could spread the war by attacking oilfields in kurdish occupied iraq, saudi arabia, and kuwait. They could also launch missile or guerilla attacks against arab governments supporting the united states such as those in saudi arabia, kuwait, and the united arab emirates.The iranians, however, have a difficult choice to make in their military tactics: they could attack sunni dominated governments in the hope of liberating their shia minorities to create a shia dominated region. Alternatively, they could try to win support amongst sunnis for the fight against the americans. Iran could benefit enormously from an alliance with the sunnis throughout the middle east. If iran alienates sunnis and pushes them into joining forces with the zogs, its chances of surviving would diminish. This is especially so in iran itself since two of its provinces, baluchistan and khorasan, have high sunni populations both of which border the sunni dominated countries of afghanistan and pakistan. Iran’s need for sunni support is considerable. But the reverse is also true since both shias and sunnis are likely to be confronted by kurds fighting to establish a greater kurdistan. Although it is possible the iranians might hope that a war against america will bring about the emergence of a shia crescent in the middle east thereby eclipsing the sunnis, they have a great deal to fear from kurdish expansionism so they might be better off seeking an alliance with the sunnis. It is unlikely that iran will reach any agreement with the current pakistani government, "Iran and Pakistan were engaged in a regional struggle for influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia, in which Iran's Shiism and Pakistan's Sunnism were ideological tools." (Juan Cole ‘Iran in Bush's Sights’ July 21 2004). But, iran might reach some accord with sunni fundamentalists to set up a radical islamic government that would ally itself with iran. As will be explored later, pakistan is a major wildcard in any zog attack on iran.Iran might also retaliate by attacking the jews-only state in palestine. Firstly, missile attacks, "Iran would also launch its long-range Shahab III missiles on the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, Eilat, and the Israeli nuclear complex at Dimona." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Secondly, by mobilizing hezbollah freedom fighters in southern lebanon to launch rocket attacks on the jews-only state.Iran has few alternatives. It has to spread the war as rapidly and as comprehensively as possible around the middle east and encourage a general uprising of shias, preferably with sunnis, against the zionist imperialists and their kurdish allies. Iran might also hope that a regional war would force america to send in more ground forces because this would inflict even greater economic and military damage on america. The greater the financial costs that iran can impose on america, the more likely it is to topple the precarious american economy.Iran’s Use of Oil as a Weapon of Self Defense. Iran could also use oil as a weapon of self defense. Mathew maavak has argued, "Iran's military retaliation would only need to disrupt oil supply, not winning battles per se." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006).Firstly, ending its export of oil. The world’s oil industry is currently working flat out and has very little chance of making up for the loss of iranian oil by boosting production even further. "Folks, the world only produces about 85 million barrels a day. And most of that is used up by the producers so it isn't available for export." (Juan Cole ‘Shiite protests Roil Iraq’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 22, 2006). Iran is currently the world's fourth biggest oil exporter so the loss of its oil would lead to a considerable rise in oil prices which could trigger a global economic recession, "Oil prices would double overnight to $100 a barrel." (Carlton Meyer ‘On to Iran?’ http://www.g2mil.com/Summer2005.htm Summer 2005); "Attacking Iran doesn't make good economic sense, either. Iran is OPEC's second-largest oil producer and holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). Oil and gas prices have recently soared in response to rising global demand and heightened security concerns in the Middle East. Iran is unlikely to maintain its current level of oil production in the face of a massive military assault. The loss of just a fraction of Iranian oil production through collateral damage, sabotage, or economic embargo could trigger a severe global recession." (Daniel T. Barkley Preemptive Strikes Will Not Disarm Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barkley.php?articleid=4009 November 19, 2004).Secondly, if iran also attacked oil fields in saudi arabia, kuwait, and kurdish controlled iraq, to prevent them from financially benefiting from the war, then oil prices would rise even more substantially and bring about an even deeper global economic recession. It has to be suspected that if iran is attacked then one of its most urgent responses would be to attack kurdish oil fields in iraq. Iran will want to limit the amount of military support the kurds could give to the zogs’ attack on iran.Thirdly, if iran blocked the straits of hormuz to prevent oil leaving arabia this would further boost the rise in oil prices and cause an even deeper economic recession around the world. "a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression." (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html October 27th 2004). Since america imports only a small percentage of its oil from the middle east such tactics would not directly affect its oil supplies. However, it would suffer from the global increase in oil prices and a recession in the world economy. "Today a three-month closure of the strait and a loss of Iranian oil exports would cost the US alone a 4 to 5 percent drop in gross domestic product and cause a 2 percent rise in unemployment." (Howard LaFranchi ‘On Iran, West looks for a Plan B’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0118/p01s04-wome.html January 18, 2006). A world economic recession would have a considerable impact on the american economy.Fourthly, there is currently a worldwide shortage of oil refining facilities. There are a string of oil refineries in the middle east: a couple in iraq, kuwait, bahrein, qatar, the united arab emirates, oman, and not forgetting those in saudi arabia. Perhaps a visit by that friendly mr shahab and his sons shabab two and shabab three might lead to such a vast increase in the price of oil it would send the global economy into an immediate collapse. What wonders this would do for the environment! It would take years to rebuild these facilities.Finally, if the israelis, and their pet rottweilers, the americans, launched a pre-emptive strike against iran there are also some very large oil pipelines in the middle east that might attract iranian military attention.Possible Iranian response to a Partial Occupation of Iran.Mike whitney has suggested the americans might try to occupy khuzestan which contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. He presents the idea as if the american military had thought of the idea only after it realized a full scale invasion of iran was not feasible. In fact the idea has been part of british foreign policy since the second world war. "The severing of Iran's Khuzestan province and its "Arabization" has been a long-held British goal. In fact, this policy was made clear in the November 2, 1944 editorial of the Times of London, which proposed Iran's dismemberment by having Khuzestan appropriated by the British. To achieve this long-term objective, British Arabists have supported Arab nationalist activities (academic and military) against Iran and in Khuzestan in particular. Needless to say, this plan neatly converged with the ideology and geopolitical aspirations of Arab nationalists, particularly of the Ba'athist variety." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005). In the early 1980s saddam hussein’d army invaded iran to annexe khuzestan but was repulsed from the region.An american military invasion and occupation of this sliver of land, khuzestan, sounds tempting and easy. But, it would not be so.Firstly, the american military in iraq is primarily based in the central and northern parts of iraq. It would have to move through the shiite controlled south of iraq to reach khuzestan. As soon as the american military makes a move in that direction the iranians will be warned of an invasion. "As for "covert" strikes, any unusual activity on Iraqi soil will be noted and passed on to the Iranians before it is time for take-off. Battle-weary Iraqis know enough of warfare and logistics." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006).Secondly, what makes the idea of occupying khuzestan seem additionally attractive is that a majority of the people in the region are arabs so, it is argued, their loyalties to the iranian state might be limited. However, this is not the case, "Little mention is made of the fact that Khuzestan is inhabited not only by Arabs but by an array of ethnic groups, including Bakhtiaris, Behbahanis, Lurs in the north, Afshari and Qashqai tribes, and Persians in the major cities. Furthermore, claims that Arabs in Iran constitute a persecuted minority are as false as they are amusing. In fact, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has gone out of its way to promote the Arabic language (at the expense of Persian) in its drive to "Islamize" Iranian society. It is also important to note that Iran's current defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an ethnic Arab from Khuzestan. Claims by Khuzestani separatists that the Iranian regime is engaged in the persecution of minorities is particularly strange when one considers the fact that the Islamic republic has shown extreme sympathy for Arab causes both inside and outside of Iran." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005).When saddam invaded khuzestan in the early 1980s he found the arabs did not welcome him as a liberator, "When Iraq invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, with the stated intent of annexing Khuzestan, ……(the assumption was that) the Arabs of Khuzestan would fully support the invasion. These premises proved to be utterly unfounded, with Iranian resistance actually stiffening, leading to the permanent expulsion of Saddam's armies from Khuzestan in 1982. The vast majority of Iranian Arabs not only did not support Saddam, but were in fact at the forefront of resistance to the Iraqi invaders." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005). Why would arabs in the region be any better disposed to american invaders?Thirdly, the iranians aren’t going to allow the americans to occupy khuzestan and take over their oil fields without a fight. During the second world war the chinese blew up some of their dams to hamper the invading japanese, so perhaps the iranians might conclude that if they are going to be deprived of the use of the oil in this region then no one will exploit it. If iran decides to destroy its own oil fields to stop the americans from taking control of them why wouldn’t it also try to destroy saudi arabian oil fields, kurdish controlled iraqi oil fields, and kuwait’s oil fields? The iranians might ask themselves why american friendly countries should be allowed to benefit financially from the american destruction of iran? If this was to happen, the price of oil wouldn’t rise to $100 a barrel - it would be more in the region of £10,000 a barrel.Fourthly, the americans couldn’t complete their military objectives in iran solely by annexing one sliver of land. If they want to export expropriated iranian oil they would also need to control the straits of hormuz. So that’s two areas they would need to invade and occupy. The Dangers of a War against Iran escalating towards Weapons of Mass Destruction.There is more than a likely chance that a zog war against iran will go beyond conventional warfare. If the zogs launch an attack against iran using conventional weapons then iran is likely to respond in a similar conventional military fashion. However, if the zogs attack iran using nuclear weapons, even so-called small scale bunker-busting nuclear weapons, there is a possibility that iran would respond with the use of chemical weapons against american troops in the region not merely in iraq but kuwait and saudi arabia.If the zogs launch a conventional, albeit illegal and pre-emptive, military attack against iran and iran responds by using chemical weapons then it is almost certain that america, perhaps even the jews-only state in palestine, will retaliate by going nuclear. Paul levian speculates, "An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure." (Paul Levian ‘Iran and the jaws of a trap’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html Feb 3, 2006). If the jews-only state in palestine attacks iran’s nuclear reactor in bushehr before it has been loaded with nuclear fuel then iran might be tempted to hurl missiles at the jews-only state’s nuclear reactor at dimona. However, this would be a serious escalation of the war because it would, in effect, be equivalent to a nuclear attack. It is more than likely that the jews-only state would respond to an attack on dimona by using nuclear weapons against iran. There are those who speculate that iran will attack dimona, "If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility. Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area. Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries." (Yossi Melman ‘Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/687022.html February 25th 2006)."Iran vows to retaliate against an Israeli attack by firing conventionally armed missiles against Israel’s nuclear weapons complex at Dimona." (Eric Margolis ‘Nuclear Iran feared’ http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/01/28/1416265.html January 29, 2006). Iran would be justified in an attack on dimona only if its own nuclear reactor was loaded with nuclear fuel.The jews-only state in palestine and its israeli allies in america are trying to push america into yet another proxy zionist war – this time against iran. They don’t care how many thousands of american troops would be killed or injured in such a war because the jews-only state would escape relatively unscathed. In fact the more american troops who are killed the better because it would tempt america into launching a regional war which would produce even bigger benefits for the jews-only state in palestine – even though this would mean even greater american casualties and even greater financial losses. There could not be a more fatal combination – america’s jewish rulers promoting a war that will boost the interests of the jews-only state in palestine whilst causing massive damage to american interests.The jews-only state in palestine and its israeli traitors in america manipulated america into a war against iraq on the basis that americans would be welcomed as liberators. There can be no such delusion that iranians would welcome an american attack with open arms and yet still jews are still willing to manipulate america into a proxy zionist war against iran. Russia Unlikely to get involved in a War against Iran. The worst case scenario is that a jewish-induced war against iran could degenerate into a regional war. However, a world war is not likely. Russia is not in a position to militarily challenge the united states. It is not even in a position to go on the diplomatic offensive against america, "A glance at the Russian press makes it immediately evident that Moscow's costs for maintaining a "business as usual" position with Iran are becoming intolerably high, forcing President Vladimir Putin and his foreign policy team to send strong signals that Iran can no longer count on traditional Russian support in view of the "unacceptable policy positions" of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel, among other things. "Keen on cultivating its ties with Israel, Moscow wasted little time in moving a critical distance from Ahmadinejad in the months after he came to power, by sending Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Israel in late October. Lavrov stated unequivocally: "Russia understands the anxiety of Israel about the Iranian nuclear program and will not let Iran obtain weapons of mass destruction."" (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Russia's Iran gamble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA18Ak02.html Jan 18, 2006). Furthermore, russia has no economic incentive to stop an american attack against iran because although it will suffer some economic losses from its investments in iran it could reap huge financial benefits from such a war. Russia would benefit financially from a war against iran primarily from an increase in oil prices and, secondarily, from sales of military weapons to iran. This wealth could enable it to rebuild its armed forces and fend off zionist aspirations to dismantle the country. The americans have added another economic incentive to encourage russia to distance itself from iran by promising to allow it to develop a major oil field in iraq, "According to the Boston, Globe Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov met with Iraq’s oil minister Ibrahim al-Ulloum to firm up "an understanding" about Russia’s $6 billion contract to develop the West Qurna-2 oil field. Al-Ulloum, of course, is just following Washington’s directives in reviving the moribund Russian contract. But it is striking that Bush would surrender such an enormous trophy as one of Iraq’s main oil fields just to secure Russia’s vote (in the IAEA over referring iran to the un security council). The Lukoil transaction should prove to skeptics that Washington is prepared to give up anything to prevent the opening of Iran’s oil exchange. The UN Security Council is just the last step before military operations begin." (Mike Whitney ‘Why Russia caved-in on Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060204_why_russia_caved_in_.htm February 4, 2006).In terms of russian national interests: the more that russia can arm iran to defend itself against a zog attack then the longer the war will be and the longer there will be high oil prices - thereby boosting russia’s benefits from the war.There, however, is one important caveat in this view of russian political and military impotence. A pre-emptive strike against iran’s nuclear facilities would threaten the lives of many russian scientists and technicians. One commentator believes an american attack on iran which results in the deaths of russian scientists would be tantamount to a declaration of war against russia, "The US and Tsahal can hardly bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, since these are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians. Attacking Iran would imply declaring war against Russia." (Thierry Meyssan ‘The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885 February 4, 2006). One of the primary aims of a zog attack on iran’s nuclear facilities would be to kill as many iranian nuclear scientists as possible because although it would be easy to rebuild many facilities, iran would have a great deal of trouble in replacing its nuclear scientists’ expertise. If iran’s nuclear scientists can be protected then iran could rebuild its nuclear facilities but if it can’t then iran’s nuclear programme would come to a grinding halt. "A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today. Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War." (Thomas Harding ‘'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/13/ixworld.html February 13th 2006). So, how are the zogs going to kill iranian, but not russian, technicians?China Unlikely to get involved in a War against Iran. In contrast to russia, china stands to lose economically because of a zionist inspired war against iran. Firstly, it would suffer from the loss of iran’s fossil fuels. "China imports 17 percent of its oil from Iran." (Howard LaFranchi ‘On Iran, West looks for a Plan B’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0118/p01s04-wome.html January 18, 2006). China might permanently lose access to iran’s fossil fuel resources if an american installed government reneged on pre-war oil deals as it did in iraq. Secondly, it would lose out from higher oil prices. Despite these potential losses, china is unlikely to risk taking any diplomatic let alone military action against america. "China's decision to vote against Iran at the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting this month - resulting in Iran's referral to the Security Council - did not come as a big surprise to Tehran, since for more than two years top Chinese officials have been visiting Iran and in no unmistakable tone conveying the message that China would not sacrifice its huge trade interests with the West, the US in particular, over Iran." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘China's energy insecurity and Iran's crisis’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB10Ak01.html Feb 10, 2006).There are commentators who believe that china might be willing to risk a military engagement, "China, which, sources a significant amount of oil from Iran might be tempted to flex its own muscles, the same way Imperial Japan raced to the Dutch East Indies for oil when Pearl Harbor was still smoking in ruins. Beijing doesn't have much of a strategic petroleum reserve but it does have ample nuclear deterrent." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006). Wayne madsen also believes that china might be tempted into military action, "And China may elect to respond financially and militarily against the United States since Iran is China's second largest source of imported Middle East oil after Saudi Arabia and plans to use an Iranian terminal for the export of natural gas from Turkmenistan. [China now imports 60 percent of its oil needs, and Iran represents 17 percent of those imports]." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). China has an economic weapon which it could use against the united states but it would suffer just as much america if the weapon was used, "Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006); "The truth of the matter is that "foreign investment" in the US today consists of Asian central banks, mainly Japan and China, using surplus earnings from massive trade surpluses to prop up the US dollar by purchasing US government bonds. By propping up the dollar, Asians keep their goods and services cheap, thus worsening the US trade deficit. Washington goes along because Asian countries use their export surpluses to finance the US budget deficit." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘War, Outsourcing and Debt’ http://www.counterpunch.org September 29, 2004); "The most likely scenario has nothing to do with political opposition at all - it has to do with the willingness of Asian countries that covet Iranian oil, especially China, to countenance another U.S. military adventure. The U.S. is now so badly in debt to countries like China, Japan, and South Korea that while a limited raid is simple enough, any massive new military expenditure would literally require the Asian countries to be writing the checks, and they're not about to do so for a war that threatens their own strategic interests. Bush may well be finding out the limits of a global empire erected on other people's money." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367 February 15th 2006).The main military contribution that china and russia could make would be to arm iran before a war starts.The Problems Facing a Zog attack on Iran. In the short term, the bush administration is unlikely to launch a ground attack against iran because american troops are bogged down in iraq and there is little hope of peace in that country freeing up these troops. If it wants to invade iran it would have to introduce the draft which would make america’s intentions even more obvious. A joint military invasion by americans, the jews-only state in palestine, and kurds, is a possibility but only a remote one. It is much more likely the zogs would try to rely solely on a bombing campaign – indeed, there is a case for arguing that an invasion may be counter-productive – especially during the early stages of an intense and comprehensive aerial bombardment.America has three models for aerial bombings campaigns. Firstly, long term, low intensity bombing such as that used against iraq after the first gulf war. Iraq suffered a low level of air strikes for over ten years. However, saddam was able to use these air strikes to boost his political power in iraq so it is doubtful whether the american military would repeat that mistake. The big advantage of this tactic is that the jewish media in america and britain were able to keep this blatant warmongering out of the news and thus very little public opposition built up to what the zogs were doing.The second model is the intense aerial bombing of serbia which brought an end to serbian control over the various states that made up yugoslavia. If the americans showed the iranian government they could quickly and comprehensively destroy the country’s nuclear power reactor, its nuclear facilities, its nuclear power infrastructure, and military infrastructure, then the iranian government might conclude that surrendering was the best option. It is possible that an intense, comprehensive, and conventional, aerial bombardment could bring about the rapid capitulation of the iranian government and thus limit the retaliation suffered by the americans and the jews-only state. However, such a military victory is likely to be completely illusory because the zogs would find it difficult to politically stabilize the country after the capitulation. The zogs would have two options. One option would be to create a more democratic iranian government. This is, after all, one of their professed justifications for an attack on iran. But, this is highly unlikely to happen because if a democracy is established in iran it will doubtlessly lead to popular demands for the development of nuclear weapons and the re-establishment of iran’s military power. After the zogs occupied iraq, they opposed any elections, even local elections, and disbanded the iraqi army because their real objective was to bring about the palestinianization, and eventually the disintegration, of iraq. The same is also true of their goals for iran.A second option would be for the zogs to establish a zog friendly dictatorship to prevent the rebuilding of the iranian military and any further development of civilian nuclear energy/weapons. But how long such a puppet zionist regime would last in the face of popular opposition, popular demands for nuclear weapons, and a popular insurgency, would be open to question. Iran might follow the same course as iraq when it was ‘liberated’ by the jews’ pit bull americans. "Yet the U.S. and UK took it upon themselves to invade Iraq in order to remove an allegedly authoritarian Government. The result of the invasion is that many more people have been killed and injured than Saddam was ever accused of. Worse still, the powers which are supposed to save the Iraqi people have broken international laws on human rights, by detaining Iraqis and others and torturing them at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere." (Mahathir Mohamad ‘Who are the Real Terrorists’ http://adeebpress.blogspot.com/2005/09/who-are-real-terrorists.html September 10, 2005).Only the Nuclear Option will Bring Iranians to their Knees.America’s third model of aerial bombings is the use of nuclear weapons against japan. This resulted in the instant and unconditional surrender of the japanese government and a people so traumatized by such a shocking event that no insurgency emerged against the american imposed constitution and government. The zogs might start their attack on iran by using bunker busting nuclear weapons to destroy iran’s nuclear facilities. They might then threaten the iranian government with a more wide-scale nuclear attack if it did not capitulate. An iranian government would almost certainly do so because many of its nuclear facilities have been built in densely populated urban areas. "Since a ground invasion of Iran is impractical, the only possible military action is an aerial attack on Iran's nuclear installations, as Israel did to Iraq in 1981 (when Iraq was by all estimates several years away from the ability to build a nuclear bomb). However, unlike Iraq's Osirak reactor, Iranian nuclear facilities are underground and will require nuclear bombs to be destroyed. Despite Vice President Cheney's suggestion in January 2005 that Israel "might do it without being asked," Israel is not likely to want to confirm that it possesses nuclear bombs by using them in such a situation. Is the U.S. willing to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear adversary that is an NPT signatory, thus risking universal condemnation? Several statements and documents from the Defense Department suggest that it is indeed fully prepared to do so." (Jorge Hirsch ‘The Meaning of the IAEA Iran Vote’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7431 September 29, 2005).Neither of the first two aerial options seems likely to be successful. No matter how intense a conventional attack would be on iran, the iranian government could still retaliate heavily against america and its allies in the middle east before it capitulated. And politically, neither of the two possible forms of post-war government that could be imposed on iran would seem to bring the long term benefits desired by the zogs. The zogs’ chances of winning the peace, which they have singularly failed to do in iraq, would be daunting. It would be far easier for the zogs to win the war against iran than it would be to win the peace. Another factor that ought to be considered is that the more comprehensive the scale of the zogs’ military attack on iran, the more difficulties the zogs would face in winning the peace. It has to be concluded that the nuclear option seems to be the only way to bring about the instant capitulation of the iranian government, minimize iranian retaliation, and boost the chances of a zog friendly government surviving because iranians would be too traumatized to support an insurgency. The zogs could then carve up iran. Firstly, an enlarged kurdish state covering north west iran. Secondly, south western iran could be turned into an independent state whose majority shia arab population could take over the bulk of iran’s oil reserves and refineries. Both of these new states could then help the zogs to militarily control the region. Thirdly, pakistan might annexe some of iran’s south eastern region. It has been argued that if the zogs want to permanently destroy iran’s nuclear potential they would need to invade the country, "The only way to find and eliminate Iranian nuclear weapons using military action would be to launch a full-scale invasion of Iran." (Ivan Eland ‘Next Target: Iran?’ http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=4157 December 14, 2004). However, a zog nuclear attack on iran would make such an invasion irrelevant.It is highly unlikely the zogs will issue an ultimatum to the iranian government: surrender or face a nuclear attack. Whilst such a threat might be politically effective in bringing about the capitulation of the iranian government, if the zogs’ bluff was called and nuclear bombs were dropped on iran there would be a huge public outcry against the zogs. It is likely to prove politically disastrous. What is much more likely to happen is that the zogs will start a conventional aerial bombardment and when iran retaliates there will be a massive demand from americans to "nuke ’em". Far from having to win the case for a nuclear attack on iran, the zogs would have to ‘acquiesce’ in popular demands for nuclear retaliation – especially when the jewish media in america and palestine has been preparing people for the use of such weapons against iran. "The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes by Israel on perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites. Both Israel and the US have signaled to Iran that retaliation will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In fact, the Pentagon hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries in Latin America and Asia." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006). Douglas herman’s speculations about the first few hours of an attack on iran have already been mentioned. He also speculates about iran’s retaliation, "At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain. Embedded reporters aboard the ships - sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening - reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later." (Douglas Herman ‘Day One – The War with Iran’ Rense.com January 9th 2006). If the iranians managed to sink an american aircraft carrier this would almost inevitably result in america responding with nuclear weapons. The zogs are also unlikely to issue a nuclear ultimatum to iran because they want the war to spread around the middle east. The zogs would love an excuse to attack lebanon and syria and bring about their disintegration. This will not merely remove yet more military threats to the jews-only state, it would enable the establishment of an even more extensive greater kurdistan. One of the zogs’ primary objectives in this regional war would be the creation of a greater kurdistan for it is highly unlikely the zogs could control the middle east without the kurds. It has to be speculated that the zogs are probably prepared to make some sacrifices in order to achieve their ultimate objectives. Perhaps american military leaders are hoping the sacrifice they will make, to persuade world opinion to condone their use of nuclear weapons, won’t be as substantial as the sinking of an aircraft carrier.A conventional aerial attack on iran could be economically, militarily, and politically, suicidal for america. William rivers pitt points out the economic dangers. "Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). This leads him to conclude, "The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). It is possible that bush is a maniac. Perhaps he’s been convinced to act like a maniac by his israeli masters. But it is much more likely that, within his worldview, bush is acting rationally because whilst the risks to america and the jews-only state in palestine of a conventional war against iran are catastrophic the risks of a nuclear war seem to be far less substantial.Pakistan could get Sucked into a Regional War. The west’s jewish rulers must have thought the master of the universe was producing sequential miracles to help pathe the way to world domination. Although their lies over the war against iraq have been exposed, the neocons have not been punished politically by the president nor have they become politically unpopular. On the contrary, the president has rewarded them politically with promotions. And the american people still trust these devious liars. The fact that america’s jewish rulers escaped all censure and punishment has encouraged them to repeat the same tactics in manipulating america into a war against iran. America’s jewish rulers must have been even more heartened to find that this time around, europe was fully behind their racist propaganda blitz against iran. And they must have been even more thrilled when russia and china began to acquiesce in america’s warmongering. When the publication of a dozen danish cartoons produced violent protests across the moslem world, the jewish owned media in america and europe used the opportunity to indulge in a flood of anti-islamic sentiments which further boosted the western public’s support for a war against iran. Everything seemed to be going the way the west’s jewish rulers wanted.But then they suffered a setback whose magnitude has yet to be determined. Since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, pakistan’s president musharraf had given considerable support to america’s invasion of afghanistan and had seemingly curbed his country’s islamic extremists. However, over the last year or so, for one reason or another, musharraf has been losing out to islamic rebels, and the publication of anti-islamic cartoons in europe triggered off protests in pakistan that were directed against his authority. It was at this point that a number of commentators began to realize that if islamic rebels deposed musharraf and replaced him with sunni islamic rulers, some of whom might have connections to the taliban or al quaeda, then a zionist war against iran would suddenly become far more problematic. "Then, the strong American response to Pakistan's disastrous earthquake turned Pakistani opinion around. Only America really came through for the tens of thousands of people de-housed by the catastrophe, and other people noticed; when mullahs in radical mosques denounced the Americans, their congregations told them they were wrong. Of course, America blew it in classic American fashion, with the Predator strike on homes in a Pakistani border town. As always, the target wasn't there, because, as always, we depended on intelligence from "systems" when only humint can do the job. The resulting Pakistani civilian deaths threw away all the good will we earned from the earthquake response and made America the Great Satan once more. Musharraf paid the political price. If the riots continue and grow, the Pakistani security forces responsible for containing them will at some point go over and join the rioters. Musharraf will try to get the last plane out; perhaps he will find Texas a congenial place of exile. If he doesn't make that plane, his head will serve as a football, not just of the political variety. The fall of Pakistan to militant Islam will be a strategic disaster greater than anything possible in Iraq, even losing an army. It will be a greater disaster than a war with Iran that costs us our army in Iraq. Osama and Co. will have nukes, missiles to deliver them, the best conventional armed forces in the Muslim world, and an impregnable base for operations anywhere else." (William S. Lind ‘Taking Pakistan's Temperature’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8595 February 24, 2006); "Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq has set in motion forces beyond his control. On February 23 the Asia Times reported that America's Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is "losing his grip." Some Pakistani provinces are already beyond Musharraf's control, and the remainder are rioting against "Busharraf" as Musharraf is now known. The infantile American press misrepresents the riots as responses to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, but in fact the target of the riots is the American puppet. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq and by threatening Syria and Iran, Bush has taught Muslims everywhere that they owe their humiliation to the Western controlled secular governments that suppress their aspirations. They are realizing that their power resides in Islam and that this power is suppressed by secular governments. Busharraf is probably dead meat, and when he goes so does the US military adventure in Afghanistan." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘From Superpower to Tinhorn Dictatorship?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02272006.html February 27, 2006).But, then again, who knows whether the world’s jewish elite would be worried about a nuclear armed al quaeda? The jews-only state has sought to neutralize pakistan’s nuclear threat by seeking an alliance with pakistan’s enemies, india. The neocons, however, have never mentioned any plan of action to deal with an islamic leaning pakistan government. Perhaps the reason for this is not because they have no desire to neutralize pakistan but simply because any public discussion of such a goal would cause alarm bells to ring around the world as to just how extensive their warmongering really was. The neocons would undoubtedly like to see pakistan disarmed. Perhaps, in the past, they believed action against pakistan could wait until after the middle east had been politically re-arranged for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. Now that pakistan is on the verge of becoming a factor in the proposed war against iran they might think they have an opportunity for dealing with the militarily most dangerous islamic state of all – the nuclear armed pakistan.
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Five: The Benefits to the Jews-only State of a Zog Attack on Iran.
Updated March 7th 2006.
