by Detain This - August 1, 2007It doesn't take a genius historian to see the signs for what they are: The zioneocons in the U.S. and Israel, along with their willing partners in global crime, are preparing a multi-front attack, culminating in the signature neocon regime-change and nuclear proliferation of their own in Iran. It's only a matter of when, and the signs tell us it will be soon.
It's been several years in the making [1][2], and there have been pitfalls along the way, but the neocons appear determined as ever to achieve their ultimate goal of completely pimping out the neighborhood, come what may. King George II will soon be on his way out, and there's next-to-no chance of the neoconnivers holding on to the reigns of power in '09, so it's now or never: the last hoorah for the hell-bent hoodlums of D.C. and Tel Aviv. They must secure those oil fields, get those lost profits back into the pockets of U.S. corporations, and set up a lapdog government in Tehran — one which the next wave of neocons won't have to work so hard to falsely demonize in order to overthrow.
Many signs of an imminent neocon attack on Iran have surfaced over the past few years — the most obvious of which being the numerous figureheads within, or close to, the U.S. and Israeli governments who have been calling for preemptive attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and other strategic targets.
For the longest time, it's been the usual suspects: Binyamin Netanyahu, Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Joshua Muravchik, Bill Kristol, Eliot Cohen, and a few of the less camera-shy neocons of PNAC, AEI, and the like. Over the last few weeks, however, the trumpets have been especially loud, bald-faced, and frequent, with the addition of Joe Lieberman matter-of-factly suggesting the need for attacks on Iran (based on the unsubstantiated accusations of Gen Bergner), and Congressional also-ran nutjob Rick Santorum, with his premonition of a major terror attack on U.S. soil — one which, according to Nostradumbass himself, will reverse the anti-war sentiment in the U.S. and garner support for an all-out regional war. (And rest assured that when neocon nutjobs talk about potential terror attacks, they actually mean probable, neocon-sponsored false flags meant to spark an otherwise planned, preemptive attack against a resource-rich, second or third-world nation.)
Naturally, Sanitorium was mindful enough to throw the "necessity of confronting Iran" into the mix. After all, you can't pimp out the neighborhood without coupling "rogue states" with the typical spiel on the looming danger of a terrorist attacks on home soil. Besides, it's exactly what the PNAC playbook calls for, and guess what: it's worked so far. [3]
Consider, too, the recent monetary supplication (blackmail, really) of Iranian Jews by their counterparts in Israel to emigrate to Israel immediately if not sooner. [4] Of course the proud Persians said no to the insulting offer, as they normally do. But this time, the appeal came suspiciously at the same time as another Orwellian "security concern" in the form of a State Department "warning" to U.S. citizens in the IOPTs and surrounding areas:
"The United States issued a fresh travel warning for Israel and the Palestinian territories on Friday . . . 'This recommendation applies to all Americans, including journalists and aid workers. . . . Israeli authorities are concerned about the continuing threat of suicide bombings,' it said. 'The U.S. government has received information indicating that American interests could be the focus of terrorist attacks.'" [5]
(It appears as though Chertoff's "gut feeling" has spawned tremors that have spread all the way to the Holy Land.)
As usual, no reason is given for the hypothetical threat of suicide attacks — just that they are likely to happen because they said so, and you'd better get the hell outta Dodge, or stay at your own risk. Nice, huh?
The warning does, however, cite "considerable violence in the Gaza Strip in recent months," but if that's really the cause for concern, then why issue the warning months after the violence broke out and weeks after the worst of it ended? And in singling out journalists and aid workers, aren't they really saying, "We don't want you to see and record the crimes against humanity about to be committed by the IDF"?
With the U.S. and Israeli record of brutality against journalists and aid workers — and with the zionist regime's history of warning their victims of terror before atrocities committed — I'd say yes.
But if that isn't especially noteworthy as a harbinger of neocon-executed mass destruction to come, then consider the fact that a similar warning was issued approximately a month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq officially began.
In that warning, also issued by the State Department, U.S. citizens and "nonessential U.S. diplomats and family members" were urged to leave Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. From the February, 2003, AP report:
"Private U.S. citizens also were advised to leave those countries, and Americans were cautioned not to travel to Israel. . . . U.S. citizens in Iraq were urged to leave. . . . 'This decision results from an overall assessment of the security situation in the region, a rise in anti-American sentiment and the potential for violence and terrorist action against American targets, especially as the international community continues to focus on the issue of Iraqi disarmament,' Lou Fintor, a department spokesman, said." [6]
So, we have basically the same warning with the same reasons cited, and at a time when everyone and their cow feels that an attack on Iran — like the one against Iraq in '03 — is likely. But is it enough to bet the farm on? Does it prove that an attack against Iran is a certainty? Perhaps not, but before we decide, we should also consider:
• The recent, nearly unanimous vote in Congress [7] to condemn Ahmadinejad for the rumor of the century [8], wherein neozionazi propagandists have used their control over the media to convince the lemming world that he's been calling for a genocide in Israel. Similar condemnations, in addition to UN measures, were passed against Saddam back in '02 as part of the build-up to, and justification for, the currently ongoing, AIPAC-lobbied, US-exacted genocide in Iraq.
• The fact that over the past several years, neocon "think-tanks" and other elements within the U.S. government have been coordinating efforts with Iranian "opposition groups" (some of which are U.S.-designated terror organizations, like MeK) to manufacture consent among Americans and Iranians for "democratic change" (unlawful regime-change) inside Iran.
