Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    One False Move In Homuz Can Yield Catastrophe - Vid

    Stress in the Strait: ‘Any false move can lead to catastrophe’

    Published: 31 December, 2011, 08:46

    Video: http://rt.com/news/iran-us-lack-communication-057/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Imperial overdrive: Red alert over Iran

    Published: 30 December, 2011, 19:05





    A handout picture from US Navy dated February 21, 2007, shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis as it conducts operations in the Gulf (AFP Photo / US Navy / Ronald Reeves)


    2011 will be remembered as the year the US, Britain, France and Israel went into Imperial Overdrive in North Africa and the Middle East. Will 2012 be remembered as the year those same Western Allies unleashed World War III?

    ­It is not news anymore to say that the West will soon attack Iran, maybe Syria. They have been threatening to do that for years now, certainly ever since the failed Israeli invasion into Southern Lebanon in mid-2006, when they were routed by Hezbollah.

    So what is different today? For starters, general circumstances have changed dramatically in the Region. Genuine popular dissent inside key Muslim countries has been used by the Western Allies to train, fund and arm local criminal and terrorist organizations, dubbed “freedom fighters”, as their proxies.

    Country after country has fallen victim to the CIA’s, MI6’s and Mossad’s “dirty tricks departments”, and other Western-style terrorist organizations. Results range from moderate “regime change” in Tunisia and Algeria; via horrendous “violence by our boys” in Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain; all the way to outright military attack, civil war and political assassination. Such as the one in Libya, where Hillary Clinton boisterously laughed when she learned Muammar Gaddafi had been murdered live on TV by “her thugs”.

    The whole region has been set on fire. Not that other regions of the world are not on fire too; however the pyrotechnics used by the Global Power Elite vary in nature in each geography. For example, Europe, the US and Britain are being set alight using financial terrorism resembling a neutron bomb, which kills people off while leaving assets and banks standing.

    Now in Iran the stage seems set for a final show-down. It has taken so long only because Israeli, British and US planners are not stupid; they know that messing with Iran is not like messing with Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Libya. Messing with Iran will bring Western Allies very dangerously close to messing with Russia and China. If I were in their shoes, I would not do that. Unless…

    Unless World War III is what they are looking for. Now, why would they do that? Perhaps, because they have realized that there is just no peaceful way of achieving their dream of World Government. Perhaps because they have understood that the financial quicksand they have backed themselves into is so devastating that it cannot be cleaned up with purely financial, monetary and “legal” measures, in which case…

    Nothing beats a good war! Perhaps, because wildcard Israel is so very much in control (or should I say, out of control) that they are imposing the “Sampson Option” not only on themselves, but also on their controlled Western Allies and the whole planet if need be. “After me, the Flood!”

    Things in the Strait of Hormuz are extremely dangerous and volatile. After being systematically threatened with unilateral military attack, invasion, and even nuclear strikes, now the Iranians are showing their muscle too. On 24th December, Iran began a 10-day spate of military maneuvers in the strait that has all but put the US, UK and Israel on red alert. A US aircraft carrier force is now in the area and their helicopters have flown dangerously close to Iranian forces. Any spark could set off a conflagration.

    Meanwhile, Syria is falling into meltdown. Meanwhile, Israel is preparing “Cast Lead II” over and inside Gaza. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is ready to strike Israel with tens of thousands of very deadly short-range “Katyushka” rockets.

    A key sign of impending war is an article just published in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It carried the ominous title of Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option, by Matthew Kroenig. This man was, until last July, special advisor to the Pentagon for “Defense Strategy on Iran” – Newspeak for “let’s beat the hell out of Iran”.

    The CFR is the key Global Power Elite think-tank, founded in 1919 together with its London sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House). Its more than 4500 members are deeply embedded into the uppermost echelons of public and private power in the US, controlling banking, industry, media, academia, the military and government.

    Key government posts are always controlled by one of their lot, irrespective of whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power. The CFR is integrated into an intricate network of similar organizations that includes the Trilateral Commission, Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Group, Project for a New American Century, Bilderberg and others. They all operate in streamlined coordination, consistency, synchronization and – most important – with a common purpose.
    In his article, Mr Kroenig, assesses how “American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities,” concluding that, “The only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.”
    He warns against “skeptics of military action (who) fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to US interests in the Middle East and beyond.”

    This reflects Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent remarks when addressing the Brookings Institution’s pro-Israel “Saban Forum” bringing together US and Israeli military strategists that repeated the usual Baby Bush “all options are on the table” threats.