The political and military benefits to the jews-only state in palestine of a zog attack on iran are directly proportional to the scale of the attack. Even a minimalist attack i.e. on a single target such as iran’s bushehr nuclear reactor, would benefit the jews-only state. But, in general, the more comprehensive the war against iran and other countries in the middle east, the more comprehensive the political and military benefits accruing to the jews-only state. What is more, the jews-only state is in a no-lose position. It is the americans who will suffer all the adverse military, economic, and political, consequences and few of the benefits whilst the jews will suffer hardly any adverse consequences but reap huge political and military dividendsNo Nuclear Rival.The most obvious military benefit to the jews-only state in palestine of a zog attack on iran’s nuclear reactor would be a short term set back to iran’s nuclear challenge to the jews-only state. The more of iran’s nuclear industry, and the more of its nuclear infrastructure, that is destroyed the longer it would take for iran to recover and once again challenge the nuclear dominance of the jews-only state. The longer the jews-only state can preserve its monopoly of nuclear weapons in the middle east, the longer it will be free to continue using its nuclear weapons to blackmail the united states into carrying out policies which are in the national interests of the jews-only state but not in america’s national interests.The Jews-only State would Welcome an Attack by Hezbollah.Many jewish leaders in the jews-only state in palestine would be pleased to provoke an attack on the jews-only state by hezbollah freedom fighters because this would provide them with the justification for an invasion of southern lebanon. They might annexe land giving the jews-only state control over the litani river – a vitally important strategic asset for the long term expansion and survival of the jews-only state. "And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem." (Paul Levian ‘Iran and the jaws of a trap’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html Feb 3, 2006).The jews-only state is concocting the necessary fabrications to justify an invasion on lebanon and the destruction of hezbollah freedom fighters. "There are recent reports that a weapons convoy, apparently Iranian, made its way through Syria through the Lebanese Bekaa and received a transit permit with the Lebanese government openly confirming that it knew the convoy's goal was Hezbollah. Therefore, the Lebanese government is an indirect partner in the establishment of the rocket array aimed against Israel. It has already been published that this includes some 12,000 Katyushas and rockets of various types. Militarily, it makes no difference if there were only 5,000 Katyushas, for example. The important factor is the range, which Iran makes sure to constantly improve. The Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets have increased their ranges to some 70 kilometers. This means Hezbollah and, in effect, Iran can shoot at targets south of Haifa, and not only in the area of Haifa Bay." (Ze'ev Schiff ‘Who will deter whom? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=689758 March 03 2006).The Jews-only State would Welcome an Attack by Syria.William rivers pitt believes that syria poses a serious military threat to the jews-only state in palestine, "Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft. Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). Charley reese believes that if the zogs attacked iran, then it would be sensible for syria to offer military support to iran, "If Israel attacks Iran, the Iranians, who have missiles capable of reaching Israel, will fire back. Then we will probably get into it, and if the Syrians have any sense, they will attack Israel …" (Charley Reese ‘Credibility Can Only Be Lost Once’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=4066 November 27, 2004). It has to be suggested, however, that pitt’s estimate of syria’s military capability is way off target and that hardline leaders of the jews-only state would welcome an attack by syria. Firstly, because it would enable them to bring about regime change in syria and, secondly, and even more importantly, because they could encourage the dismantling of the country - some syrian territory could be annexed into a greater kurdistan.The Jews-only State Welcomes an Attack by Shias in Iraq.The jews-only state in palestine would also welcome the idea of iraqi shias attacking the american military in iraq because this would further boost the political prospects for an independent kurdish state in iraq. The Jews-only State could help to bring about the Rise of Greater Kurdistan.The jews-only state in palestine would like to bring about the break up of iran, iraq, and syria, in order to give its kurdish allies the chance to create a greater kurdistan covering territory annexed from these countries. The more the zionists can turn an attack on iran into a comprehensive war against their enemies in the region, the greater their chance of breaking up the iranian, syrian, and iraqi, states for the sake of a greater kurdistan. The Biggest Beneficiary of a war against Iran will be the Jews-Only State in Palestine. It has been argued that the biggest beneficiaries of the american invasion of afghanistan were the jews-only state in palestine and iran. It has also been argued that the biggest beneficiaries of the american invasion of iraq were the jews-only state in palestine and iran. "The chief beneficiaries of the conquest of Iraq, and subsequent threats against both Iran and Syria, have been, in descending order, Israel, Iran, and Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda has used the invasion as a recruiting tool and training ground for its global jihad against the United States. Iran has extended its influence deep into southern Iraq and has penetrated the central government in Baghdad. In the long run, however, Israel benefits the most, as a major Middle Eastern Arab country fragments into at least three pieces and the U.S. military is ineluctably drawn into neighboring countries." (Justin Raimondo ‘AIPAC and Espionage: Guilty as Hell’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7454 September 30, 2005); "The only major beneficiary of the US war in Iraq is the State of Israel: The war destroyed a major supporter of the Palestinian Intifada and Israel got a free hand in its terror and territorial colonization Palestinian land." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005); "If there was a single "smoking gun" that led to accusations against the neo-cons that the attack on Iraq was a war for Israel, it was the revelation that, in 1996, Perle directed a task force that included two other high ranking American-Jewish neo-cons, current Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, senior adviser to John Bolton, Under-Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, that produced a white paper for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," and the name referred to putting an end to Israel's negotiating with the Palestinians, and the concept of trading land for peace." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003). One commentator believes that iran has been the biggest beneficiary, overall, of american foreign policies, "Alani said Iran was already the prime indirect beneficiary of U.S. policies in the region since the Sept. 11 attacks. "The Americans removed their Taliban enemies in Afghanistan. Saddam is gone and there is a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. Saudi Arabia's influence has been neutralised since 9/11." (Alistair Lyon ‘Iran could play Iraq card in row over nuclear plans’ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2878629.htm Feb 28th 2006).A zog war against iran would remove all the political and military benefits acquired by iran since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings. The jews-only state would thus be left as the sole beneficiary of the america’s foreign policies since the p*ny bombings. "The only possible beneficiary of a US or Israeli military attack on Iran or economic sanctions will be Israel: it will seem to eliminate a military adversary in the Middle East, and consolidate its military supremacy in the Middle East. Even this outcome is problematic because it fails to take account of the fact that Iran’s challenge to Israel is political, not its non-existent nuclear potential. The first target of the millions of Muslims protesting Israeli aggression will be the Arab regimes closest to Israel. An Israeli attack would be a pyrrhic victory, if a predictable political conflagration unseats the rulers of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005).Whilst a zog attack on iran poses huge economic and military risks for america, the risks of such a war to the jews-only state are minimal. The jews-only state in palestine is thus in the enviable position of having everything to gain and little to lose from pushing america into an attack on iran and a regional war in the middle east. This is why jewish politicians and israeli traitors in america can afford to act so irresponsibly as warmongers because it is america that would take the risks not their beloved jews-only state. It is true that the other big beneficiary of a regional war would be the kurds if they managed to establish an independent kurdish state in iraq – even more so if a kurdish state in the former iraq could also annexe territory from iran, and syria. But this too would also be a benefit to the jews-only state since a kurdish state would be beholden to the jews-only state.
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Six: The Jews-Only State’s Nuclear Blackmail of America.
Updated March 7th 2006.
A Short History of Jews’ Blackmailing America into Proxy Zionist Wars.It is not at all surprising that the jews-only state in palestine in conjunction with the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration, are able to force america into a war against iran which would be of benefit only to the jews-only state. Over the last four decades, the jews-only state in palestine, and its jewish allies in america, have frequently forced american administrations into adopting policies which are in the interests of the jews-only state but have been contrary to america’s national interests. In 1973 the jews-only state used its nuclear weapons to blackmail president nixon and foreign secretary henry kissinger into airlifting military supplies to the jews-only army to stop the advancing arab armies. Such an action was not in america’s political, economic, or military interests. As a consequence of america’s intervention, arab oil producing countries launched an oil embargo which pushed the american and global economies into a decade long recession. Arab governments remained hostile to america and american interests for well over a decade. "If anything, Israel’s presence in the region has been the key destabilizing factor in the region and on two occasions, in 1967, and again in 1973, it almost led to nuclear war (and did lead then to a costly Arab oil embargo.) In the early days of the October War, when it appeared that Israeli troops might be overrun, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan reportedly panicked and threatened to use Israel’s atomic weapons on Egypt if the US did not rush Israel an airlift of conventional weapons. The Nixon administration promptly responded." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005); "Israel has unscrupulously used these nukes to blackmail the United States (for instance, they forced Kissinger and Nixon to airlift supplies during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, according to Seymour M. Hersh in his book, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy)." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iran Attack: No Way Back Now’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=194 January 18th 2006). In 1990, saddam invaded kuwait. Having been a devoted ally to america for the last decade or so, saddam believed that kuwait was his reward for the gruelling war against iran. There is reason for believing that bush senior acquiesced in the invasion, "In 1991, after Saddam had sent his army into Kuwait (possibly believing that the U.S. had given him the green light to do so), George H.W. Bush formed a large coalition of nations and launched Operation Desert Storm against Saddam's forces at a time when they were assumed to be reasonably formidable. In the brief conflict that followed, however, the American military (with its coalition of largely paying, rather than fighting, allies in tow) proved that assessment blindingly wrong by obliterating significant portions of the Iraqi military, while losing hardly a soldier in battle." (Tom Engelhardt ‘A Quailhawk's Cakewalk’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=8586 February 22, 2006).The jews-only state was incensed by this invasion. It is possible it forced america into ejecting saddam from kuwait either by threatening to attack iraq or by threatening to use its nuclear weapons against iraq in order to blackmail america into a war. Seymour hersh believes the latter. (See Seymour Hersh ‘The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy’ 1991. The biblical samson brought down a temple that killed himself and his enemies. "The title of Hersh's book comes from Israel's notion that once they have the Bomb, they are in a position to bring it all down on everyone if ever they feel cornered. It's the ultimate in Israeli security as a nation-state, if not for the security of humankind."). Blankfort believes that the jewish lobby in america was primarily responsible for pushing america into ejecting saddam from kuwait, "Chomsky’s comment, notwithstanding, AIPAC, "was widely credited with having played a key role" in rounding up the necessary votes in the Senate to give Pres. Bush his majority. "[B]ecause of the extreme sensitivity to the issue, AIPAC was anxious to camouflage its role to avoid providing evidence for the accusation... that the Persian Gulf War was fought at the behest of the Jews to protect Israel." To disguise their role, the Washington Jewish Week’s Larry Cohler reported that AIPAC had prominent Jewish senators vote against the war while lobbying non-Jewish senators in states with small Jewish populations to support it. That Saddam Hussein was not removed at the time brought strong criticism from the primarily Jewish neocons and on a lower register from AIPAC. During the Clinton presidency they would press their demand for regime change in Iraq and under Bush Jr., they made sure that task would be carried out." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). The first gulf war can be called america’s first proxy zionist war. It is likely that in 2003, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned media, the jewish-owned politicians in congress and the israelis in the bush adminsitration, were powerful enough to push the bush administration into an invasion of iraq without the jews-only state having to use nuclear blackmail. This was america’s second proxy zionist war. There are a substantial number of commentators who believe that america’s invasion of iraq was a proxy zionist war and that america’s jewish neocons were responsible for providing the political lies that manipulated the american administration and the american public into support for the invasion. Please see ‘The Commentators supporting the proposition that Jewish Zionists Initiated America’s Invasion of Iraq for the Benefit of the Zionist State in Palestine’. The same is also true now as regards a war against iran. Jews in america are probably powerful enough to push america into a war against iran without having to rely upon the jews-only state to exert nuclear blackmail. The war against iran will be america’s third proxy zionist war. It has to be wondered when americans are going to appreciate that they are being duped into wars that do not serve their national interests.Warner farr has highlighted the way the jews-only state in palestine deceived successive american governments about the jews’ development of nuclear weapons. He also believes the jews-only state has threatened to use nuclear weapons against arab countries but, very strangely, he did not consider it had used nuclear blackmail to force america into giving the jews-only state unqualified support. "This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using "bomb in the basement" nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements." (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003).The War against Iran is a Proxy Zionist War.The jews-only state in palestine, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the zionist owned media in america, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration, are using all of their political powers to force the bush administration into a war against iran. "The AIPAC believes the Islamic Republic poses a grave threat to Israel’s supremacy in the Middle East. In line with its policy of forcing a US confrontation with Iran, AIPAC, the Israeli PACs (political action committees) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) have successfully lined up a majority of Congress people to challenge what they describe as the "appeasement" of Iran. According to the Jewish Times (12/6/05), "If it comes down to a political battle, signs are that AIPAC could muster strong support in Congress to press the White House to demand sanctions on Iran."" (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005). The leading advocates pushing america into a war against iran are all jewish. For further details please see ‘The Jews Stirring up World War Three: The Zog War Against Iran.’.There is only one reason for a zog attack on iran and that’s to boost the regional dominance of the jews-only state in palestine. Iran does not pose a military threat to the jews-only state any more than saddam did. Even if iran developed nuclear weapons, it would not pose a threat to the jews-only state because both would be in a mad situation. What would change, however, is firstly, that the jews-only state would lose its nuclear dominance of the middle east and, much more importantly, it would no longer be able to use its nuclear weapons to blackmail america into fighting proxy zionist wars. Whether the war against iran is started by the jews-only state in palestine or america is irrelevant because it will still have been initiated and orchestrated by jews for the benefit of the jews-only state.The jews-only state is determined to attack iran in order quosh a rival in the middle east. But it would also like to trigger a regional war to re-arrange other middle eastern countries and consolidate its regional dominance. The jews-only state wants to bring about the palestinianization of the arab/persian world in the middle east leaving it not merely with military superiority but with unrivalled economic, and industrial, superiority. The dismantling of iraq, iran, lebanon, and syria, will go a long way towards ensuring the long term supremacy of the jews-only state in the region. The jews-only state fears not only a nuclear rival. It also fears the prosperity and industrial development of any arab/persian nation because this will give such countries the potential for developing a powerful military, possibly with nuclear weapons, to rival the jews-only state. The only way for the jews-only state to ensure its continued supremacy is to keep the entire arab and persian peoples in a state of poverty, a de-industrialized state, so they can never develop with their own skills, or buy with their own resources, the military technologies needed to defeat the jews.America could suffer grievous military and economic damage as a result of a war against iran. It could suffer even more damage in a middle east conflagration. The israeli traitors in the jewish lobby, the american media, congress, and the bush administration, don’t care about the crippling effects of a war on america’s economy, or the loss of american lives, because the benefits to the jews-only state in palestine would be so great. What does it matter to them if americans get killed or america goes bankrupt? Their sole interest is boosting the regional dominance of the jews-only state and taking yet another step towards jewish world domination. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice america to ensure jewish world domination. The zionists have reduced the palestinians to utter poverty and defencelessness. Their aim in pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iraq was the palestinianization of iraq. They now want to bring about the palestinianization of iran. And they don’t care if this also results in the palestinianization of america.The racist, jews-only state in palestine is willing to push the whole world into an economic collapse because it wants to create a racially pure jews-only state – the antithesis of western multi-cultural societies. Paranoid, supremacist zionists around the world seem quite willing to risk pushing the entire world into an economic collapse. What is American about America?The question that jewish dominance of american politics, american society, and american culture, raises is what is american about america or the american government? The answer is very little. Iran does not pose a military threat to america and yet most of the bush administration’s time is devoted to formulating and implementing policies concerning iran. Israelis have colonized the american administration and are simply using it to implement the foreign policies of the jews-only state. Even more remarkable is the number of americans (and europeans) who pretend there are no israelis in the bush administration, no israeli dominance of the american media, and that america’s proxy zionist wars against iraq and iran have nothing to do with jews or the jews-only state.Americans ought to concentrate on liberating themselves from the israeli infiltrators in the american media, congress, and the bush administration, before they are bankrupted by an invasion of iran. "As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). The israelis in america don't care about the economic disasters that america could suffer as long as they can use america's military power to boost the regional power of the jews-only state in palestine and the global power of zionism. America could suffer such a crippling economic crisis as a result of a war against iran that israelis in america may have to cast aside the american constitution to establish a zionist dictatorship – aided by their zionist indoctrinated christian allies who spend more time promoting a racially pure jewish state in palestine than they do on efforts to christianize their own country. Still the one positive point about the end of the american constitution is that the jews-only state in palestine won’t be boasting it’s the most democratic country in the middle east – it’ll be boasting it’s the only democratic country in the world.American protests about the threat posed by iranian nuclear weapons are pure jewish propaganda. In a remarkable parallel to the farce they brought about over iraq, the jews in america are targeting iran for having non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The jews in america were successful in manipulating americans into a war against iraq so, they thought, why not repeat the trick again with iran since obviously the american public doesn’t seem in the least bit discomforted by jewish lies.
The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Seven: What are the Alternative Rationales for an Attack on Iran?
Updated March 7th 2006.