• The use of proxy militias in Northern Iraq and Iran by U.S. government elements to sow chaos and instability in those strategic provinces which, in the event of a major offensive, would be key to the success of said regime-change efforts and ensuing demographic struggles. Those same militias are responsible for countless acts of violence within Iran and Iraq — attacks which are so conveniently blamed on Iran, "Al-Qaeda," and "insurgents".
• The fascistic propaganda campaign, or as the zioneocon Goebbelians would refer to it, "the battle over hearts and minds," whereby "viewers and listeners of US-supported media in the Middle East are being exposed to a tougher ideological line that endorses the hallmarks of the neo-conservative agenda - regime change and interventionist policies in the region." [9] (So basically, we have three versions of Fox Noise Channel blasting neocon nonsense over the airwaves throughout the Middle East. Lovely.)
• The fact that back in March, Congress, in true AIPAC-lapdog form, stripped from a spending bill the requirement for President Bush to seek Congressional approval before attacking Iran.
• The public proclamations by several hard-line Israeli figures, such as this one, by Brigadier General Oded Tira:
"We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. . . . The Americans must act. Yet if they don't, we'll do it ourselves, because there are no free rides and our existence isn't guaranteed." [10]
He's not a paranoid-schizophrenic zionazi from hell. No. Not at all. He's just looking to eliminate the existential threat of a nuke-less third-world country against his measly, 200+ nuke-owning, superpower military-state. That's all.
Conclusion
Like a litmus test for the final act, the "contingency plans" have been in their primary phases for quite awhile now, with the Elliot Abrams-coordinated Fatah insurrection, the General Dayton-Welch Club reign of terror upon the refugee camps in N. Lebanon, and the covert ops treachery going down in Iraq and Iran, involving Iranian and Pakistani terrorist groups. But when the funk really hits the fan, we'll know it for sure, and when it happens, it will be a coordinated effort on several fronts.
Never mind the fact that "not only is the regime-change policy against the United Nations' Charter and all the existing international treaties, but also in clear violation of the existing legal obligations of the U.S. toward Iran. In particular, attempts for regime change in Iran would be in gross violation of the Algiers Accord, signed by the U.S. and Iran in 1980, that ended the hostage crisis. Point I, paragraph 1 of the Accord stated that:
'Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs - The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs.'" [11]
Never mind that there is no damning evidence linking Iran to instability and the death of U.S. and British personnel in Iraq. [12]
Never mind the IAEA reports denying the charges that Iran is unlawfully blocking nuclear inspections. [13]
Never mind that experts and sane-minded people everywhere are warning that military action against Iran will backfire and could have "disastrous and far-reaching political and economic consequences." [14][15]
Indeed, only "neocons" and others who profit off such mass-scale death and chaos will benefit from such an ill-advised venture; everyone else will suffer and die. But as we've witnessed over the past few years, no plan of conquest is too unconstitutional, too dangerous, too internationally illegal, or too sacrificing of U.S. lives and treasure to undertake for the sake of zioneocon empire.
Of course anyone who cares to be honest with themselves and the world would admit that Iran, Hizballah, Hamas, and Syria are no threat to the U.S. -- and Israel's existence has not been seriously threatened since at least '73, and even then, the U.S. neocons of that era quickly bailed them out, as they surely would today. And that doesn't even account for Israel's hundreds of nukes said to be already aimed at every Middle East nation, Russia and China (and possibly, the U.S.).
Nevertheless, I believe an attack on Iran will happen soon, because we have some pretty sadistic sonsabitches running the controls of this republic-turned-empire, and they (the PNAC Pack) have been planning to take out the leadership in Iraq and Iran and take over their countries' resources ever since Clinton was in office. The Iraq part has been accomplished (albeit with considerable fallout); all the pieces are in place to finish the Iran part; and the dissenting sentiment of an overwhelming majority of Americans and the world hasn't stopped them yet, so why should they all the sudden have cold feet?
Therefore, are the neocons about to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran? From the writing on the wall, yes. I hope I'm wrong, but unlike that Israeli Finkmeister of Fatherland Security, mine is more than just a "gut feeling".
Notes:
[1] Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane: "The Build Up To Iran Timeline" rawstory.com
[2] Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane: "Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push" rawstory.com
[3] Ryan Dawson: "911, Iraq, PNAC, All roads lead to Israel" rys2sense.com
[4] Robert Tait: "Iran's Jews spurn cash lure to emigrate to Israel" guardian.co.uk
[5] Reuters News: "U.S. warns on travel to Israel, Palestinian areas" reuters.com[6] AP News: "Americans told to leave the Mideast" deseretnews.com via findarticles.com
[7] Justin Raimondo: "The End of Dissent?" antiwar.com
[8] Arash Norouzi: "'Wiped off the Map' – Rumor of the Century" mohammadmossadegh.com
[9] Khody Akhavi: "Neo-cons take spin to US-backed airwaves" atimes.com
[10] Oded Tira: "What to do with Iran?" ynetnews.com
[11] Professor Muhammad Sahimi: "Traitors, Charlatans, or Patriots? Meet Iranian Ahmad Chalabis, Ayad Allawis, Curveballs, and the Separatists" payvand.com
[12] James Blitz, Daniel Dombey, and Philip Stephens: "Interview transcript: David Miliband" ft.com
[13] Reuters News: "UN watchdog denies Iran blocked nuke visit" abc.net.au
[14] Anne Penketh: "Military action against Iran would backfire on Israel, report warns" news.independent.co.uk
[15] Jon Basil Utley: "12 Consequences of Attacking Iran" antiwar.com
No comments:
Post a Comment