    Mr. Kroenig talks of the “dangers of deterrence” and gives the Obama Administration unequivocal advice: “The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.”

    As these pyromaniacs get ready to ignite the regional and global powder keg, one key question looms ever larger: what will Russia do?
    ­
    Adrian Salbuchi for RT

    Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and international radio/TV commentator from Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com
    Disclaimer: ­The views and opinions expressed in the story are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    http://rt.com/news/iran-us-war-military-005/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    New CIA Drone Bases in Afghanistan and Central Asia



    by Sikandar Shaheen

    US looking for new drone bases after Pakistan’s refusal

    -Including the covert base in Khost, the US has seven operational military bases located in Kandahar, Herat, Parwan, Helmand and Nimroz provinces.
    With the exception of the Khost base that is under the operational command of CIA, the US Army, Air Force and Navy jointly administer the remaining six bases.

    -According to officials at a diplomatic mission, the US was actively considering establishing covert military bases in Central Asia for continuing drone-hits in Pakistan but the Central Asian Republics (CARs) refused to provide launching pads owing to Russia’s pressure.

    -78 drone attacks in the ongoing year have killed 607 persons including militants and civilians in the Pakistan’s tribal region while 306 drone strikes claimed 3659 lives in this region since 2004.

    ISLAMABAD - The CIA-sponsored drone campaign in Pakistan‘s Northwestern Tribal region is likely to remain stalled amid the reports that the US may not find a feasible alternative venue to target Pak-Afghan borderlands after having become entangled in a deadlock with Pakistan over the Mohmand attack row.

    Till the middle of last month, the Central intelligence Agency (CIA) oversaw drone hits in Pakistan’s Waziristan region mostly from the Shamsi base in Balochistan province and partly from a US base in Khost province, Afghanistan.

    After US AC-130H Spectre gunship choppers targeted a couple of military check posts in Mohmand Agency killing two dozen Pak soldiers on November 26th, Pakistan gave a 15-day deadline to the US to vacate the Shamsi base that followed its evacuation by December 11th. Since then, there has been a complete halt in drone hits.

    Including the covert base in Khost, the US has seven operational military bases located in Kandahar, Herat, Parwan, Helmand and Nimroz provinces.

    With the exception of the Khost base that is under the operational command of CIA, the US Army, Air Force and Navy jointly administer the remaining six bases.

    Reportedly, the United States mulled over using the Shindand base in Helmand, the Bagram base in Parwan and the Camp Leatherneck base in Nimroz province as launching pads for drone hits in Pakistani borderlands but the idea ceased to work owing to the engagements of these bases in extensive aerial operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s refusal to allow the CIA to carry on with the covert drone programme in its tribal area in the post-November 26th scenario.

    Talking to The Nation, Abdullah Khan, Director of the Conflict Monitoring Centre (CMC), an Islamabad-based think-tank that monitors conflict scenarios in South Asia, said the CIA had the option of using the Khost base for drones but things were to be different compared to the Shamsi base.

    "Its not as convenient and easy as it used to be. There are too many operational constraints involved in launching drone strikes from Khost compared to Shamsi. Secondly, given that Pakistan has completely disrupted intelligence sharing on drones, it’s next to impossible for them (CIA) to continue with drones here’" he said.

    Elaborating on the operational constraints for the drone programme at the Khost base, Khan said: "It’s not only about drones. There’s a whole lot of surveillance, spying and military movements that were being overseen from Shamsi. That’s not possible from Afghanistan due to the proximity factor. The Khost base had come under a deadly suicide attack last year."

    According to CMC figures, 78 drone attacks in the ongoing year have killed 607 persons including militants and civilians in the Pakistan’s tribal region while 306 drone strikes claimed 3659 lives in this region since 2004.

    The last drone hit was reported in the Shawal area of North Waziristan that killed some six to nine persons. The Khost provincial government spokesman Mubarez Zadran expressed ignorance regarding the presence of a covert military base for drones in Khost. "This is something nobody would want to speak on.

    "Yes, the US military bases are there and that’s no hidden affair but these bases are not being used for drone-hits in Pakistan. I think you better consult US military on this," he suggested to this scribe.

    Neither the US Embassy in Islamabad nor the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) officially comments on the CIA drone programme.

    NATO officials in Afghanistan, when contacted on prior occasions, had denied having any involvement with drone hits in Pakistan. According to officials at a diplomatic mission, the US was actively considering to establish covert military bases in Central Asia for continuing drone-hits in Pakistan but the Central Asian Republics (CARs) refused to provide launching pads owing to Russia’s pressure.