This work has proposed that a war against iran will be launched primarily for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine rather than for the protection of america’s national security or the promotion of america’s national interests – even if america refuses to allow the jews-only state to become involved in an attack on iran. However, there are a range of alternative explanations for a war against iran. This chapter seeks to assess the viability of these explanations. The Protection of America’s Oil Interests. There are many commentators, many of them on the left - some of whom are zionists pretending to be jews - who insisted that america invaded iraq to protect its oil supplies. There are two main flaws in this thesis. Perhaps the most obvious flaws is that american oil companies were reluctant to support the war. "The US war in Iraq and Afghanistan reversed the picture creating a very hostile environment, increasing dangers of destructive attacks, insecurity of Western personnel, and augmenting the power of OPEC against the major private US companies. Only a very few oil-related companies can be said to have benefited from the war – Haliburton, for example - most of which had direct ties to Vice President Cheney. They are the exception that proves the rule. The oil industry as an investor, producer and seller have not really benefited from the war. Even after the colonial occupation of Iraq, (and even after the illegal privatization of Iraq’s state oil companies) the predominant sentiment among oil companies is at best ambivalent: while future opportunities may have increased so have the present threats to supply and transport." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005); "The hypothesis that "oil" and the US petroleum multinationals were the main force behind the Iraq war fails every empirical test. If we examine the policy statements of the major oil companies and their public spokespeople in the five years leading up to the war we find no systematic political and propaganda campaign in favor of war. One looks in vain through all the major financial and specialized petroleum journals for evidence of organized pro-war politics. The reason is that the major oil companies were doing quite well with the status quo: profits and prices were reasonably high, investments were relatively secure, anti-imperialist sentiment was extensive but not intense and, most of all, opportunities for important new investments were opening in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and possibly (via third parties) in Iraq." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005). Secondly, it was obvious to anyone with a little common sense that it was politically and militarily impossible for america to invade iraq in order to protect its oil supplies because it’s like sending in a Bull to protect the delicate wares on sale in a china shop. The efforts that america has made to control and exploit iraq’s oil reserves have failed spectacularly - oil exports are down, investment in the oil industry is down, and the iraqi oil industry remains under national control. "I won't reiterate the case for believing that the main motive for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was rooted in American support for Israel. Suffice to say here that the other ostensible reasons for such a misdirected effort in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks – oil, Iraq's links to al-Qaeda, "weapons of mass destruction" – all dissipated rather rapidly after the president declared "mission accomplished."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8352 http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8352 January 6, 2006); "Now, more than two years after that invasion, the growing Iraqi quagmire has demonstrated that the application of military force can have the very opposite effect: It can diminish – rather than enhance – America's access to foreign oil. (Michael T. Klare ‘More Blood, Less Oil’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=7352 September 22, 2005); "Guerrilla attacks and sabotage cost the Iraqi petroleum industry $6.25 billion in lost revenues in 2005. They launched 186 assaults on petroleum facilities, killing 47 engineers & technicians & workers, along with 100 police guarding pipelines and other installations. The guerrillas directed most of the sabotage and attacks at the northern facilities centered at Kirkuk. They took offline some 400,000 barrels a day. Iraq only produced an average of 1.8 million barrels a day in 2005, mostly from the southern Rumaila fields and exported through the southern port of Basra. This amount was down from 2.8 million barrels a day before the 2003 Bush invasion of the country. (The US press continues to give the average production in 2005 as "about 2 million" barrels a day, magically adding an imaginary 200,000 barrels a day to the real average. At $65 a barrel, that is $13 million at day! I'd suggest they stop rounding up in this case.)." (Juan Cole ‘20 Dead in Bombings, Gunfights Including GI’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 19, 2006). The oil thesis for a war against iraq is plainly bogus and, correspondingly, has no merit as regards america’s proposed attack on iran. Unfortunately, even the spectacular failure of america’s invasion of iraq does not seem to have convinced the left wing ideological proponents of the oil thesis that they were wrong and that they are thus likely to be wrong about an american attack on iran. If the zogs believe they can invade iran, protect the country’s oil industry, and increase the export of iranian fossil fuels, then they have learnt nothing from the fiasco of their invasion of iraq. Only a nuclear attack on iran and the de facto carve up of the country is likely to succeed in such objectives - and even this is far from being a certainty. It has to be asked why america needed to secure its oil supplies when oil producing countries around the world are falling over themselves to sell their oil to america? The best way for america to protect its oil supplies and keep the price of oil low is to allow oil producing nations to get on with the job of exporting oil. "As for oil, contrary to conventional wisdom, Persian Gulf countries need to sell oil more than the United States needs to buy it. Oil makes up the following percentage of the exports of Gulf nations: Iraq, 90 percent or more; Saudi Arabia, 90–95 percent; Kuwait, 90–95 percent; Iran, 80 percent; Oman, 75 percent; United Arab Emirates, 70 percent; Bahrain, 65 percent;112 and Qatar, 75–80 percent.113 Most Gulf states have little else to export. In contrast, oil makes up only approximately 7 percent of U.S. imports.114" (Ivan Eland ‘Policy Report: The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government’ http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16 January 2005). Left wing ideologists cannot see america as anything else than an imperial power which uses its military to protect the resources the country needs to increase its prosperity. They are prevented from seeing any alternative by zionists posing as left wingers whose sole concern is to keep the left from understanding that america is not an imperial power but a puppet regime controlled by the jews-only state in palestine. The Dollar as a Global Currency. Another explanation proffered for an american attack on iran is to protect the dollar’s status as the world’s global currency. Like the oil thesis highlighted above this thesis is promoted primarily by left wingers who are ideological incontinent about the role of jewish power in manipulating american politics and american foreign policy for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. The economic benefits that accrue to america for establishing the dollar as the world’s global currency are immense. After the second world war, the dollar was backed up by gold. In 1971 the nixon administration decided it was no longer going to pay gold to refund dollars. The dollar was desperately in need of some means to guarantee its value. The solution was to use oil to back up the value of the dollar. "In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006). Since the early 1970s, all oil around the world has been sold on two oil exchanges both of which require buyers and sellers to carry out transactions in dollars. This monopoly of the dollar on oil transactions requires all countries importing oil to keep a large cache of dollars in their central banks. These reserves can be acquired either by exporting goods to america or by governments buying american government bonds, so called T bonds. As a consequence, the american government has had to print dollars not to meet its own domestic needs but to enable countries to buy oil on the world’s oil markets. America sells these dollars, and thus acquires vast sums of foreign currencies, without having to produce any goods or services. Conversely, it then uses these currencies to buy goods and services which, in effect, it gets for free –the sole cost incurred being the printing of dollar bills. "In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ http://english.aljazeera.net/english/Templates/YourComments.aspx?NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2fC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%2ehtm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7bC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest November 03 2005). The use of the dollar as the currency for all oil transactions has led to the situation where there are now more dollars outside america than there are inside. It also means that america’s vast expenditure on the country’s military forces is almost entirely financed by the rest of the world which needs dollars for oil transactions. "Today, US war-making capability is dependent on the rest of the world to finance it." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). It might seem absurd for the world to pay for america’s bloated military forces and yet, as ron paul has argued, "As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm February 15, 2006). America can keep spending colossal sums of money on its military forces, and even cut domestic taxes, because it can fund this expenditure by selling dollars to countries which need to import oil. As long as countries are willing to buy dollars then america can keep boosting its military power. The dollars’ role as a national and global currency leads to a paradox. On the one hand, the more dollars that america prints for the oil trade, the more it devalues the dollar. On the other hand, the greater the consumption of oil, the greater the demand for dollars, the greater the over-valuation of the dollar. The actual value of the dollar is determined by the push and pull of demand and supply - although this occurs in a market which is rigged in favour of the dollar. At present, the continually increasing demand for oil has led to a continually increasing demand for dollars which has meant the dollar has become hugely overvalued. Even though during bush’s reign its value has fallen by 40%, it is believed the dollar is still considerably overvalued. However, if all countries around the world suddenly tried to cash in their dollars by buying american goods or services the value of the dollar would rocket. For the last couple of years, iran has been planning to set up its own oil exchange in march 2006 in which oil will be bought and sold in euros. It is predicted this will cause a fall in the demand for dollars which will have an adverse effect on the value of the dollar and the american economy. "The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse. In 2005-2006, The Tehran government developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market." (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html October 27th 2004); "Iran's future oil and natural gas wealth foreshadow its growth into a regional competitor to Israel as well as an energy-independent powerhouse. Their stated intention to sell resources via their own, homegrown bourse, is a direct threat to the existing economic system. It would greatly increase trade in petro-euros and send the dollar into a downward spiral. The importance of this cannot be overstated. The heart-and-soul of the empire is the Greenback; that flaccid, debt-ridden hoax that props-up the entire rickety structure of state-terror. The $8 trillion dollars of accumulated debt that underwrites the greenback requires that the world continue to buy oil in dollars. The transition from dollars to petro-euros is a direct assault on a system that forces the lavish debt of the wealthiest nations onto the shoulders of the world's poorest people." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). It is in iran’s financial interests to trade its oil in euros rather than dollars. Firstly, because the dollar is slipping in value against the euro. "The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ http://english.aljazeera.net/english/Templates/YourComments.aspx?NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2fC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%2ehtm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7bC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest November 03 2005). And, secondly, because iran sells more oil to europe than america so it is just incurring additional expenses selling oil in dollars before it reaches europe. "From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petro-euro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data). …" (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html October 27th 2004); "From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ http://english.aljazeera.net/english/Templates/YourComments.aspx?NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2fC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%2ehtm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7bC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest November 03 2005). Thirdly, by allowing any oil to be sold in euros it could attract business away from the oil exchanges in london and new york. It should be pointed out that the iranians are not necessarily trying to hurt america by setting up their own oil bourse and selling oil in euros – they are only promoting their own national interests. What is more, the iranians are not doing anything illegal or even anything that will challenge the global capitalist system. On the contrary, the islamic democracy is boosting global capitalism by setting up a capitalist institution so that capitalists around the world can buy or sell oil for profit. In order to evaluate the alleged threat to america’s dollar supremacy posed by iran’s establishment of an oil bourse, it is necessary to highlight the main assumptions of the petro-dollar hypothesis. Firstly, the iranian oil bourse will supposedly open in march 2006. "the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006). Secondly, the iranians are proposing to sell not only their own oil in euros but oil from any country. "the Iranian Oil Bourse .. will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006). Thirdly, the success of the iranian oil bourse depends on the number of buyers and sellers it attracts and the amount of oil traded. Common sense suggests there are four main scenarios as to what could happen. At one extreme, nobody will trade on the bourse and it will collapse soon after it opens. This will pose no threat to the dollars’ role as a global currency. The next scenario is that the iranian bourse will start off slowly and gradually find a niche within the global oil market. Once again this will mean it will not pose any threat to the dollar’s supremacy. The third scenario is that the bourse will attract increasing numbers of traders who will bring about a protracted, long term collapse in the dollar. Finally, at the other extreme, the bourse will attract all the world’s oil traders and thus become an instant and overwhelming success bringing about the instant collapse of the dollar. Virtually all the left wing ideologists promoting the oil bourse as the main cause of an american attack on iran believe this is the most realistic scenario. "The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006). "Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006); "the proposed "euro-based" bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006); "An even partial loss of the U.S. dollar’s position as the dominant reserve currency for global energy trading would, as Petrov suggests, lead to a sharp decline in its value and an ensuing acceleration of inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, with unpleasant consequences." (Michael Keefer ‘Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936 February 10, 2006); "A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the US has only a minority market share." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html Aug 26, 2005). What we are dealing with here is vast amounts of leftie wishful thinking totally divorced from the real world. Fourthly, given that iran’s bourse could be an instant success, the americans have no option but to attack iran before the bourse opens in march 2006, "For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006); "Whatever the cost, the attack seems likely to be carried out sometime on or before March 2006 when Iran plans to open its new oil bourse. The new exchange which directly challenges the continued dominance of the greenback in the oil trade (the largest commodity traded in the world) poses an "existential threat" to the well-being of western financial institutions and elites." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006); "If Iran is allowed to open its oil bourse (exchange) in March and openly compete with the US’s monopoly on trading oil in petrodollars, the central banks across the globe will dump hundreds of billions of dollars overnight, and the American economy will disappear beneath the waves." (Mike Whitney ‘Why Russia caved-in on Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060204_why_russia_caved_in_.htm February 4, 2006); "It preferably wants regime change before Tehran follows through on its threat to convert the currency in which it sells its oil from dollars to euros - a precedent-setting move that could have dire global consequences for the dollar as the international currency of choice, and, hence, ugly long-term consequences for the debt- and trade-deficit-riddled American economy." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367 February 15th 2006); "The Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020. The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran: - on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ; - on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward. These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system." (The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020 ‘Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis’ http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3513&Itemid=85 February 25 2006). Finally, it is deemed the threat posed by the iranian bourse to american interests is more fundamental than a similar proposal adopted by saddam hussein. Whilst saddam sold only iraqi oil in euros, the iranians are proposing to sell any oil in euros - thereby opening up the prospect of all oil being traded on the bourse. "In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006). A number of radical economists, and left/right wing anti-war commentators, believe the iranian bourse will be an instant success which will bring about the instant collapse of the dollar so america will have to invade iran before march 2006. A number of criticisms can be made of this analysis. Firstly, whilst commentators talk as if iran’s oil bourse will definitely be established in march 2006, iran is nowhere near to opening the doors of its new exchange. One of the architects involved in setting up the bourse is amused at the prospect that he is about to bring down the global economy, "It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros." (Chris Cook ‘What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA21Ak01.html Jan 21, 2006). He points out the difficulties he’s experienced setting up the bourse. Firstly, the "turf battles between the Oil Ministry and the Ministry for the Economy". Then, after the election in 2005 of the new iranian president, the three attempts to appoint a new oil minister. "Three times over a period of three months an oil minister was nominated by the new president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, from among his trusted colleagues and three times they were turned down by the majlis (Iranian parliament), until finally an experienced insider was appointed in early December." Further delays followed because, "Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he favors transparency in the Iranian oil market. As anyone familiar with the City of London and Wall Street will know, transparency is the enemy of private profit, and it is this factor that was behind the delays in developing the bourse project." The iranians have not even decided on a marker for the oil to be sold. "The Iranians so far have not indicated whether they have come up with an oil marker - a euro-denominated oil pricing standard - like the dollar denominated West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006). Secondly, iran’s assumption in setting up an oil bourse is that it believes it has sufficient economic, political, and military, clout to defy american economic and political pressure in defence of the dollar. However, whether other countries are willing to defy, or are even capable of defying, the united states by participating in the iranian bourse is another matter. Saudi arabia and kuwait are not going to use iran’s bourse for reasons which have been pointed out above. The europeans would not dare to politically defy america even though the iranian oil bourse would be a massive economic boom for europe. "The Iranian Oil Bourse can count on two sharp arrows in its holster. It can - and probably will - lure European buyers with oil prices quoted in euros, saving them dollar transaction costs. And it can strike barter deals with oil-hungry giants like China and India who have a lot of products and commodities to offer." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html Aug 26, 2005). All the economic benefits that america enjoys from the dollar’s use as a global currency would accrue to europe. "Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans ..." (Krassimir Petrov quoted in Joshua Frank ‘War with Iran: Of Nukes and Oil’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01262006.html January 26, 2006). Europe would become richer enabling it to fund a powerful military force which would enable it to become a central political actor on the world stage. But, despite these significant economic, military, and political, benefits europe has no intention of challenging american global hegemony and has got in line behind america in demanding a war against iran. Perhaps this is because european governments are confident that the iranian oil bourse would not be a significant threat to the dollar. Neither the russians nor the chinese are not likely to defy america either. It ought to be pointed out that syria has decided to defy the united states and abandon the dollar. "Duraid Durgham, the head of state-owned Commercial Bank of Syria, said on Monday: "This is a precaution. We are talking about billions of dollars. Switching to the euro will help us avoid settlement problems in the United States. The move is also needed to avoid complications with our correspondent banks, which have expressed a preference to deal in euro under these circumstances." Most of the government's foreign currency flows goes through the Commercial Bank, whose US assets were frozen by Washington in 2004 as relations with Syria deteriorated. The latest official figures show Syria imported $6.7 billion goods in 2004 and exported $5.4 billion. Oil output is about 400,000 barrels a day." (Syria picks euros over dollars’ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABA36728-9F9D-4A2C-8F37-9C3230B7E971.htm February 14th 2006). It is ironic that america’s warmongering against iran, supposedly to stop the establishment of its bourse, has so frightened syria it has pushed the syrian government into doing what america supposedly did not want. Syria would not have implemented such a policy if the american government hadn’t threatened to freeze its assets. The bush administration is its own worst enemy. At this rate it won’t be iran and the rest of the oil producing countries that bring down the dollar, it will be america itself. It should also be considered that one of the major fears of an oil bourse is that even if it cannot instantly bring down the dollar as the global currency, it will act as a slippery slope leading to the demise of the dollar – but syria’s policy change has not pushed the rest of the world onto a slippery slope. Of the two extreme scenarios that could result from the establishment of an oil bourse the collapse of the iranian bourse is far more likely than the collapse of the dollar. If the iranian bourse does not attract any business it is no threat to the dollar, it is no threat to america, and it is not a justification for a war against iran. Given that america has the power to peacefully deter countries from trading on the iranian bourse, why would it need to go to war to prevent iranians from setting up their own oil exchange? Thirdly, let’s assume that despite intense pressure from america, oil shortages on the world market become so acute that countries decide to buy iranian oil on the iranian bourse - but not non-iranian oil. The damage this could do to the dollar as the world’s global currency is minimal because iran exports only 5% of the world’s oil. "Iran holds a strong hand as the No 2 producer of crude behind Saudi Arabia, pumping 5% of the world's oil demand." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html Aug 26, 2005). What is more, the dollar is used for the sale not only of oil but all raw materials. "The permanent demand for dollar-denominated paper stems substantially from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html Aug 26, 2005). Let’s assume that the total trade in raw materials is roughly equal to the world trade in oil. This would mean that the impact on the dollar of iran selling all of its oil in euros would be half of 5%. In reality, given the $1 trillion global drugs industry which is also transacted in dollars, its impact would be even smaller. It is highly unlikely that such a marginal economic factor is going to bring about the downfall of the dollar. It has to be concluded that by itself, iran simply does not have the economic clout to bring down the dollar. The dollar could be brought down only by the concerted action of all oil importing countries but this is unlikely to happen because they are america’s allies. Fourthly, the primary reason that countries will not attempt to defy america over the dollar’s global hegemony is because it is not in their economic interests to do so. The countries which could do most damage to the dollar by buying oil in euros are countries which have so many investments tied up in america they would be reluctant to do anything to trigger a devaluation of the dollar. "It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm February 15, 2006). Although it is in europe’s economic interests to replace the dollar with the euro as the currency for oil transactions, europe cannot back up their currency with a military force on the scale of america’s. In effect, europe is foregoing the possibility of vast economic benefits for the sake of political benefits deriving from falling into line with american policies. Fifthly, the americans would not attack iran solely to stop the establishment of an oil bourse because the costs of such a war are likely to be vastly greater than any damage the bourse could inflict on the american economy. "The negative impact on the dollar will be far greater from the additional red ink necessary to finance an attack on Iran than from an oil bourse." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). Sixthly, america’s invasion of iraq has proved it cannot control iraqi oil. If it invades iran it is also unlikely to be able to control iranian oil. An attack on iran could lead to a dramatic increase in the price of oil which could push america and the rest of the world into a long term economic recession – that is, the very outcome america was hoping to avoid by invading iran. Seventhly, there is one way, however, of determining the legitimacy of the petro-dollar hypothesis. One of the assumptions of this hypothesis is that the americans have to launch a war against iran before the bourse comes into operation to prevent an instant collapse of the american economy. It could be argued then that if america does not attack iran before the bourse opens then this would imply the bourse is not so much of a threat as its proponents suggest. The longer the bourse is allowed to operate before america launches a war against iran, the less likely it is that the war will have been launched because of the petro-dollar rationale. Finally, in 2001 saddam started selling iraqi oil in euros. Radical and left wing commentators deemed this to be such a critical threat to the dollar, and thus to america’s economic survival, that america had to invade iraq. For example, "There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm February 15, 2006). But, as one of the main economic proponents of the petro-dollar hypothesis has stated, "In economic terms, this (the iranian bourse) represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's .." So, if saddam’s insistence on selling iraqi oil in euros rather than dollars wasn’t as significant a threat to the supremacy of the dollar as the threat posed by the iranian bourse, then it could not have been a significant factor driving america to invade iraq. The petro-dollar hypothesis is supposed to justify america’s attacks on both iraq and iran. And yet, at the very least, it cannot explain america’s invasion of iraq. Unfortunately, the petro-euro hypothesis is not merely a source of idle economic speculation. It poses a couple of serious political dangers. Firstly, it could be used to provide america with a popular and seemingly legitimate excuse for a war against iran. The petro-dollar hypothesis was first raised by a couple of economists, william r. clark, and krassimir petrov. It was then, rather ironically, highlighted by an anti-war commentator, "The US has become the world's largest debtor, in hock to foreigners for one-fourth of our Gross Domestic Product. The ratio of US external debt (what we owe to foreigners) and US exports is approaching the crisis ratios of banana republics. It is inevitable: America's mounting debts will produce a crisis. The dollar's value will plummet, and US living standards will drop. Everything will become more expensive for Americans. The perilous condition of the dollar is one of the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. What keeps the overvalued dollar up is the fact that it is the currency in which the Middle East bills its oil. Every country has to purchase dollars in order to pay for its oil, and these purchases keep the dollar afloat. Just prior to the US invasion, sanctions on Iraqi oil had run their course and were about to be removed. Saddam Hussein intended to bill Iraqi oil in Euros, which could have started the abandonment of the dollar by the oil producing countries. Instead of fixing our economic problems, we started a war." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘War, Outsourcing and Debt’ http://www.counterpunch.org September 29, 2004). (Since roberts published his article he has changed his mind about the threat posed by iran’s oil bourse, "Will an Iranian oil bourse hurt the dollar? Not really. The dollar's value depends on the world's willingness to hold dollar denominated assets, not on the currency used to pay oil bills. If payments were not made in dollars, there could be a slight negative impact on the dollar from countries reducing their dollar cash balances and from the psychological shock of pricing oil in Euros (or some other currency). However, what really counts is what do the oil producers, for example, do with the currency that they are paid. If they are paid in dollars, but exchange the dollars for Euros or Yen and purchase equities or bonds or real estate in Europe and Japan, it doesn't help that oil is billed in dollars. Or if they are paid in Euros but exchange the Euros for dollars and purchase US assets, it doesn't hurt that the oil is billed in Euros." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). The petro-dollar hypothesis was then picked up by a number of left wing, anti-war, commentators such as michel chossudovsky, mike whitney, wayne madsen, thierry meyssan, and michael keefer, who used it to explain why america had to attack iran. Recently john pilger has expressed his support for the hypothesis and acknowledged mike whitney’s influence on his views. "Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked." (John Pilger ‘The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006A.shtml February 10th 2006). It has also been supported by anti-war members of the american congress such as The petro-dollar hypothesis was also promoted by a number of right wing, anti-war, political commentators such as craig paul roberts, paul sheldon foote, ron paul, and heather wokusch – although craig paul roberts has since dramatically reversed his opinion about the issue. The petro-dollar hypothesis has been highlighted almost exclusively by anti-war commentators whether on the left or the right. It is not an hypothesis which has been adopted by the bush administration or by the jewish lobby in america – primarily, it has to be suspected, because their criticisms of iran’s plans to develop nuclear energy have reaped such substantial political support. Why should they complicate their propaganda offensive against iran when it is currently reaping such substantial political rewards? In any case, right wing free marketeers can hardly say anything other than admire iran’s conversion to global capitalism through the establishment of its own oil bourse. Isn’t an oil bourse just a cast iron example of the free enterprise system in action – like iran’s development of nuclear power? It needs to be appreciated then that the bush administration is condemning iran not because of its threat to global capitalism but because of its military threat – a military threat to the jews-only state in palestine. In february 2006, jerome r. corsi became the first right wing, pro-war, political commentator to promote the petro-dollar hypothesis to popularize the war against iran. He even acknowledged the left wing source of his ideas, "Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi pointed out that, "Today, about 70 percent of the world's international foreign currency reserves are held in dollars. If the petroeuro begins to challenge the petrodollar, this percentage could diminish drastically. The United States depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits. What if foreign-exchange portfolios from oil sales fell to 60 percent being held in dollars – would that cause a crisis in the U.S. economy? Or would it take 55 percent? Most Americans are completely unaware of this threat Iran represents to the U.S. economy." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). He expressed concern that iran’s challenge to the supremacy of the dollar will hurt america’s poor – as if america’s right wingers or the bush administration are the least bit concerned about the poor. "Clearly, any threat to petrodollar holdings could undermine social programs in the U.S., including Medicare and key welfare programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). He concludes, "If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as the no. 1 new york times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." Virtually all the proponents of the petro-dollar hypothesis are anti-war. None of them regard the petro-dollar thesis as a justification for an american attack on iran. But, it has to be suggested, for many americans this hypothesis would provide sufficient justification for war. If americans are told that iran is devaluing the dollar in their pocket and threatening to bring about the collapse of the american economy they are going to want to know why america hasn’t started bombing iran. In their eyes, such a war would be self-defence, defending their way of life. There is a considerable danger that anti-war critics are going to find their explanation for the likelihood of an american attack on iran is a self fulfilling prophesy by helping to win popular support for the war. The second main political danger posed by the bourse thesis, is that it could also serve as an important political means for helping the jews-only state in palestine, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby, the jewish owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration, to cover up the real motives for the war – a proxy zionist war to boost global jewish power. Ann berg has recently dismissed the whole idea of an iranian oil bourse because of the considerable technical difficulties entailed. What talcott parsons once called "the non-contractual elements of contracts". "If you're waiting for the Iranian oil bourse (IOB) – the proposed euro-based petroleum futures exchange in Tehran – to overthrow the global dollar-based economy, don't hold your breath. Establishing a futures-trading mechanism to compete with the powerhouses of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for the oil trade is as probable as U.S. energy independence in our lifetime." (Ann Berg ‘Is the IOB DOA?: The Iranian oil bourse: theory and reality’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=8612 February 28, 2006). Perhaps this is why it is not financiers, economists, or capitalists, leading the demands for a war against iran to protect their interests. It has to be suggested that the idea of an iranian oil bourse bringing about the collapse of the dollar as a global currency has more to do with wishful thinking than reality. It also seems as if left wingers’ have a desperate need to invent a fiction which enables them to avoid confronting the reality of jewish power manipulating america into sequential, proxy zionist wars. Western Military Adventurism. Some commentators have argued that america’s invasion of iraq was an example of the military-industrial complex promoting a superflous war to boost government expenditure on the military and to enable the american military to field test its latest high tech weaponry. However, in reality many high ranking military figures opposed the invasion - particularly because they believed the number of troops allocated to the american military for maintaining the occupation was grossly insufficient. "That's what this controversy is all about: the reemergence of opposition to the war from within the top echelons of the uniformed military, as well as the intelligence community and the Democratic Party. It was the generals, you'll remember, who opposed this war and pointed out our unpreparedness from the very beginning, starting with but not limited to Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was fired for saying we would need 200,000 troops for the occupation. Now that their predictions have come true, in spades, and our armed forces are being chewed up on the battlefields of Iraq, the uniformed wing of the Peace Party is returning for a second engagement, and they're bringing out the big guns." (Justin Raimondo ‘Murtha Is Right’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8093 November 21, 2005). "Most independent military and intelligence experts think that the Bush administration has led the United States into strategic folly. For example, Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, said, "The fact is, we’re in trouble. We’re in deep trouble in Iraq." Republican Senators Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed similar sentiments.20 Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former Marine commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, noted, "And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls."21 Similarly, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, marine general Joseph Hoar, another former U.S. Middle East commander, said, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss." In a surprisingly candid assessment from an active senior officer just back from Iraq, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the army’s Eighty-second Airborne Division, noted, "We are winning tactically, but have made a few tactical blunders . . . which created strategic consequences in world opinion. We are losing public support regionally, internationally, and within America—thus, currently, we are losing strategically."22" (Ivan Eland ‘Policy Report: The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government’ http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16 January 2005); "Not only do an overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq want the occupation to end rapidly, but the foreign policy establishment of the United States is opposed to the war and is speaking out against the president's policies. These include: Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star general, was commander of the U.S. Central Command (1991-94) and of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, who described the Iraq War as "wrong from the beginning, and so as is often the case, it's very hard to make it right once you start down the wrong road." Gen. William Odom, ret., former national security adviser to Presidents Carter and Reagan, who wrote "What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?," in which he persuasively argued that the war is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden and the Iranians, and is fomenting civil war in Iraq. He describes the Iraq war as "the most strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history." Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser, who described the Iraq war as a "failing venture" weeks before the last presidential election and argued in 2002, before the decision to invade Iraq, that: "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, who labeled Bush's foreign policy "suicidal statecraft" in a Los Angeles Times commentary: "Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming 'I will stay the course' is an exercise in catastrophic leadership." John Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1995-96 and deputy defense secretary 1994-95, who called for U.S. troops to immediately leave Iraq in June 2005. These are just a few among many. In fact, in March 2003, shortly before the war began, hundreds of retired military officers wrote President Bush requesting a meeting before a final decision was made to invade. They expressed grave concerns about a war with Iraq." (Kevin B. Zeese ‘The Commander in Chief Has Lost the Troops’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zeese.php?articleid=8619 March 1, 2006). Iranian Imperial Expansionism. Another possible explanation for an american attack on iran is the danger posed by iranian imperial expansion – although this is more of a theoretical explanation in so much as it is never discussed in the west. This explanation is composed of two aspects. Firstly, religious. One of the main tenets of the shiite religion is the unification of all shiites in the middle east. "The nation-state is just a stage on the road to the final triumph of Shi'ism and pure Islam. But to go beyond this stage it's necessary to reinforce the nation-state and its Shi'ite sanctuary, which happens to be Iran. When Shi'ism finally triumphs, the concept of nation-state, a heritage from the West, will disappear anyway, to the benefit of a community according to the will of Prophet Mohammed." (Pepe Escobar ‘The myth of the Shi'ite crescent’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI30Ak01.html Sep 30, 2005). Secondly, economic. Iran possesses a great many oilfields but just beyond its borders lie even more which, in the future as iran’s fossil fuels begin to dwindle, will appear increasingly tempting – especially when many of the populations living in proximity to these oilfields are also shiites – albeit predominantly arabic. Historically, persia was a much greater empire than it is today and it could use imperial glories to lay claim to some of these areas with rich oilfields. "Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington to wipe out this capability." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html Jan 24, 2006); "Hasa, in Saudi Arabia, stretching from the Kuwaiti border to the Qatar border, has been populated by Shi'ites since the 10th century. That's where the oil is. Seventy percent of the workforce in the oilfields is Shi'ite. The potential for them to be integrated in a Shi'ite crescent is certainly there. Kuwait lies north of Hasa. Twenty-five percent of Kuwaitis are Shi'ite - natives or immigrants, and they provoke the same sort of geopolitical quandary to the Kuwaiti princes as they do to the Saudis. South of Hasa, in Qatar, where also 25% of the population is Shi'ite, is the exact same thing. And then there's Bahrain. Sixty-five percent of Bahrain is Shi'ite." (Pepe Escobar ‘The myth of the Shi'ite crescent’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI30Ak01.html Sep 30, 2005). When ayatollah khomeini came to power in iran in 1979, there was a huge upswell of shiite religious fervour – after all, this was the first time in shiite history that they’d succeeded in forming their own state. This religious fervour led to the formation of revolutionary guards who saw their role as spreading the shiite religion around the middle east. The butchery that iran suffered as a result of saddam hussein’s american proxy war against iran almost completely quoshed these imperialist dreams but this doesn’t mean to say they cannot be reignited. The Decades Long Animosity of the Jews-Only State to Iran. The most convincing argument that an attack on iran has nothing to do with america’s need to protect its oil supplies nor america’s fear of an iranian oil bourse but is solely to boost the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine, is that zionist animosities towards iran go back many decades. It is true that america has its own animosities towards iran concerning the overthrow of america’s puppet regime headed by the shah of iran but especially the detention of american hostages. However, america’s foreign policies towards iran cannot possible have been determined over all this time solely by a desire for revenge because of events that happened 27 years ago. America’s revenge against iran must have been slaked by the war against iran it encouraged saddam to launch in 1980. Since the jews-only state’s development of nuclear weapons in the mid 1960s, its biggest foreign policy objective has been to prevent any country in the middle east from also developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. "The Israeli Air Force commanding general issued a statement saying Israel would "consider an attack" if any country gets "close to achieving a nuclear capability."" (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003); "A retired Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Amnon Shahak, has declared, "all methods are acceptable in withholding nuclear capabilities from an Arab state."" (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003). The jews-only state has long feared any arab/islamic country using their vast fossil fuel resources to become an economically prosperous and industrially advanced country which could develop civilian nuclear power, sustain a powerful military armed with the most technologically advanced weapons, and eventually acquire nuclear weapons. Historically, the jews-only state was particularly worried this might happen in iran under the shah or iraq under saddam hussein. In the late 1960s the americans pushed aside the security concerns of the jews-only state and encouraged the shah of iran to develop nuclear energy using american technology and contractors. The overthrow of the shah in 1979 by the islamic revolution must have petrified the jews-only state which must have had suspicions that islamic revolutionaries might attempt to develop nuclear weapons. It must have been a huge relief to discover that ayatollah khomeini believed civilian nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons, were contrary to islam and virtually brought to an end ant further work on their development. (Incidentally, the same view is also held by the iran’s current ayotallah). However, whilst iran’s revolutionary islamic government did not pose a threat on the nuclear front, it gradually became a threat to the security of the jews-only state in palestine by funding and arming hezbollah freedom fighters in lebanon. After the jews-only state’s illegal invasion of lebanon, hezbollah developed into a well organized and well trained guerilla movement. It put up a heroic resistance to the jews-only state’s continuing occupation of southern lebanon. The jews-only state in palestine, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the clinton administration, started their political attack on iran in the early 1990s. Almost immediately after saddam hussein had been ejected from kuwait, and much of his army decimated, the jews began to highlight their other major adversary. In the mid 1990s, a number of jewish politicians in america, fearing the survival of the jews-only state in palestine, wrote a pamphlet proposing the use of american military power to attack iran. "That strategy (the plans for the attack on Iran) was worked out long ago in documents like the Project for the New American Century .." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). This document is an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The jewish lobby in america eventually forced the clinton administration into passing punitive economic measures against iran. "Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade." (Jewish Times/Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005); "In 1995, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech to the World Jewish Congress, announced that he would not permit Conoco to make a petroleum deal with Iran. Clinton betrayed the interests of the American people." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ pfoote@fullerton.edu December 30, 2005). The primary reason that jews gave for the imposition of these sanctions was iran’s support for hezbollah freedom fighters in lebanon. At that time, iran had never even thought of the possibility of selling its oil in euros rather than dollars – if only because there were no euros in existence at the time! And there was never even thought of iran setting up an oil bourse. "Readers keep asking if Bush is attacking Iran because it plans to open an oil bourse that would permit oil to trade in Euros. A number of readers mistakenly believe that this would wreck the dollar's value. The answer is no. The neocons' plans for the Middle East predate any notion of an Iranian oil bourse." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). Another reason for these sanctions was jews’ residual concern over iran’s potential for developing nuclear weapons. The jews-only state wanted to curb iranian economic development so that it could not obtain the wealth, and industrial expertise, to develop nuclear energy and thus nuclear weapons if it should ever change its mind over these issues. In the decade or so since these sanctions were imposed, america’s gigantic multi-national oil companies have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in profits because of their government’s ban on the exploitation of iran’s vast fossil fuel reserves. These sanctions have not only had a significant economic impact on america’s oil companies and thus america’s economy, they have also had a detrimental political impact as iran has sought to foster relations with russia and china to exploit its resources which has led to a new political and military realignment between these countries which, over time, could seriously rival american world power. (It possible this geopolitical shift in power has been stopped dead in its tracks since america forced russia and china into line over the referral of iran to the united nations security council). As a consequence, america’s economic and national interests have been severely harmed by the sanctions that the jewish lobby forced america into imposing on iran. The jews-only state has cost american oil companies and the american economy vast sums of money which dwarf the subsidies which the jews-only state extracts from its american colony. Nothing could indicate more clearly the dominance of america’s jewish lobby over america’s gigantic, multi-national, oil companies than clinton’s ban on american oil investments in iran. For an in depth analysis of the losses suffered by american oil companies and the american economy see ‘ How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death’. At the end of the millenia, hezbollah freedom fighters succeeded in heroically driving the jews-only army from lebanon - its first military defeat since the establishment of the jews-only state. At the same time, iran’s technological improvements to its missiles and its renewed interest in the development of civilian nuclear energy ratched up the paranoia within the jews-only state about iran’s potential for nuclear weapons. "Israel is concerned about Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and become a regional leader, coupled with large numbers of Shiite Moslems in southern Lebanon." (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003); "This report comes in the wake of a recent Iran Shihab-3 missile test and indications to Israel that Iran is two to three years from a nuclear warhead. Israeli statements stress that Iran's nuclear potential would be problem to all and would require "American leadership, with serious participation of the G-7 . . . ."" (Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army 'The Third Temple's Holy of Holies - Israel's Nuclear Weapons' The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 quoted in Lili 'Israel's 'Use' Of Its Nuclear Weapons Against US' RENSE.COM 26.2.2003). After america’s invasion of iraq and the overthrow of saddam hussein, the jews-only state quickly moved on to a propaganda offensive against the next target on their hit list of enemies. In late 2002, ariel sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" the invasion of iraq The jews-only state continues to whine about hezbollah’s control over southern lebanon and the threat it poses to the jews-only state even though hezbollah has no offensive capability. It military power lies solely in its defensive capabilities. The jews-only state, based on a religion of vengeance, is seeking revenge against iran for the defeat of the jews-only state at the hands of hezbollah freedom fighters. It also fears the threat posed by iran’s nuclear energy programme and its non-existent nuclear weapons. None of these jewish paranoias have any relevance to america’s economic interests or its national security and yet the jewish lobby in america has succeeded in pushing the iranian threat to the top of america’s political agenda. The jews-only state has forced the american government to lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars of oil profits for the sake of trying to stop hezbollah freedom fighters in lebanon fighting to reclaim land tthat had been stolen by the jews. It is now manipulating the bush administration into a war against iran which could have a crippling impact on the american economy and the american military. It is staggering that the jews-only state and its jewish traitors in america can get away with manipulating america into implementing the foreign policies of the jews-only state even though they run counter to american economic and security interests. The theses that america is going to attack iran in order to protect its oil supplies or in order to prevent the establishment of an iranian oil bourse are irrelevant in comparison to the jewish endeavour to push america into action against iran in order to boost the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine. The function of these rationales is solely to popularize a war against iran because americans might otherwise wonder why they should risk their lives and their living standards to promote the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine. Concluding Remarks. It is commonly recognized that america has suffered grievous economic and military losses in iraq. The iraq war has proven beyond doubt that the american military cannot hope to invade a country and steal its oil. Oil exports from iraq have plummeted since the invasion and there is no sign of them increasing until the americans leave. The war against iraq has shown that sending in Bulls to guard china shops is not sensible or profitable. If america is forced into launching its third proxy zionist war – this time against iran – it will once again suffer huge economic and military losses. America has no economic, military, or political, interests in a war against iran. Neither the american military, american financial institutions, american oil companies nor american multi-national corporations support an attack on iran. The drum beats for war are coming overwhelmingly from jews. These jews are promoting this war solely because of the huge benefits that will accrue to the jews-only state in palestine even though it will cause significant losses to america’s economy and military power. The jews pushing america into a war against iran are in a no-lose situation: all the benefits will accrue to the jews-only state and all the losses will be incurred by america. They do not care about the losses america’s human and economic losses. The jews in america promoting a proxy zionist war against iran are traitors to america and the american people.
Jews Stirring up World War Three: The Zog War Against Iran.
Updated in March 13th 2006.
This work is a follow up to another compilation, ‘The Commentators supporting the proposition that Jewish Zionists Initiated America’s Invasion of Iraq for the Benefit of the Zionist State in Palestine’. It is also a companion to another compilation, ‘Commentators’ views on a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran’. The jews-only state in palestine is mobilizing its supporters in america (and in europe) to push the bush administration into yet another proxy zionist war – this time against iran. In america, the political pressure for a war against iran is coming overwhelmingly from one sector of american society: the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jews in the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned congress, and the israelis who have infiltrated the bush administration. The proposed war against iran is the most blatant example of a war concocted, planned, and marketed, by jews around the world solely for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. It is not the american oil industry which is leading the charge for such a war, "Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish American supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or against this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever there is a Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a totally bogus issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the contrary – big oil is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset their first major entry into Middle Eastern oil fields since they were nationalized in the 1970’s." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005). It is not the american military which wants such a war. "Rumsfeld, under tremendous pressure from practically all of the top professional military officials, fears that an Israeli war will further accelerate US military losses. The pro-Israel lobby would like to replace the ultra-militarist Rumsfeld with the ultra-militarist Senator Joseph Lieberman, an unconditional Israel First Zealot." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005). It is not american economists wishing to promote american economic interests around the world. It is the israelis living in america – parasites who have colonized the american political system. Their sole concern is to promote policies which benefit the jews-only state in palestine no matter how damaging this might be to america’s economic and national interests. The Commentators who believe the Jewish Lobby is Primarily Responsible for Stirring up a War against Iran. Eric Margolis. "The growing clamour over Iran's nuclear intentions, with rumblings about air strikes against Iran's reactors in the fall, may prove to be a part of just such a manufactured crisis. Remember, these latest fevered claims about Iran come from the same "reliable intelligence sources" and neo-conservative hawks who insisted Iraq had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S., with intimate links to al-Qaida." (Eric Margolis ‘Those who deceived America into attacking Iraq may be at it again’ http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/07/25/556378.html July 25, 2004). Martin Sieff. "The pattern of preparation for this is all too familiar from the buildup to war with Iraq. First, the war drums are sounded by the same old "experts"; then they are amplified by alarmist columnists. Once you see Krauthammer or Ledeen opining, as they have over the past two months, that Iran's nuclear capability poses the gravest possible threat to Civilization as We Know It, and that The World Cannot Afford to Wait and Negotiate, then you can guarantee - conveniently close to the election to panic voters into supporting the president - that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will pick up the chorus. Ledeen has already written at least two columns on the subject. Krauthammer, prophet of the Iraq war, has made quite clear his determination to unleash a new one. In his July 23 Post column he wrote: "The long awaited revolution [in Iran] is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent ... If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the 'Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."" (Martin Sieff ‘Today Iraq, Tomorrow Iran’ http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/08/11/iran/ Aug. 11, 2004). James Petras. "Israel’s political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel’s war policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli government and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran’s nuclear threat are without substance or fact and have aroused opposition and misgivings throughout the world, among European governments, international agencies, among most US military leaders and the public, the world oil industry and even among sectors of the Bush Administration. An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have catastrophic military consequences for US forces and severe loss of human life in Iraq, most likely ignite political and military violence against pro-US Arab-Muslim regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading to their overthrow. Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate threat to world peace and political stability." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19081&l=i&size=1&hd=0 December 28, 2005). William S. Lind. "In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer will be the same as Israel's." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006). Jeffrey Blankfort. "Why is the neocons/American Jewish establishment the only sector in US society pushing for a confrontation with Iran? And why with Iraq before that?" (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘War within Range? Another Neocon beats the drums for war and says it will happen in 10 weeks’ jblankfort@earthlink.net c.January 7th 2006); "And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations - has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006); "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran ..." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006). Edward S. Herman. "The (american jewish) lobby and its representatives in the Bush administration were eager supporters of the attack on Iraq, and they are now fighting energetically for war against Iran- in fact the lobby is the only sector of society calling for a confrontation with Iran and it is already engaged in a major campaign on Bush and Congress to get the United States to take action." (Edward S. Herman ‘Western Approval for Long-Term Israeli Ethnic Cleansing’ Z Magazine March 2006). Antony Loewenstein. "Sadly, Israel and many of its supporters are at the forefront of demonising Iran and advocating military action. Not unlike Iraq, Iran is a perceived threat to the Jewish state and must therefore be obliterated. Israeli generals and politicians know Iran is not a serious threat but they never underestimate the political need to create a regional bogeyman to rally an ever-fearful Israeli population." (Antony Loewenstein ‘An Aussie Perspective: Spinning Us to War with Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein03012006.html March 1, 2006). Justin Raimondo. "Remember how important the nuclear issue was for getting us into the Iraqi quagmire: this time around, the same crew is pushing the same button." (Justin Raimondo ‘Another War for Israel: The amen corner howls for war with Iran’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8663 March 6, 2006). Jews in America stirring up a War against Iran. Jewish attempts to whip america into a war against iran have a long history. There have been a succession of anti-iran propaganda campaigns launched by america’s ruling jewish establishment. There is virtually no opposition to such a war amongst america’s jewish community. 1990s. The jews-only state in palestine, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the clinton administration, started their political attack on iran in the early 1990s. In 1991, almost immediately after saddam hussein had been ejected from kuwait, and much of his army decimated, jews in america began highlighting the threats allegedly posed to the jews-only state by its other major adversary. The jewish lobby in america eventually forced the clinton administration into passing punitive economic measures against iran. "Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade." (Jewish Times/Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005); "In 1995, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech to the World Jewish Congress, announced that he would not permit Conoco to make a petroleum deal with Iran. Clinton betrayed the interests of the American people." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ pfoote@fullerton.edu December 30, 2005). 1996: A Clean Break. In 1996, two so-called american politicians decided to write a foreign policy paper for a foreign power, the jews-only state – a paper which suggested ways in which that foreign power might increase its independence from the country these politicians were living in and supposed to be serving. Let’s put aside the possibility that this might be treasonous. What is important here is that this paper advocated a jews-only state attack on iran. "In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, two neo-conservatives later to play an important role in formulation of Bush administration's Pentagon policy in the Middle East, authored a paper for then newly elected Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That advisory paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", called on Netanyahu to make a "clean break from the peace process". Perle and Feith also called on Netanyahu to strengthen Israel's defenses against Syria and Iraq, and to go after Iran as the prop of Syria." (F William Engdahl ‘Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC10Ak01.html March 10th 2006). 1997: The Project for the New American Century. It was not possible to publish ‘A Clean Break’ in america and hope the american government would be persuaded to implement the foreign policies of the jews-only state. So, instead, in 1997, an israeli writer living in america, rewrote the paper from an american perspective in which all the policies that were beneficial to the jews-only state were miraculously transformed, by sheer loquacity, into policies that were beneficial for the united states of america. Although americans might be persuaded to think these policies were policies which boosted american interests they were really policies which served the interests only of the jews-only state and were, in reality, contrary to american interests. The new pamphlet the ‘Project for the New American Century’ proposed the use of american military power to attack iran – supposedly for the benefit of the united states but, in actuality, for the benefit only of the jews-only state. "That strategy (the plans for the attack on Iran) was worked out long ago in documents like the Project for the New American Century .." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). This zionist manifesto, signed by the leading jewish neocons, was an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century," the founding manifesto of neoconservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neoconservative movement. The Project for the New American Century aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defense spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to U.S. interests and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values." The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neocons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else who stood in Washington's way?" (Rupert Cornwell ‘What the neocons failed to foresee about Iraq’ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/262583_neoconswrong12.html March 12, 2006).