    Russia has serious disagreements with the US presence in Afghanistan.

    In October this year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan along with top military officials had followed a secretive agreement on drones as part of renewed Pak-US military cooperation after a spree of hostility. Unearthed by The Nation on October 22nd, the agreement envisaged resumption of intelligence cooperation between Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the CIA for hunting down militants on both sides of the border.
    Global Research, December 31, 2011

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=28431
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Preparing to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons: "No Option can be taken off the Table."

    by Michel Chossudovsky

    "When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an "instrument of peace", condoned and accepted by the World's institutions and the highest authority, including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction." (Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, May 2011)
    The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads. America's is on a War Path.

    World War III is no longer an abstract concept

    The US and its allies are preparing to launch a nuclear war directed against Iran with devastating consequences.

    This military adventure in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

    The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.
    The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
    War pretexts and "justifications" abound. Iran is heralded as a threat to Israel and the World.
    The war on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than eight years. In recent developments, a renewed set of threats and accusations directed against Tehran have been launched.
    A "war of stealth" has already commenced. Mossad intelligence operatives are on the ground. Covert paramilitary formations are being launched inside Iran, CIA drones are being deployed.
    Meanwhile, Washington. London, Brussels and Tel Aviv have launched specific destabilizing initiatives "to choke Iran diplomatically, financially and economically".
    A stepped up economic sanctions regime has been formulated by the US Congress:
    "a bipartisan consensus has emerged in Washington in favor of strangling the Iranian economy." The latter consists in implementing "an amendment to the 2012 defence authorisation bill, designed to "collapse the Iranian economy"... by making it virtually impossible for Tehran to sell its oil." (Tom Burghardt, Target Iran: Washington's Countdown to War, Global Research, December 2011). :
    This new wave of diplomatic hype coupled with the threat of economic sanctions has also contributed to triggering an aura of uncertainty in the market for crude oil, with potentially devastating consequences on the global economy.
    Meanwhile, the corporate media has embarked on a renewed propaganda stint pertaining to Iran's alleged nuclear program, pointing to "activities related to possible weaponization."
    In recent developments, barely acknowledged by the US media, President Barack Obama met privately (December 16), behind closed doors with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The meeting was held in the outskirts of Washington DC at the Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor, Maryland under the auspices of the Union for Reform Judaism.



    Barack meets Barak, Barack Obama and Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak
    December 16, 2011 at the URJ Biennal Plenary, Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor
    (White House photo)

    The importance of this timely private meeting under URJ auspices cannot be underestimated. Reports suggest that the Barack O / E. Barak meeting centered largely on the issue of a US-Israeli attack on Iran.

    Writing in Haaretz, Israeli political analyst Amir Oren described the Barack-Barak meeting as a potential "Green Light" to Israel to launch an all out war on Iran:
    "Is it possible that the half-hour meeting last Friday at the Gaylord Hotel in National Harbor, Maryland, between U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be remembered in Israel's history as the moment at which Barack O. gave the green light to E. Barak — for better or for worse — to attack Iran?... Can this be seen as a sort of flashback to the talk between Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig in Washington in May 1982, that gave rise to the (mistaken) Israeli impression that there was an understanding with the United States over going to war in Lebanon... " No sign U.S. has given Israel green light to strike Iran - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
    Following this private meeting, Obama addressed the Biennial Plenary of the Union for Reform Judaism, reassuring his audience that "cooperation between our militaries [and intelligence] has never been stronger."
    Obama underscored that Iran is a "threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world ... And that’s why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons....And that’s why ... we have imposed the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions that the Iranian regime has ever faced.... And that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table." (Transcript of President Obama Union for Reform Judaism Speech Video Dec. 16. 2011: Address at URJ Biennial, 71st General Assembly , emphasis added).
    Towards a "Coordinated" US-Israeli Attack on Iran?

    In recent weeks, the US media tabloids have been literally plastered with "no options off the table" statements by Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta intimated, however, "that Israel should not consider unilateral action against Iran" while stressing "that any military operation against Iran by Israel must be coordinated with the United States and have its backing". (Panetta's December 2 statement at the Saban Center quoted in U.S. Defense Secretary: Iran could get nuclear bomb within a year - Haaretz, December 11, 2011, emphasis added)

    The Threat of Nuclear War against Iran
    The "no options off the table" statement intimates that the US not only envisages an attack on Iran but that this attack could include the use of tactical bunker buster nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity between one third and six times a Hiroshima bomb. In a cruel irony, these "humanitarian" "peace-making" nuclear bombs "Made in America" --which according to "scientific opinion" on contract to the Pentagon are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population"-- are contemplated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
    While Iran has no nuclear weapons, what is rarely acknowledged is that five (officially) "non-nuclear States" including Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey have US made tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command in their respective military bases. This nuclear arsenal is slated to be used against Iran.
    The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five "non-nuclear states" are intended for targets in the Middle East. In accordance with "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs would be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" (quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005, emphasis added)
    While these "undeclared nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran, Syria and Russia. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Europe's Five "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States" , Global Research, February 12, 2010
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Israel's Nukes are Pointed at Iran. Joint US-Israel "Coordination" of Nuclear Weapons Deployment
    Israel rather than Iran is a threat to global security.

    Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads, which are fully deployed against Iran.

    Already in 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003).

    According to Russian general Leonid Ivashov:
    The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently [2007] it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran. (General Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007 emphasis added)

    It is worth noting that at the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it".
    In the above context, political analyst and historian Michael Carmichael has pointed to the integration and coordination of military decision-making between the US and Israel pertaining to the deployment of nuclear weapons:
    "Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak. (Michael Carmichael, Global Research, January 2007)
    "No Options off the Table": What Does it Mean in the Context of Military Planning? Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons Systems
    The rules and guidelines of the US Military governing the use of nuclear weapons have been "liberalized" (i.e. "deregulated" in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The decision to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision. The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be "flexible", allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons:
    Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

    It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

    What this means is that if an attack on Iran is launched, tactical nuclear weapons will be an integral part of the weapons arsenal.

    From a military decision-making standpoint, "no options off the table" means that the Military will apply "the most efficient use of force". In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are part of what the Pentagon calls "the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theater". (See Michel Chossudovsky, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Global Research, February 22, 2006
    "Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional war theaters. Michel Chossudovsky, Targeting Iran, Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust, Global Research, February 2006, emphasis added)
    The Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Warfare. CONPLAN 8022

    Of utmost relevance to the planned attack on Iran, US military documents point towards the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of nukes on a pre-emptive basis in the conventional war theater.
    This proposed "integration" of conventional and nuclear weapons systems was first formulated in 2003 under CONPLAN 8022. The latter is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--pre-emptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world [including Iran]." (See Michel Chossudovsky, US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran, Global Research, September 27, 2007). Coordinated by US Strategic Command, CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists).



    CONPLAN opens up a military Pandora's box. It blurs the dividing line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It opens the door for the preemptive use of nukes "anywhere in the World"
    The Absence of Public Awareness

    The "international community" has endorsed an attack on Iran in the name of World Peace.

    "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

    While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using "new technologies" and advanced weapons, including nukes, until it occurs and becomes a reality.
    The corporate media is involved in deliberately blocking news coverage concerning these war preparations. The war on Iran and the dangers of escalation are not considered "front page news." The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
    Iran does not constitute a nuclear threat.

    The threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which contemplates --under the CONPLAN framework-- the use of thermonuclear weapons against a non nuclear state.

    In the words of General Ivashov, "The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility". Nuclear weapons are "part of tool box".

    An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario.
    The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat.

    NATO constitutes a nuclear threat

    Five European "non-nuclear states" (Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
    The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on Iran.

    The complacency of Western public opinion --including segments of the US anti-war movement-- is disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.

    Such an action would result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East.
    It should be noted that a nuclear nightmare would occur even if nuclear weapons were not used. The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities using conventional weapons would contribute to unleashing a Chernobyl-Fukushima type disaster with extensive radioactive fallout.

    Global Research, December 26, 2011

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=28355
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Softening Up Iran for the Final Attack