2002.
President Bush’s Axis of Evil. Despite the help iran gave to america during the invasion of afghanistan, president bush turned his back on iran, "Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush officials started meeting with Iranian officials. The two countries shared an interest in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and they took cooperative steps toward that common goal; two decades of mutual hostility began to melt away. Then, in January 2002, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address - linking Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" - and the Iranians instantly ended all talks." (Fred Kaplan ‘Condi's Baffling New Iran Strategy’ http://www.slate.com/id/2136720/?nav=tap3 Feb. 21, 2006). 2003. Real Jews push Americans to lay down their lives for the Jewish Cause in Tehran. Even before bush had made any public decision to overthrow saddam’s regime, the jews-only state in palestine, and its jewish allies in america, had mounted a propaganda offensive against the next target on their hit list of enemies. In early 2003, ariel sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" the invasion of iraq. "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 February 18th 2003). This theme was quickly taken up by the israelis in the bush administration, "Remember the braggadocio of Bush’s advisers in March 2003 when they joked that taking Baghdad wouldn’t be enough, nor would taking Damascus, because "real men go to Tehran." (Robert Parry ‘Neocon Amorality’ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/030305.html March 3, 2005). Reuel Gerecht, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle. "Indeed, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, the neocons, led by ex-CIA spook Reuel Gerecht, Iran-Contra alumnus Michael Ledeen, and war profiteer Richard Perle, were arguing that Iran should be targeted next for a regime change. Inside the administration, Rumsfeld and Feith were advancing those ideas, suggesting that unlike Iraq, the transformation of Iran could take place peacefully through diplomatic pressure." (Leon Hadar ‘Target: Tehran? http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_22/article.html November 22, 2004). The israeli neocons believed the invasion of iraq would be a cakewalk and that america would soon march into iran. John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton co-operated with his jewish masters to promote a war against iran. "Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 February 18th 2003). Donald Rumsfeld. "Speaking to reporters after talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Rumsfeld noted that Iran had been on a list of countries that the United States describes as terrorist states for many years. "One of the gravest concerns the world faces is the nexus between a terrorist state that has weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks," he said. "So it's understandable that nations, not just in this region but throughout the world, are so deeply concerned about what's taking place in Iran."" (World worried about Iran nuclear aims: Rumsfeld’ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=47&u=/afp/20040812/pl_afp/azerbaijan_us_rumsfeld_040812141547 Aug 12th 2003). 2004. Throughout 2004 there were a series of propaganda campaigns in favour of an american attack on iran. Despite one commentator’s belief that bush might attack iran prior to the presidential election to help him get re-elected, the campaign against iran relented in the run up to the elections. Rachel Neuwirth. "Iran is moving rapidly to become a nuclear power. The Iranian mullahs have publicly promised to use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel even if Israel were to achieve peace with the Palestinians. They also claim that Iran, with 70 million people, could absorb and survive any response from Israel while Israel, with only 5.5 million Jews, is vulnerable to devastating losses if only a few of Iran’s missiles got through." (Rachel Neuwirth ‘Israel May Be Compelled to Pre-empt’ http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8767 July 31, 2004). Charles Krauthammer. "The comments from Bolton and Rice come within weeks of leading neo-conservative pundits and activists in Washington proclaiming that Iran's nuclear program had to be destroyed, even if waging war was the only way to do it. Influential neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote July 23 column in The Washington Post: "The long awaited revolution (in Iran) is not happening. Which (makes) the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive attack." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’ http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue34/Vol3Issue34Seiff.html c.August 2004). Alan Dershowitz. "Intelligence reports about Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons aimed at Israel are becoming ominous. Unless diplomatic pressure causes the Iranian mullahs to stop the project, Iran may be ready to deliver nuclear bombs against Israeli civilian targets within a few short years. Some Iranian leaders, such as former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, have made it clear that this is precisely what they intend to do. Killing 5 million Jews would be worth losing 15 million Iranians in a retaliatory Israeli strike, according to Rafsanjani's calculations. Israel, with the help of the United States, should try everything short of military action first: diplomacy, threats, bribery, sabotage, targeted killings of individuals essential to the Iranian nuclear program and other covert actions. But if all else fails, Israel, or the United States, must be allowed under international law to take out the Iranian nuclear threat before it is capable of the genocide for which it is being built." (Alan Dershowitz ‘Amend International Law To Allow Preemptive Strike on Iran’ http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=dershowitz20040819155 August 20, 2004). According to this paranoid jew iran should already be in possession of nuclear weapons and on the verge of bombing the jews into oblivion. An Attack on Iran in August. "As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard." (Joshua Mitnick ‘Would Israel strike first at Iran?’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0818/p06s01-wome.html August 18, 2004); "Tension between the United States and Iran, fuelled by a bitter dispute over the aim of the Tehran government's nuclear program, has begun to complicate the massive task of creating a stable Iraq as both countries jockey for influence there." (Paul Koring ‘U.S.-Iran tension adds to Iraq's instability’ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040812/IRANIRAQ12/International/Idx August 12, 2004). An Attack on Iran in September. "Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one could come in September: full-scale war between the United States and Iran may be far closer than the American public might imagine." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’ http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue34/Vol3Issue34Seiff.html c.Summer 2004). An Attack on Iran in October. "According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs." (Wayne Madsen ‘A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent' http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp October 20, 2004). Douglas Feith. "Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the U.S. public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq. With the U.S. military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the U.S. to attack Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dangerous Delusions About Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4160 December 14, 2004). 2005. Seymour Hersh. ""This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."" (Seymour M. Hersh ‘The Coming Wars’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact January 17 2005); "On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran."" (Mark Jensen ‘US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html February 20th 2005). The Assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The jewish campaign for an attack on iran picked up again after the presidential elections but was forced to take a slight detour at the beginning of 2005. The former prime minister of lebanon rafiq hariri was assassinated february 14th 2005 and the israelis in the bush administration immediately blamed syria although there was no evidence to support this accusation. For the next few months the israelis focussed their political propaganda on syria –many seeing an attack on syria as an opportunity for extending the war to iran. Sunni Iraqi Freedom Fighters saving Iran. One important factor which forced the campaign against iran onto the back burner was that by 2005 it was obvious that iraqi freedom fighters were fighting the american military to a standstill. "It was, then, the swiftly growing Iraqi resistance that, by preventing the consolidation of an American Iraq, forced an Iranian campaign off the table and back into the shadows where it has remained to this day." (Michael Schwartz ‘The Ironies of Conquest: The Bush administration's Iranian Nightmare’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6915 August 10, 2005). Ritter’s Allegation. "On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism." (Mark Jensen ‘US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html February 20th 2005). Richard Perle. ""If Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action," said ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Perle as he drew loud cheers from the AIPAC loyalists. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, before she introduced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the crowd, said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable". Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House also chimed in, saying, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran."" (Joshua Frank ‘Bombing Iran: The Facts Don't Matter’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June05/Frank0602.htm June 2, 2005); "Richard Perle, a key architect of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, said on Saturday the West should not make the mistake of waiting too long to use military force if Iran comes close to getting an atomic weapon. "If you want to try to wait until the very last minute, you'd better be very confident of your intelligence because if you're not, you won't know when the last minute is," Perle told Reuters on the sidelines of an annual security conference in Munich. "And so, ironically, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is you'd better be careful how long you choose to wait."" (Richard Perle quoted in Reuters ‘Iraq errors show West must act fast on Iran-Perle’ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0494245.htm February 4th 2006 Jewish-owned Politicians: Dick Cheney. Cheney is a jewish-owned politician, an israeli collaborator, a shabbat goy, whose power base in the united states congress, organized by tom delay, had been financed by bribes provided by super-zionist jack abramoff. "Other reports are that the vice president, we might say the "spiritual leader" of the US hawks, Cheney, has been covertly aiding the Benjamin Netanyahu candidacy as new head of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is also directly tied to the indicted US Republican money-launderer, Jack Abramoff, during the time Netanyahu was Sharon's finance minister." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006). In january 2005 cheney gave the jews-only state the go-ahead to attack iran, "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005. Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005); "In a January 2005 interview with MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iran has a "fairly robust nuclear program," charging that the Islamic republic’s prime "objective is the destruction of Israel." He then appeared to be giving a green light to Israel (with an estimated 200 nuclear heads) to take on Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, according to the IAEA itself, are yet to raise serious suspicions. "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant capabilities, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney exclaimed, in response to Imus’s thoughtless inquiry: "Why don’t we make Israel do it?"" (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=6927 August 13, 2005). Even more ominously, although an american/jews-only state attack on iran has been publicly discussed for many years, cheney was the first to float the idea, in july 2005, that the united states might have to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, "Philip Giraldi's report in the American Conservative last July that Vice President Cheney has asked the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." This would occur in the aftermath of a terror attack on the U.S. which, whatever its origins, would be politically used to justify an attack on Iran, just as the al-Qaeda attack was used to justify the attack on Iraq. Cheney has also declared matter-of-factly that if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, Israel might do so." (Gary Leupp ‘Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks: Targeting Iran and Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12302005.html December 30, 2005); The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations immediately echoed the Israeli state line. Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the Conference, lambasted Washington for a "failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, December 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following Israel's demands by delaying referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). Forward. "The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward, has reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward, "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (December 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). AIPAC. "AIPAC is credited for pushing Congress and the administration towards a number of legislative initiatives hostile to Iran and for placing Tehran's nuclear programme at the top of the international agenda." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/re6.htm January 19 – 25th 2006). "The role of AIPAC, the Conference and other pro-Israeli organizations as transmission belts for Israel's war plans was evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military purposes under international supervision. AIPAC's rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons" - an argument which flies in the face of all known intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC's unconditional and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). 2006. This year’s campaign against iran seems more ominous than its predecessors partly because it has started very early on in the outlandish political paranoia season and partly because the jews succeeded in pushing the americans and the europeans through the international diplomatic channels clearing the way for the military option. Leon Hadar. Hadar is supposedly anti-war and yet here he provides a justification for a military attack on iran – albeit not a full scale invasion, "Doing nothing about Iran would not only demolish what remains of the U.S.-led nuclear arms-control regime, it would also turn the balance of power in Iraq and the Persian Gulf against the United States and create incentives for the Saudis and others to make deals with Tehran. Short of trying to open direct diplomatic channels with Iran (very unlikely), the United States will probably try to increase the diplomatic and military pressure on Iran in the coming months, demonstrating that the Pax Americana project in the Middle East is becoming more expensive. That the central banks of China and other Asian economies are paying for it is probably the most intriguing element in this evolving story." (Leon Hadar ‘US Headed for Confrontation With Iran - But probably not all-out war’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=8339 January 4, 2006). Daniel Pipes. Pipes is director of the middle east forum. He helped to set up campus watch to encourage jews living in america to spy on american academics. In the 1970s, his father was the author of ‘Plan B’ which fabricated evidence that the soviet union posed an overwhelming military threat to the united states when no such threat existed, "The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (like Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently." (Daniel Pipes ‘Iran's Messianic Menace’ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20835 January 10, 2006). This loony paranoid jew believes that osama bin laden was hitler, yasser arafat was hitler, and now mahmoud ahmadinejad is hitler. It would be safer to say that pipes sees hitler everywhere under every non-jewish bed. Haim Saban and Martin Indyk. "Kenneth M Pollack, director of research at the Saban Centre on Middle East Policy told a Congressional hearing in September that the US should study the possibility of waging a targeted air campaign aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort. The Saban Centre is funded by a grant from Haim Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli American billionaire who made his money in the entertainment business. Martin Indyk, a staunchly pro-Israel former US diplomat who once served as US ambassador to Israel, directs it." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/re6.htm January 19 – 25th 2006). William Kristol. "More indicative of all is how William Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative publication The Weekly Standard, entitled in his column: "And now Iran."" (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/re6.htm January 19 – 25th 2006). Kenneth R. Timmerman and Carl Limbacher. "World renowned investigative reporter and terror expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, author of the bestselling book "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," and Carl Limbacher, reporter for NewMax.com, reveal that the US and Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in less than 10 weeks from now." (‘Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent’ On A7radio January 20th 2006). American Jewish Committee. .. "the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In an unprecedented action in November, the group publicly criticized the Bush administration for failing to act more aggressively against Iran. The influential American Jewish Committee also announced its own international campaign to impose a global and diplomatic and economic embargo against Iran until it halts its nuclear program." (Jim Lobe ‘The Iranian neo-cons love to hate’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA26Ak04.html Jan 26, 2006). Reuel Marc Gerecht. Gerect works for the american enterprise institute, one of the most important zionist think tanks, "Eventually, assuming the State Department's European strategy falls apart because the Europeans will not play, we will have to make up our minds whether nukes in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmadinejad are "intolerable" or not. If so, then we will have to prepare to bomb." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23721/pub_detail.asp January 23, 2006). Gerect goes on to refer glowingly to america’s destruction of iranian democracy in 1953, "Ideally, what the United States needs is to replicate the economy-crushing sanctions the West threw at Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh after he nationalized British petroleum in Iran in 1951. There are many reasons why Mossadegh fell to a very lamely executed and inexpensive coup in 1953, but among the most important was the effective oil embargo, which helped turn a popular prime minister into an unpopular one in less than a year." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23721/pub_detail.asp January 23, 2006). Jeff Jacoby. "It is not yet unreasonable to hope that Tehran can be forced to back down by a combination of economic sanctions, political isolation, and diplomatic heat. But if a nonmilitary strategy is to have any chance of success, it must be very clear that military action is Plan B - and that United States is quite prepared to wield that ''big stick" if Iran will not abandon its atomic ambitions. Under no circumstances can such enemies be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons - or to doubt that we will do what we must to make sure that they don't." (Jeff Jacoby ‘Don't go wobbly on Iran’ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/25/dont_go_wobbly_on_iran/ January 25, 2006). Yet another jew manipulating the american people into supporting a war against iran which the jews-only state cannot fight. But then why should the jews-only state attack iran when the jewish traitors living in america seem confident they can get america to do their dirty business for them even if it involves a colossal financial cost and large numbers of american lives? Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Zuckerman owns the NY Post and the Atlantic Monthly and was formerly the chair of the conference of presidents of the major jewish american organizations. "Military action, such as bombing the Iranian plants with cruise missiles and strike aircraft, would be justified in the circumstances. But that is hugely difficult politically, and covert action is very difficult operationally. Still, the risks may have to be taken because the alternative is so awful. There may now be a window of opportunity for effective preventive action, but this window is more likely to be measured in months than years." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060130/30edit.htm January 30th 2006). This paranoid jew who’s trying to stir up world war three believes, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." This view is not merely untrue – it is a total fabrication. But, this is the propaganda being pumped out by the jewish ruling classes in america, britain, and palestine. worldnetdaily.com. "If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." Ho, ho, ho. But, yet, large numbers of americans believe him! Kenneth R. Timmerman. "The massive stroke that cut down Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late on Wednesday night (Jan. 4) not only throws Israeli politics into turmoil. It also marks the likely starting point of the coming nuclear showdown that will pit the Jewish state and the free world against the Islamic Republic of Iran." (Kenneth R. Timmerman ‘Within Range’ http://www.kentimmerman.com/2006_01_05frontpage-iran.htm January 5, 2006). So, who is ken timmerman? "Notably, prominent Washington neo-conservative, Kenneth Timmerman, told Israeli radio in mid-January that he expected an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran "within the next 60 days", i.e. just after Israeli elections or just before. Timmerman is close to Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006); "That is Kenneth Timmerman - neocon extraordinaire, member of the fear-mongering imperial project that calls itself the Committee on the Present Danger, and contributor to the neocon rag National Review and its ultra-right counterpart FrontPagemag.com." (Ron Jacobs ‘Iranian ‘"Democracy" and the "Intelligence" Summit’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAC20060204&articleId=1889 February 4, 2006). Robert Joseph. "Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said Tehran had to be dissuaded by "whatever means are necessary" from acquiring nuclear arms, but added the West was "giving every chance for diplomacy to work." Speaking two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to report Tehran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear work, Joseph gave a worrying assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. "I would say that Iran does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery means for those weapons," Joseph told a news conference at the Foreign Press Center here. He went a step further than President George W. Bush, who said in a statement hailing the IAEA action Saturday that Iran was "continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons." He sidestepped questions on the use of force yet said, "No options are off the table. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, but we are giving every chance for diplomacy to work. What is necessary to stop Iran is a firm indication that the international community ... will take whatever measures are necessary to convince Iran that it is in its interest to forego a nuclear weapons capability."" (Iran has the Ability to develop a Nuclear Weapon: US Official’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060206/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus February 6th 2006). Joseph was one of the jewish liars, an israeli traitor to america, who thought nothing about deceiving bush and the american public into believing that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Not a high-profile hardliner like Bolton or Feith, Joseph successfully avoided the public limelight-that is until the scandal of the 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program. According to president, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The State of the Union Address, which laid out the administration's case for a preemptive invasion of Iraq, used unconfirmed intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD programs. Press reports and congressional testimony by CIA officials later revealed that the CIA had vigorously protested the inclusion of any assertion that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons since their intelligence would not support such a conclusion. Alan Foley, the CIA's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told Congress that Robert Joseph repeatedly pressed the CIA to back the inclusion in Bush's speech of a statement about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Following these revelations about the inclusion of erroneous and disputed intelligence estimates in this major speech that readied the U.S. public for war against Iraq, Joseph said he did not recall Foley's raising concerns about the credibility of the information to be included in the speech." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement http://www.counterpunch.org/barry06162005.html June 15, 2005). Joseph’s reward for lying and pushing america into a war against iraq which has incurred vast economic costs and the loss of thousands of american lives, was promotion, "The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the neoconservative political camp . Moving into John Bolton's old job, Robert G. Joseph is the right-wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy. Within the administration, he leads a band of counterproliferationists who - working closely with such militarist policy institutes as the National Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Security Policy - have placed preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy. Joseph replaced John Bolton at the State Department as the new undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. Like the controversial Bolton, Joseph has established a reputation for breaking or undermining arms control treaties, rather than supporting or strengthening international arms control. Joseph, too, has long believed that U.S. military strategy should be more offensive than defensive." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement http://www.counterpunch.org/barry06162005.html June 15, 2005). Joseph is one of the many israelis who have been drafted into the bush administration to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. "Although not self-identified as a neoconservative, Joseph moves in the same circles as other military strategists such as the CSP's Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. In a Washington Post article (May 2, 2002), "Who's Pulling the Foreign Policy Strings," Dana Milbank wrote: "The vice president sometimes stays neutral but his sympathies undoubtedly are with the Perle crowd. Cheney deputies Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Eric Edelman relay neoconservative views to Rice at the National Security Council. At the NSC, they have a sympathetic audience in Elliott Abrams, Robert Joseph, Wayne Downing, and Zalmay Khalilzad."" (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement http://www.counterpunch.org/barry06162005.html June 15, 2005). Wall Street Journal. "Today, the editorial page is a fount of neoconservative war propaganda. All intelligence has vanished. Consider the "Review & Outlook" of Feb. 3, which declares Iran to be "an intolerable threat." Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country's new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel. But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn't occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the U.S. as intolerable threats." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘How Conservatives Went Crazy’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8513 February 8, 2006). Max Boot and Nicholas Goldberg. "Max Boot just wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "In sum, a terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York," which "leaves only one serious option – air strikes by Israel or the U.S." Niall Ferguson wrote a few days earlier in the same newspaper that a U.S. preemptive strike against Iran today would prevent an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel in 2007, ignoring among other things the reality that it is physically impossible for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in a year. Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times' opinion page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found that 57 percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on Iran?" (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 February 20, 2006). Joe Lieberman. "Nevertheless, Dick Cheney himself last year ordered a study of a plan for an attack on Iran -and leading politicians are beating the war drums, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)." (Lee Sustar ‘Target: Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar02252006.html February 25 / 26, 2006). The Jewish owned American Media in General. "The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in Iran's defense. As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."" (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006). The same commentators who manipulated america into a war against iraq are now manipulating america into a war against iran, "Besides convincing the public that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, a critical task of the neo-cons was to convince the American public that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam. Their colleagues among the nation's major syndicated columnists such as Safire, Will, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Paul Greenberg were all too willing accomplices. By the time, the U.S. launched its invasion, more than half of the public was convinced that Saddam had been behind the attacks." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003). John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN. "Significantly, the most hawkish of hawks had to be the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. In a speech, not by accident, at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel US lobby, he said Iran's nuclear program could be "taken out"." (Pepe Escobar ‘The old lovers' nuclear tango’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC08Ak02.html Mar 8, 2006). The Jewish-owned Presidency: Bush Professes to fight Proxy Zionist War. Bush is making it clear that he is pushing america into a war against iran for the sake of the jews-only state – this incidentally will be america’s third proxy zionist war. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006). F william engdahl raises the pertinent issue as regards america’s national interests as opposed to the interests of the jews-only state in palestine, "It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the US. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US preemptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006).
Jews in Palestine stirring up a War against Iran. 2003. Ariel Sharon, Leader of the Jews-only State. "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 February 18th 2003). General Plans. "Israel is working on a wide range of measures to undermine Iran's nuclear program, with senior leaders hinting that Israel may take preemptive action if that is deemed necessary. Analysts here suggest that action may include a strike similar to Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor. The Israeli initiative includes political, military, and intelligence wings of government and dovetails with US efforts to contain Iran within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003). Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister of Defense. "On the same US trip, Mr. Mofaz told a pro-Israeli lobby group that a nuclear Iran was "intolerable." "The implicit message of his statements was that if the Iranian nuclear program is not stopped in the next number of months, Israel will have to take action of its own - perhaps even to attack - to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into Iranian hands," analyst Amir Rappaport wrote in the Ma'ariv newspaper." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003); "In November, Israeli media reported that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, on a trip to Washington, told US officials that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession."" (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003). Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy. "Iran has a clandestine [nuclear] program that is very ambitious," says Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzilya. "That country thinks big and fast and ... poses a threat that is very real. Should it acquire nuclear weapons or even come close, it would completely alter the Middle East. It's a very ominous threat." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003). Meir Dagan, director of Mossad. "Meir Dagan, director of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee this month that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel, according to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. He reportedly assured committee members that Israel could deal with this threat." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html November 28, 2003). 2004. Martin Van-Creveld. "The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants. Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants might be carried out before the US November elections. "It all depends on Ariel Sharon - an old war-horse who back in 1982 led Israel into a disastrous invasion of Lebanon. One can only hope that this time he will think twice," the military historian said." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Israel to US: Now for Iran’ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/03398F16-8119-4A21-83E4-D93E5F161B55.htm August 29 2004). Ira Sharkansky. "In that light, Israel's most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it," he told Aljazeera.net. And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to "do something" about Iran." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Israel to US: Now for Iran’ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/03398F16-8119-4A21-83E4-D93E5F161B55.htm August 29 2004). Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee. ""This is not an Israeli problem. This time it is a world problem," said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee. "Iran is seeking to become a world power."" (‘Israel can't go it alone against Iran: politicians, analysts’ http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040719014127.fe7l7p6i.html July 19, 2004). Caroline Glick. "On Nov. 20, Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, hysterically accused Europe of defending "Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state." Glick "exposes" France's efforts to prevent the outbreak of wider war in the Middle East as a trick: "France wishes only to box in the U.S. to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism." The neoconservative Heritage Foundation promptly broadcast Glick's hysterical rants into the Republican noise machine, reviving talk radio calls for nuking France, "America's oldest enemy."" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Won't Get Fooled Again?’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4028 November 22, 2004). 2005. Arieh Eldad and Yoseph Lapid. "Last week three members of the Israeli Knesset issued a terse warning that an attack on Iran may be imminent. Arieh Eldad, a member of the right-wing National Union Party said ominously, "Iran will not be deterred by anything but force." Yoseph Lapid, head of the Shinui Party echoed Eldad's sentiments saying, "We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally." The appearance of three Israeli politicians dispatched to Washington to reiterate the same message can only mean trouble." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister. "The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister, said in an interview last week in Jerusalem, with another New Yorker journalist, "I don’t like what’s happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For a long time, they thought it was just Israel’s problem. But then they saw that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use the carrot and the stick - but all we see so far is the carrot." He added, "If they can’t comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb."" (Seymour Hersh ‘The Coming Wars’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html January 24th 2005); "Iran may be only six months away from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has claimed. The assessment, which he said was based on Israeli intelligence, differs from US intelligence assessments that Iran could not begin producing nuclear weapons for another decade. "Our experts say they are very close to this (production) stage," Mr Shalom said. "They may need only another six months."" (Abraham Rabinovich ‘Tehran six months off nuclear arms ability: Israel’ http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16668603%255E2703,00.html September 21, 2005). Ahron Zoevi Farkash, Israeli Military Intelligence Chief. "In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international effort has run its course."" (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). Daniel Halutz, Israeli Military Chief of Staff. "On Dec. 5, Israel's military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told foreign journalists in Tel Aviv that he believed diplomacy had reached a dead end. "The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure ... encourages them to continue their nuclear project," Gen. Halutz said. "I believe that the political means that are used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed." When asked by one reporter how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear projects, Halutz quipped, "2000 kilometers." That's the equivalent of 1,250 miles, the distance by air between Israel and Iran's main nuclear and missile sites." (Kenneth R. Timmerman ‘Within Range’ http://www.kentimmerman.com/2006_01_05frontpage-iran.htm January 5, 2006). See also, "When the Israeli Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand kilometers" - the distance of an air assault." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). Israeli Military Intelligence Chief, Aharon Zeevi Farkash. "Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief, stepped up the pressure on Iran this month when he warned Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, that "if by the end of March the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations security council, then we can say the international effort has run its course." (Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter ‘Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074_1,00.html December 11, 2005). Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party. .. "the most militaristic of Israel's major politicians - Benjamin Netanyahu - who demanded that Prime Minster Sharon take forceful action against Iran. Otherwise, Netanyahu said in December, "when I form the new Israeli government, we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor, which gave us 20 years of tranquillity." Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized that he wants to launch a military strike on Iran. "This is the Israeli government's primary obligation," he said. "If it is not done by the current government, I plan to lead the next government to stop the Iranians."" (Norman Solomon ‘Israel’s Future Leader?’ http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/30491/ January 6, 2006). See also, "Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime Minister, stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). It is worth pointing out that it has been stated about netanyahu, "U.S. intelligence sources report that the one Israeli who is considered an extreme threat to U.S. national security is former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister hopeful Binyamin Netanyahu. Not only has Netanyahu visited convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in his North Carolina prison cell and advocated strenuously for his release but he was once overheard by an ex-CIA agent as saying to a group of his supporters, "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away." Considering the damage the neo-cons and their Israeli facilitators are causing for U.S. national security, Netanyahu may soon have his wish." (Wayne Madsen ‘The Neo-Cons’ Unfettered Access to America’s Secrets’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/exclusive1.htm September 2005). Ariel Sharon, former Leader of the Jews-only State in Palestine. In the run up to a jews-only election on march 28th 2006, sharon was forced to respond to netanyahu’s populist calls for an attack on iran, "This all pushed Sharon to rally the country, and stave off this lunge from the right, with a strike against Tehran. "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," the Israeli Prime Minister said recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."" (‘Israel ready to strike Iran’ http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10383 December 22nd 2005). Ariel sharon, a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, and the leader of the jews-only, terrorist state lies in a coma and will never get to see the fulfilment of his plans for his greatest act of terrorism. A jewish nuclear attack on iran would have been his great swan song – his legacy after a lifetime of killing and murdering, and slaughtering. A jewish nuclear attack on iran will be the first announcement of a new global reality – jewish world domination. 2006. Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister of Defense. "On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions"." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). A month later, "Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. "Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said." (Talk of military action in Iran standoff’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-21-iran-nuclear-standoff_x.htm January 21st 2006); "And Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz went further, speaking directly to Iran's president: "I address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology of hate, terror, and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. … Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming of Iran, and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that implies." " (Quoted in Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437 January 25, 2006); "Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. "My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung." (Louis Charbonneau ‘Israel will have to Act on Iran if UN Can’t’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060308/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_israel_dc March 8th 2006). The Acting Prime Minister of the Jews-only State in Palestine, Ehud Olmert. "Meanwhile, Israel also vowed not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that the Jewish state could not reconcile itself to the threat of a nuclear Iran. "Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert told a joint news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katsav. "The state of Israel cannot reconcile itself to a situation in which there is a threat against us, just as, in my view, the nations of Europe and the United States cannot reconcile themselves," he said." (World divided over referring Iran to UNSC’ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/18/content_4067150.htm January 18th 2006); "In Israel, it was Sharon who repeatedly refused the Israeli generals' requests for air strikes; he is now out of the picture. His replacement, Olmert, is weak. The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections gave Olmert's main opponent, Likud's Netanyahu, a big boost. How could Olmert best show the Israeli electorate he is as tough as Netanyahu? Obviously, by hitting Iran before Israel's elections in late March." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006). Popular Jewish Support for the War. "A strike against Iran would be popular in Israel, where everyone agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to have the kind of nuclear weapons that Israel itself possesses in such bristling abundance." (‘Israel ready to strike Iran’ http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10383 December 22nd 2005). Jewish Military Establishment Support for the War. Virtually the entire jewish military establishment in palestine has now put itself on public record as supporting an attack on iran, "All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005). Jews in Britain stirring up a War against Iran. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. "Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a critical role in disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq war, has been equally disingenuous regarding Iran." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006). See also, Jack Straw’s Conversion to Extreme Zionism. Jews in Europe stirring up a War against Iran. Since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, jewish control over american politics has become so blatant that the jews-only state in palestine isn’t bothering to camouflage its power, "And subtly but surely, things are changing still further. Israel is starting to let the mask drop, not from its already public intentions, but from its naked strength. It no longer deigns to conceal its sophisticated nuclear arsenal. It begins to supply the world with almost as much military technology as it consumes. And it no longer sees any need to be discreet about its defiance of the United States' request for moderation: Israel is happy to humiliate the 'stupid Americans' outright. As it plunders, starves and kills, Israel does not lurk in the world's back-alleys. It says, "Look at us. We're taking these people's land, not because we need it, but because we feel like it. We're putting religious nuts all over it because they help cleanse the area of these Arab lice who dare to defy us. We know you don't 