    by Wayne Madsen
    Global Research, December 30, 2011

    In many ways, America's and Israel's much-anticipated war against Iran has already begun. It is not the type of war that was expected -- an Israeli textbook style surprise and swift attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by a sustained U.S. and NATO air campaign -- but a covert war with quite an unexpected feature. The covert war, which has seen increased U.S. drone activity over Iranian skies and an increase in suspicious explosions at Iranian military facilities, has been coupled with American support for destabilization efforts against all of Iran's allies and friends, including Syria, Russia, China, North Korea, and Venezuela… This multi-pronged attack strategy has sent a clear message to Iran, it is not safe from covert sabotage at home and it cannot look to its friends abroad for help as they deal with their own U.S. and Israeli-inspired domestic strife.Although Libya under Muammar Qaddafi was no friend of Iran, the coming to power of pro-Saudi Wahhabi Salafist-Sunni elements in Tripoli and Benghazi increases the phalanx of Arab states actively opposing the Shi'a government in Tehran. The success of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties in Egypt's parliamentary election also spells problems for Iran.However, it is the potential loss of power by the Bashar al Assad regime in Syria that poses the worst immediate defeat for Iran. Syria has been Iran's closest ally in the Arab world. The West and the Saudis and Qataris have been supporting Salafist elements, including terrorists, who have committed their own share of atrocities in Syria, much as the same ilk conducted massacres of pro-Qaddafi, as well as black African guest workers and black Libyans, during the Libyan civil war. On Iran's borders and adjacent waters, countries hosting U.S. military forces -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Turkey, and Afghanistan -- are being prepared for a military conflict with Iran. Although the Obama administration proclaimed the end of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, some U.S. forces remain in the country, as well as a group of para-military private security contractors.With news that Iraq that the predominantly Shi'a and pro-Iranian Nouri al Maliki government in Baghdad has forged a military alliance with Iran and that Iraq's Sunni Vice President, Tareq al-Hashimy, has sought protection from arrest by Maliki's government in Iraqi Kurdistan, the U.S. can be expected to increase its own covert and overt military presence in Iraqi "Sunnistan" in the west of the country, as well as in Iraqi Kurdistan. The first front lines in a U.S. and/or Israel military showdown with Iran could be along the Shi'a-Sunni front lines in Iraq, a nation already so weary and decimated from war.Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces could end up crossing into Iraq to take on remaining U.S. forces and their Sunni and Kurdish proxies.


    The U.S. has pressured Maliki to not take action against the 3,400 Iranian exiles, most of them Mujaheddin-e-Khalq guerrillas, who were once backed by Saddam Hussein. The anti-Tehran regime MEK forces now enjoy the backing of a number of U.S. politicians but they are considered terrorists by Tehran. Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the MEK refugees have been under siege at Camp Ashraf. The U.S. has pressured Maliki to allow the Iranians to be resettled at Camp Liberty, near Baghdad, prior to exfiltration from Iraq by the United States. No final agreement between Washington and Baghdad has been signed but the MEK loyalists could end up in one of the Gulf states and be available for future guerrilla operations inside Iran.The other wild card in any future U.S. is Pakistan, which now has a fractured relationship with Washington after incessant U.S. drone attacks have killed Pakistani border troops and a number of civilians. Pakistan's corrupt President, Ali Asraf Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, is seen as a lame duck. Just as with U.S. National Endowment FOR Democracy (NED) "themed" rebellions currently being waged fomented against Iran's diplomatic allies and economic and military partners Russia and China, Pakistan, the Muslim world's only nuclear power, is experiencing a "people's" uprising led by cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan.Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice, PTI) recently saw over 100,000 turn out for a rally in Karachi, where the protesters called for political and economic reforms and an end to the corruption practiced by Zardari and his cronies. The message is similar to the anti-Vladimir Putin forces in Moscow -- anti-corruption and the institution of political reforms. Even the number of protesters is the same between the last protest against Putin in Moscow and the anti-Zardari protest in Karachi: 100,000.However, Khan is supported by Pakistan's educated and professional, mostly young, elite.

    Khan has had to take on an anti-American tone by condemning drone strikes and the U.S. military presence in Pakistan. However, Khan, to be a contender for power, must tack to a nationalist line because America is hated by a wide cross-section of the Pakistani population. Khan is adopting the same wishy-washy political platform that Barack Obama adopted in 2008, even borrowing from the Obama campaign by using "Hope" and "Change" campaign materials throughout Pakistan and even borrowing from another Obama campaign slogan with a slight twist: "Yes We Khan."U.S. drone unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drone activity, using intelligence-collection and weaponized drones, can be expected to continue. notwithstanding Iran's capture of a sophisticated jet-powered RQ0170 Sentinel drone that was brought down in Iran. In addition, it is strongly rumored that Israel may have drone and other intelligence bases from which to operate against Iran in Azerbaijan on Iran's northern border. The United States, Britain, and Israel are suspected of being behind covert attacks -- physical and cyber -- against Iran's nuclear development program. Iranian nuclear scientists and defense officials have been assassinated and kidnapped by Western intelligence agents operating within Iran and abroad. There have been mysterious devastating explosions at an Iranian missile production facility outside of Tehran and at a nuclear facility near Isfahan. The West is also using Iranian minority guerrilla groups to conduct operations inside Iran, including Iranian Arabs in the southwest, Kurds in the north, and Baluchis in the southeast.Although UAV activity against Iran has been widely reported, the use of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) against Iran's naval forces, currently conducting a major exercise in the Gulf, cannot be discounted. The U.S. Navy may be using UUVs to conduct targeting activities inside Iran's Bandar Abbas naval base on the Gulf and in the near future may see UUVs conducting sabotage of Iranian naval vessels and in counteracting Iranian mines by blowing them up. Israel is also known to maintain two of its Dolphin class diesel electric submarines in the Gulf. The submarines carry cruise missiles that are likely tipped with nuclear warheads.
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 01-01-2012 at 01:55 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Meanwhile, no stone is being left unturned by the West in neutralizing Iran's support from allies. In addition to supporting themed rebellions against Russia and China, so-called "White" revolutions, Iran's friend in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is facing charges that he and Iranian personnel are developing nuclear weapons in Venezuela, an old and totally-debunked charge, and that Venezuelans and Lebanese Hezbollah are involved in drug smuggling in Mexico. The latter fairy tale is courtesy of the Spanish-language news network Univision, owned by notorious Israeli-American Hollywood mogul Chaim Saban, a Zionist who bankrolls the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. The Saban Center also provides propagandists from its satellite office in Doha, Qatar to influence the Fox News-style propaganda, masked as "news," that emanates from the Doha studios of Al Jazeera.
    Iran's Lebanese Hezbollah allies and the governments of Sudan and North Korea, known to be close to Tehran, are facing renewed pressure from the West, especially North Korea after the unexpected death of Kim Jong Il. With rumors in Seoul and Beijing that Kim Jong Il may have been assassinated by military officers in a power struggle that led to a coup, North Korea as a source for Iranian missiles and nuclear technology may now be in doubt. Sudan, which already lost South Sudan to a pro-Israeli regime, is now facing the possibility that Darfur and North Kordofan could be peeled away from the country, leaving a powerless rump regime in Khartoum.
    In the U.S., the Zionist propagandists are spinning the fanciful tale that Iran was involved with "Al Qaeda," the fairy tale organization concocted by Mossad and the CIA, in carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
    One fact remains. Iran is now facing an undeclared war being waged by the West and Israel. It is a war of computer viruses like the Israeli-developed Stuxnet, propaganda, support for armed insurgents, covert assassinations and sabotage, and political pressure against Iran's friends around the world. This softening up of Iran is expected by the West to make a final military assault on the country a "cake walk."

    Wayne Madsen is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Wayne Madsen

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=28416
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #8
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Empire and Global Warfare in 2012: NATO as a Global Political and Military Player
    by Rick Rozoff
    Global Research, December 30, 2011


    Where does America’s imperial hubris lead to?

    John Robles

    Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list. Recorded on December 21, 2011.

    Can you give us the latest on NATO and your predictions for 2012, as far as the ABM system in Europe and NATO global expansion in general? I know it’s a big question.

    The past year, of course, has been a momentous one. I think it’s been a very troubling one in many regards. What we’ve seen this year in regard to NATO and what we’re likely to see an intensification of next year, 2012, is a follow-up on the Strategic Concept, as they call it, adopted at the Lisbon summit in November 2010, which is unveiling – and unleashing – NATO as an increasingly global political and military player. We saw this with the seven-month aerial campaign, air war, against Libya earlier this year where NATO flew an estimated 26,000 air missions against a small country with six million people, over 9,000 of which were combat sorties. We’re seeing that as a template. That’s pretty much how NATO officials and heads of state of major NATO countries have characterized it.

    We are likely to see more of that, most prominently – it can’t be missed – in one manner or another in relation to Syria, but with any number of other potential military interventions. Your listeners are probably aware of the fact that the Collective Security Treaty Organization met in Russia two days ago, on the 10th anniversary of the founding of the only security bloc within the Commonwealth of Independent States, that is amongst former Soviet states. And one of the statements – rather straightforward and candid – was a warning about military intervention in the internal affairs of countries beset by domestic problems. That’s clearly an allusion to the Libyan action by the major NATO powers but also in reference to the current crisis in Syria.

    On Wednesday a statement by the White House saying that the government of Bashar al-Assad “does not deserve to rule Syria” is an indication that far from being humbled by the recent symbolically important, I suppose, withdrawal of the final U.S. military forces from Iraq of late, that far from being humbled by the debacle in Iraq and the equally catastrophic experience in Afghanistan, the U.S. is still ordering heads of state to resign, as they did earlier this year in Ivory Coast and Libya and may tomorrow in Belarus, or Venezuela and any number of other countries. We still see the imperial hubris of the major Western countries, the U.S. in the first instance, in determining who is or is not fit to govern most every country in the world.

    What was the connection with Gbagbo? You mentioned Ivory Coast.

    Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama and other major US officials ordered Laurent Gbagbo to step down. They didn’t recognize the results of the runoff election last December in Ivory Coast. The irony is – it’s so transparent as to be undeniable – in the U.S. a comparable situation, a far worse situation, existed in 2000 where George W. Bush received half a million votes less than his opponent and through a decision made by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, Bush, the recipient of the fewer votes, was designated the elected president of the United States. Something comparable happened with the decision by the elections commission in Ivory Coast but the U.S., which has one set of rules for itself and another for the rest of the world, determined that the decision reached by the court in Ivory Coast was invalid whereas the one in 2000 in the United States was valid, because it was in the
    United States.

    I thought that maybe there was a NATO connection that I hadn’t heard anything about there in Ivory Coast.

    There wasn’t a NATO connection, but French military forces were instrumental in assaulting government buildings in Abidjan, the commercial capital of the country, and ultimately, directly in the capture of Gbagbo. NATO countries, if not collectively under the banner of NATO, were certainly instrumental there. I’ve just cited that as part of the pattern over the past year Washington has ordered in so many words heads of state to step down, including Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of Yemen, Assad in Syria, and Gbagbo in Ivory Coast and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. There are at least four heads of state that they told to step down this year.

    Can you tell our listeners a little bit about Kosovo and Serbia?

    Yes I can. I have friends in Kosovo and I have friends from Kosovo, ethnic Serbs and others. The situation is that you have besieged enclaves of the few remaining non-Albanian ethnic minorities in Kosovo. I’ve seen estimates as high as 250,000 ethnic Serbs who have fled the country in terror. Several thousands have been killed, of course, since NATO came in in June of 1999.

    I’ve seen comparable figures for Roma people, so-called Gypsies, including Ashkalis and Egyptians, as they are known in Kosovo. Other ethnic minority groups have suffered similarly. And to have, as I saw a few days ago a tape of the so-called “president” of Kosovo meeting with Hillary Clinton at the White House to sign an agreement on protecting the cultural heritage of Kosovo, when several hundred Orthodox monasteries, churches, cemeteries and so forth have been desecrated and destroyed is a degree of unspeakable – it’s not ignorance, Clinton knows pretty well this story. Her husband, after all, is the person responsible for starting a 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia which wrested Kosovo from Yugoslavia and Serbia. This is again the imperial arrogance I was speaking about earlier, that Washington arrogates to itself the exclusive prerogative, or at least in relation to its NATO allies and certain key non-NATO allies, to determine how national boundaries can and cannot be drawn, which political entities are to be recognized as legitimate countries, such as the NATO pseudo-state of Kosovo, but denying that same right to nations like Abkhazia or South Ossetia.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=28417





    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    The Threat of War Against Iran and Syria is Real

    by Shamus Cooke
    Global Research, December 31, 2011



    For those who think that the United States wouldn't possibly instigate another war in the Middle East, think again. Empowered by his "success" in the bombing of Libya and consequent assassination of Muammar Qaddafi, Obama is now seeking to use the exact same strategy against Syria, while using alarming military threats against Iran. In both cases the U.S. is creating the conditions for war in a region that is already boiling over from decades of U.S. backed dictators combined with past U.S. military aggression.
    In Syria, the Libya war formula is being implemented with precision: in the name of protecting "human rights,” the U.S. is enlisting the Arab League to open the gates for a U.S.-backed "coalition" of regional countries to implement a "no fly zone,” i.e. war.
    Numerous U.S. news outlets reported--without verification-- that protesters in Syria were "demanding a no fly zone" and an "Arab army" to invade and topple the Syrian government.
    The U.S. is attempting to channel the popular protests in Syria into "regime change,” with the end goal of having a future regime that will serve U.S. interests better than the present one. The "leaders" of the Syrian opposition are handpicked and very friendly with the United States. This non-representative leadership is now asking the United States for military intervention. The Daily Beast reports:
    "... the Obama administration is preparing options for aiding the Syrian opposition directly [militarily]. Two administration officials tell Foreign Policy that a small group of representatives from several [U.S.] agencies has convened to discuss extending humanitarian aid [military aid] to the Syrian rebels and appointing a special coordinator to work with them. They also discussed establishing a humanitarian [military] corridor along the Turkish border, but that would require establishing a no-fly zone..." (December 29, 2011).
    The above usage of the word "humanitarian" to describe military action is used unquestionably by the U.S. government and media alike, after having been media-tested in Libya. It is highly unlikely that working people of any Middle Eastern country would invite the U.S. Army in to "help" them, especially after the U.S. military destroyed Iraq and left the country on the verge of civil war while continuing to pummel Afghanistan, pretending this is a war it can win. Libya is still smoldering from the U.S. assistance.
    The lie of humanitarian intervention is best exposed when U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia are considered: On December 29th the Obama Administration agreed to send $30 billion worth of sophisticated weaponry to one of the most repressive regimes in human history. The U.S. media publishes anti- Syria "humanitarian" news and Saudi arm sales on the same page, on the same day, without a second thought as to the hypocrisy in plain sight.
    To shield the U.S. motives and U.S. weaponry used in a possible Syria attack, the Arab League will again be enlisted. What is the Arab League? Most of the Arab League consists of nations that have very close political/military ties to the U.S. and are utterly dependent on the U.S. for weaponry and political support. is not an exaggeration to call the Arab League diplomatic puppets of the U.S. The membership of the Arab League includes the brutal dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, United Arab Emigrates, Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Sudan, etc., nearly all exist purely because of U.S. military/police support.
    Syria has pointed out the hypocrisy of the Arab League's humanitarian "monitors,” headed by a Sudanese General long known for being an enemy of human rights. The Associated Press correctly noted that Syria's complaints about the Sudanese General:
    "...raises troubling questions about whether Arab League member states, with some of the world's poorest human rights records, were fit for the mission to monitor compliance with a plan to end to the crackdown on political opponents by security forces loyal to President Bashar Assad." (December 29, 2011).
    If the Arab League expels Syria from its membership, as it did Libya, the U.S./ Arab "coalition" will have been given the green light for a military "humanitarian" invasion. If an "Arab army" does invade Syria for "humanitarian" purposes, it be under the direction and assistance of the U.S. military, which will--as in Libya-- be the behind-the-scenes leader, coordinating actions while providing military intelligence for the invasion. All of the dropped bombs will be "made in the USA.”
    The Iranian situation is no better. The new economic sanctions that the Obama administration plans to implement equal an act of war against Iran, since they would have a crippling effect on Iran's economy. Sanctions are used in this case to provoke, and when Iran reacted by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz (a vital trade point), the U.S. military instantly responded. The spokesperson for the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, threatened Iran by saying: [the U.S. Navy] is always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation." This is a blatant threat of war. Obama's silence implies agreement.
    Many other high-ranking U.S. government officials have recently made highly provocative war comments against Iran in the media, focusing on the "near future" threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon. There is no concrete evidence that Iran is anywhere near having a nuclear weapon, just like no evidence existed proving that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The constant rhetoric against Iran having a nuclear weapon is dishonest hyperbole; even if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons it would have little motivation to use them, since Israel could easily obliterate Iran with its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
    Attacking Syria and/or Iran opens the door to a wider regional or even international war. Reuters reports:
    "Russia is sending a flotilla of warships to its naval base in Syria in a show of force which suggests Moscow is willing to defend its interests in the strife-torn country as international pressure mounts on President Bashar al-Assad's government...Russia, which has a naval maintenance base in Syria and whose weapons trade with Damascus is worth millions of dollars annually, joined China last month to veto a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Assad's government." (November 28, 2011).
    Russian military officials have stated that having a military presence in Syria is meant, in part, to act as a deterrent against foreign attacks. This is because Syria is an ally and trading partner of Russia. If Russia were to invade Saudi Arabia for "humanitarian" purposes, would not the United States jump to defend it?
    The international situation is on the verge of a larger explosion, with Russia and China viewing the U.S. actions in Libya-- and possibly Syria and Iran--as attacks on their border, threatening their own national security.
    The U.S. is assuming that Russia or China will not respond militarily, but they've been wrong before. When President Bush Jr. gave the green light to the President of Georgia--a U.S. puppet-- to attack South Ossetia, Russia surprised everyone by responding militarily and crushing Georgia's invasion. If an "Arab army" invades Syria and Russia again responds, the U.S. will no doubt become directly involved.
    The game of war is often played like poker, where one nation bluffs and hopes the other folds. Obama's reckless provocations have a limit that may soon be reached, at the expense of the Middle Eastern people and possibly the rest of us. If the U.S. becomes militarily involved with Syria and Iran, it is up to the working people of the U.S. to mobilize in massive numbers in the streets to prevent such an attack.
    Shamus Cooke is a social worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)

    References

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...pposition.html

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...6131187e6b7474

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AR0S820111128

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=28427
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •