War With Iran Or World War III?

It seems that the Bush administration, and virtually the entire US political/military system, is now a runaway train, moving at full pace down a track of its own design and making. Whether its the use of unilateral sanctions, the labelling of the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organisation, mysterious Israeli air raids on Syrian soil, US missing nukes (the list goes on), it seems the US leadership has its twitchy trigger finger at the ready and is praying for the Iranians to make a wrong move (and, after some length of time no excuse is presented to them they'll simply create one).

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 it was seen as a localised war, ie. Gulf War II, the US vs. Iraq, nothing more and nothing less. So how come the impending clash with Iran is being touted as World War III? This suggests that the powerful and mighty in Washington are well aware that by taking on Iran they'll be taking on a whole lot more. If this is so, why do they remain so keen to continue down this route? Why is it that these people talk of the prospect of global warfare with so much enthusiasm and joy? Is it really war with one nation that they want or something far wider and more dangerous? If it really is a world conflict they desire, for what reason?

Bearing in mind the strong religious ties the Bush administration has and also bearing in mind the religious rights wish for global warfare in order to fulfil their 'prophecies', should the reigns of power not be taken off them before they take us over the brink? At a certain level I believe there is an opposition of sorts at work trying to at least thwart attempts at hitting Iran (eg. the military whistle-blowers who may have prevented some kind of nuclear false flag operation, timed to occur when the Israelis struck out at the mysterious facility in Syria) but more is needed. The media need to get more proactive along with the politicians. Brave individuals are trying valiantly to hold the wall but they can't do it all. Democracy has been taken away and, although the majority are blissfully unaware, has been replaced by a dictatorship. We live in dangerous times and the American people are sleepwalking into a disaster much like the citizens of Germany in the 1930's.

Irans Nuclear Programme is Peaceful says International Atomic Energy Agency

The mainstream media has failed to report the agreement reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iranian government in regards to the Iranian nuclear energy program. An understanding has been reached between the two. The IAEA has given Iran's nuclear program a clean bill of health.

Why is the U.S. media not reporting on this matter? Why do the U.S. and its Western allies continue to threaten Iran with punitive bombings for its alleged non-compliance, when everything indicates that Iran has a bona fide nuclear energy program and does not have the capabilities of developing nuclear weapons?

The following are highlights from the document:

Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.


Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.


Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

Emphasis added

The Director-General of the IAEA has also confirmed in an interview published by Profil, an Austrian magazine that it is highly unlikely that Iran would pursue the development of a nuclear weapons program.

The document is a slap in the face for the Bush Administration. In light of these developments, it is no surprise that the Washington is now seeking to justify military action on the grounds that Iran is allegedly behind the killings of American troops in Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. and its Coaltion partners, as confirmed by several reports, are in an "advanced state of readiness" to wage a military operation directed against Iran. What they now require is a new fabricated pretext which portrays Iran, in the eyes of public opinion, as a threat to world peace.

The Western media bears a heavy burden of responsibility in the current wave of disinformation regarding Iran.

The official report can be downloaded HERE (pdf format).

Bush Slams 'Foolhardy' China Over Trillion Dollar US Currency Threat

Reacting to rumours that the Chinese government may be considering using its huge currency reserves to push down the value of the dollar, President Bush says that the rival would be 'foolhardy' to do such a thing.

It has been said that China may sell off a trillion dollars in foreign reserves as retaliation against American pressure over currency issues. "That would be foolhardy of them to do that." Bush told Fox News.

"As long as there are no big upheavals in the American economy and there is no serious dispute between China and the United States, the Chinese government will not sell off US dollar assets in any major amounts," said a top Chinese economist.

Multi-Billion Dollar US-Saudi and Russia-Iran Arms Deals Announced

In what appears to be a return to the old days of the Cold War, two massive Middle Eastern arms deals have been announced, with Russia selling to Iran and the US to other regional powers including Saudi Arabia.

Russia is to sell 250 long-range Su-30 fighters and refuelling tankers to Iran in its biggest arms deal in 30 years, a deal which will transform the Iranian air force into a military arm rivalling that of nearby Israel.

The Americans, meanwhile, have struck a multi-billion dollar deal with Saudi Arabia to supply thousands of Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) units, a munitions upgrade which will transform existing free-fall bombs into guided smart bombs.

Washington’s consensus al-Qaeda deception

By Larry Chin

Online Journal Associate Editor

Jul 19, 2007, 00:40

The “war on terrorism” is a foreign policy weapon favored by an elite and ironclad Anglo-American consensus, supported equally by Washington’s political factions. The surge of "al-Qaeda" covert operations and "terrorism" propaganda over the past three weeks, and reports of “renewed al-Qaeda power," marks the beginning of intensified false flag deception.

Al-Qaeda: “stronger than ever” -- or not?

It is not clear if the new crescendo of “al-Qaeda” signals intent by the Bush-Cheney covert operations machine to inflict their long-planned "next 9/11" before relinquishing power in 2008, or if this noise is routine political maneuvering by rival Washington factions engaged in election-year posturing. Nevertheless, a most perfect of perfect storms is being whipped up, with major players on all sides regurgitating and reinforcing the same bombastic assertions.

The initial wave of US fear mongering was triggered by the latest National Intelligence Estimate (produced by Bush-Cheney intelligence) declaring that “al-Qaeda” has regrouped to "pre-9/11 levels". This was quickly followed by new "terror" tapes of “al-Qaeda” masterminds Osama bin Laden and il-Zawahiri, each demonstrating, according to Bush-Cheney, that “al-Qaeda is even more high-tech and sophisticated than ever imagined."

The initial “al-Qaeda stronger than ever” blast was then followed by rounds of equivocation and backpedaling. Reports from Washington reporters, such as Rowan Scarborough, quoted “unnamed counterterrorism officials” who say that al-Qaeda has rebuilt cells in the tribal areas of Pakistan (an old and familiar claim), but “is not at the same strength exhibited in Afghanistan before Sept.11” -- and taking issue with how the National Intelligence Estimate was initially spun.

Homeland Security “czar” Michael Chertoff declared that “al-Qaeda” was not at pre-9/11 strength, boasting about the Bush administration’s success killing or capturing two-thirds of “al-Qaeda” leaders, then adding that he has a “gut feeling” that “al-Qaeda” will strike the US again, perhaps this summer.

The most inconvenient truth

Neocons, neoliberals, and “antiwar progressives” continue to enthusiastically embrace and reinforce the myth of the “ever-more powerful, ever-more cunning outside ‘terrorist’ threat to America” -- and will continue to do so ad nauseum, as they have for nearly six years since 9/11. Meanwhile, the long-standing and enduring relationship between Islamic “terrorists," “al-Qaeda," Osama bin Laden, etc. and Anglo-American and US-allied intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, MI-6, Pakistani ISI, Mossad, etc.) and their ongoing use and manipulation of these "terrorist" groups on behalf of Anglo-Anerican geostrategy remains completely ignored, and the focus of ongoing cover-up, media silence and academic obfuscation.

Ignorant distortions about “terrorism” are now routine and deeply embedded fixations in news coverage, and in pop culture monstrosities such the television series 24, as well as the film The Mighty Heart, which the Daniel Pearl murder gloss-over starring the Council on Foreign Relation’s newest member, Angelina Jolie. Esquire magazine’s al-Qaeda:The Global Brand by Thomas Barnett is a perfect example of how the Washington consensus deception is swallowed without question, and reiterated compliantly.

There is no better example of Washington’s consensus than the bipartisan Capitol Hill complicity behind 9/11, including the still-unaddressed meetings between high-level Republicans and Democrats, and Pakistani ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad prior to, and on the morning of, 9/11, and the unanimous and enthusiastic support for the "war on terrorism" lie since that day.

Bush-Cheney’s supposed critics have complained about the administration’s “squandered opportunity” and Iraq blunders, but have never wavered in their support for the “war on terrorism." Slippery variations on the “war on terrorism” theme include (but are not limited to) the following:

• “The Bush administration has failed to fight the ‘real war on terrorism’ begun after 9/11.”
  
• “Mismanagement and blunders of the war in Iraq have created radical jihadist insurgencies that wish to destroy the United States.”
  
• “The Iraq mistake has distracted us from fighting the ‘real’ war on terrorism.”
  
• “We should declare war on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which harbor the real ‘terrorists’ who attacked us on 9/11.”
  
• “The Iraq distraction has prevented us from capturing Osama.”
  
• “The world was united after 9/11, but Bush squandered it all.”

There is obvious disillusion with the Bush administration, but the widespread call for a “change in strategy” does not include any letup of the “war on terrorism." In fact, the voices most stridently demanding “change” are cementing years of criminal lies under new layers of deception. They want to ramp up Bush’s false flag wars, not end them.

US presidential candidates feast on “al-Qaeda” propaganda meat

The latest “al-Qaeda” headlines have each of the 2008 US presidential candidates falling over each other to play the “tough on terrorism” card.

“Al-Qaeda” war politics blossomed during the Bill Clinton adminstration with the use of al-Qaeda/militant Islamic mercenaries in Kosovo and Bosnia, and what is arguably the true start of today’s “war on terror” -- the identification of Osama bin Laden as “enemy number one” (at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal) in 1998, followed by the bombing of Sudan. The cooperative role that the deeply corrupt Clinton faction played alongside the Bush “crime family," in virtually all of the major US government crimes from the 1980s to the present, can fill several libraries. It goes without saying that a Hillary Clinton presidency would continue the Bush-Cheney agenda, and return Anglo-American criminality to its 1990s glory.

What about the others? Contrary to his image as a “progressive," Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda is virtually identical to that of the Bush administration, including his approach to the “war on terrorism." Obama has promised a robust US military-intelligence presence in Iraq and the Middle East to “root out al-Qaeda." To defeat al-Qaeda, Obama will build a “twenty first century military and twenty first century alliances” in order to “stay on the offensive everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar," and “revamp intelligence agencies far beyond post-September 11 reforms." Another analysis of Obama’s aggressive war policy can be found here.

Obama promotes the false notion of "blowback." Like other members of Congress, Obama has access to classified material. He and others are complicit in hiding the fact of Anglo-American intelligence connectons behind both the “terrorism” and the “insurgencies."

The “anti-terror” platform of John Edwards is equally malodorous. It was Edwards who promised on national television, during the 2004 vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney, that he would “kill the terrorists." So would Joe Biden (one of the many who met with the ISI "money man" before 9/11), Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and other longtime Democratic Party fossils. (Two Democratic Party candidates who are more stridently critical of Bush-Cheney’s agenda, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are routinely shut out by the Democratic Party apparatus, and stand no chance of nomination.)

It goes without saying that the Republican candidates fully support Bush-Cheney’s geostrategy and war policies, from Mitt Romney to Sam Brownback (the lone critic of Bush policy, Ron Paul, stands no chance). Given the fact that these “loyal Bushies” have been instrumental in making the global slaughter possible, and covering up the rampant criminality led by the Bush administration, it is no surprise to find these candidates aggressively peddling the “terrorism” propaganda. Rudy Guiliani, whose active criminal role on 9/11 was exhaustively exposed in Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, is essentially an extension of Dick Cheney. Mitt Romney promises to “combat radical Islam” with a war agenda identical to Obama's (which is identical to Bush-Cheney’s). Romney’s provocative speech at the Herzliya Conference speaks for itself.

The bloodthirsty John McCain has routinely fronted for Bush-Cheney. There is no better crystallization of McCain’s depravity than his post-9/11 Wall Street Journal op-ed, "War is Hell. Now Let's Get On With It," in which McCain openly calls for “ruthless” murder. The piece is also a perfect presentation of Bush-Cheney’s lie.

What is clear is that the next US president will not only continue but also expand the “war on terrorism” and the “war against radical extremists." Both Republican and Democratic Party factions stand to gain from false flag terror and propaganda. Anglo-American geostrategy, and the expansion of the war and global resource conquest, would not be possible without them.

Al-Qaeda: perpetual covert operation and cover-up

As previously noted in “al-Qaeda:the eternal covert operation," “Islamic terrorism” is a Anglo-American geostrategy, and “al-Qaeda” is a military-intelligence asset and a leading brand of war propaganda.

Official “war on terrorism” disinformation is repeated ad nauseum, accepted as fact by the mass populace, and used as the justification for ever-expanding Anglo-American war and ever-deepening criminality, virtually no attention is paid to the Anglo-American support and management of “al-Qaeda” and other “terror” groups, or the criminally fabricated nature of modern “terrorism." Every major “terrorism” event in recent times has been a US or US-allied covert operation, followed by political manipulation and cover-up. No credible proof has been provided to prove any official assertion made about the true nature of “al-Qaeda," Osama bin Laden, 9/11, etc.

Whereas it is a documented fact that Washington’s support and management of a "Militant Islamic Network," including “al-Qaeda," has been continuous since the Carter administration. A recently declassified French intelligence report details the extent to which “al-Qaeda” and Osama bin Laden ran operations for the CIA. “Al-Qaeda” as well as al-Qaeda “foreign fighter hordes” propaganda is a key component of the Pentagon’s Iraq occupation and pacification program. Also see "Who is Osama bin Laden?" and "Al-Qaeda:the database".

Planned covert operations and false flag operations using “terrorists” in direct and indirect military-intelligence roles are of imperial design. Such operations (exemplified by 9/11), and their predictable propaganda results (“the war on terrorism”) are now routine events.

Even though the notion of false flag terror has more recently been supported by the likes of activist Cindy Sheehan, the vast majority of Americans remains in absolute denial and ignorance, or fully endorse violent “anti-terrorism” agendas.

The idea of “blowback," the notion that terrorist assets have turned on their sponsors, is embraced by many, but it is bogus: Western intelligence has not severed its ties to “terrorists," and, in fact, continues to selectively guide these groups. The true “root cause” of “Islamic terrorism” remains Anglo-American control and guidance of “terror."

As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky, the “al-Qaeda” deception is central to Anglo-American foreign policy, which rests squarely on the perpetual threat of a fabricated outside enemy, and fear of a "new 9/11". This deception provides the ongoing pretext used to justify endless warfare and endless criminality.

“Al-Qaeda” is indeed a “global brand”: the pre-eminent brand of Anglo-American covert operation and propaganda apparatus, created, funded, guided and manipulated by leading government powers and intelligence agencies.

Without an end to the “terrorism” lie, there can be no end to the “war on terrorism."

Copyright © Online Journal

Bush Manual of Dissenter Countermeasures Discovered During Lawsuit

The contents of a book entitled The Presidential Advance Manual has surfaced during the lawsuit of four people who were removed from a public event attended by George Bush because of dissenting messages on a car bumper sticker and two t-shirts.

The manual dictates that 'rally squads' made up of Bush volunteers should be employed to drown out protesters and prevent them from being seen on TV cameras. Other suggestions include preventing "negative publicity" at events which Bush attends.

It is claimed the measures are not aimed at disrupters but at citizens who are exercising their democratic right to disagree with presidential policies. The lawsuit is being filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the four claimants.

Iran Arrests Secret Squirrels for Suspected Spying

The official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reports that 14 squirrels, equipped with eavesdropping devices, have been detained by police in Iran. Foreign intelligence agencies have been blamed for the rodent raiders.

The bushy-tailed agents were taken into custody 2 weeks ago but few details have emerged about the incident. "I have heard about it, but I do not have precise information," said the national police chief.

Oil is a Key Motive Behind Iraq Occupation, Australia Admits

Australia has admitted for the first time what many have long suspected - that securing oil resources is a key motive behind deploying troops in Iraq. "Resource security" is a priority, says Defence Minister Brendan Nelson.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world." he said. Previously the government had denied such reasons for the 2003 coalition invasion.

Critics have questioned the motives behind Prime Minister John Howards decision to join the campaign to oust Saddam and whether the reasons given for participation in the war were excuses rather than genuine concerns.

Could We Be On The Eve Of Another 9/11?

With US forces poised to attack Iran, the talk is of a Good Friday (April 6th) assault involving massive air power and quite possibly nuclear weapons. Israel is hovering in the wings and would willingly step up to volunteer its services, having already publicly stated that it considers Iran a threat to its national security.

The US has had an assault plan in place for over a year now and has envisaged the concept of an attack for even longer, but the leadership is aware that their public won't go along with their plan just like that. A massive terrorist attack, on the other hand, would almost certainly turn them and support for retaliation on a colossal scale would then be widespread.

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Just this week Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson warned of the dangers of a nuclear terror attack on the US (source article), which some feel is simply a way of lending plausibility to such an event. The US has already stated that should such an attack occur it would attack Iran whether the 'axis of evil' state was implicated or not.

General Tommy Franks said back in 2003 that this would lead to the US introducing martial law within its borders. He talked of "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."

It seems that there would be a domino effect immediately following any 'attack' which would change the US, and the rest of the world, dramatically. You may see this as just another 'conspiracy' theory, but the stakes are far too high to risk complacency. Iran is totally foolish in the game that it is playing with the 15 UK sailors, but isn't about to harm them or nuke the US mainland. There is no threat, just like there was none 4 years ago when Iraq was invaded. This will be another contrived war and it will be one that isn't turned on and then off again as the US would wish. Russia and China won't stand by and idly watch. Nuclear powers Pakistan and India will surely be dragged into the affair. And what of the estimated 450,000 Iranian troops and the missiles capable of reaching Europe? I'm sure that they'll have a part to play in reply. Israel will have its hands full with Hezbollah (remember them from last year?).

This is World War III we are talking about. Next week may well be the last week of peace that we'll experience for a very, very long time.

The Iran Crisis: Defending The Government In The Face Of Hypocracy And Ignorance

Speaking as an ex- serviceman who served in the Persian Gulf while in the Royal Navy, it really knots my stomach to see pussies such as the chattering suits over at The Business, idiots who seem to be unaware of the saying 'pride comes before a fall', declare how the 15 service personnel arrested by Iranian Revolutionary Guards should have resisted arrest by opening fire on their would-be captors:

"British – not American – forces were probably targeted by the Iranians because American rules of engagement, rightly, place an obligation on their military to defend themselves while Britain’s politically-correct, European-style rules are designed to avoid escalation."

What total bullshit. What do these 'commentators think they know about 'rules of engagement'? How do they think they'd fair at fighting off half a dozen patrol boats armed with rocket launchers and sub-machine guns, using just side-arms and SA-80 assault rifles? Having the wrong opinion is sometimes worse than having no opinion at all. If these idiots had their way we'd be in a full-blown war now - easy to encourage if you're not the ones fighting it.

Almost as dumb is the shameless Daily Mail. It expresses similar testosterone sentiments but for reasons it apparently doesn't understand itself:

"Of course, Britain should respond in the most vigorous way possible. Sanctions against Iran should be beefed up and more support from the EU and UN enlisted.

But the bitter fact remains, as Stephen Glover points out on this page, that the Iranians know they will get away with it because there is little that Britain can effectively do."

So we should respond vigorously even though we cannot effectively do anything. Why? Just to make us feel a little better by stepping out from behind the US and shaking our fist? Is that how sad we have become?

The diplomatic approach, while not particularly macho and not necessarily justified, is the only way at this time. Yes the Iranian leadership are playing games and yes we have every justification at being angry, but war or a hostage situation is not what we need. We need to punch smart and know our limits. Yes, the US would have simply attacked Iran over this had the personnel been American, but look at the mess they've already made in Iraq. We need to get our people home and then work to diffuse the situation in the Middle East. If any of you want war, please sign up for the Army and get your sorry asses out to Iraq. This is not a game, it is real. Nobody wins in the next war.

US Closing In As H-Hour For War Approaches

As tensions mount over the fate of the 15 UK marines and navy personnel held by Iran, an increasingly impatient US conducts provocative war games 'aimed at blocking smuggling of nuclear weapons' (according to Bush mouthpiece Fox News) and leans on its British allies to take events to the next level. Prime Minister Blair obliges, warning of a 'different phase' if the situation isn't resolved soon. The Americans accuse the Brits of being too soft and indecisive with their reaction to the detention of its people, although what the UK can do, apart from complain to the UN, has yet to be explained.

What needs to be remembered is that this development is rooted in an argument over who was overstepping a long-disputed border (remember that? OK, it was nearly a week ago....). Either side could be right or wrong and until that is established, or until both sides agree to disagree and settle up, no move should be made by anyone. We are in a mindset where if Iran is found to be in the wrong concerning just about anything, thats good enough to send in the cruise missiles and stealth bombers. It is not. The UN resolution is not a enough; the US accusations of Iranian meddling in Iraq is not enough; the arrest and detention of the 15 British service personnel isn't either. As with Iraq, there is no immediate threat and no legitimate reason.

The PNAC followers may want to stick to the timeline and gameplan decided upon when this new foreign policy fiasco was first introduced early in the Bush presidency, but in case they haven't noticed, the plan is not working. Its been a disaster and trying to distract from one disaster by creating another isn't the answer.

The UK/Iran Stand-Off - False Flag, Iranian Aggression Or Simple Dispute?

The war drums have been beating slowly but steadily ever since the second US carrier task force arrived in the Gulf earlier in the year. The American force required for a massive air attack on Iran appear to be in place. Keeping them there, on a high state of readiness, can only be sustained for a short period of time, so an attack must happen soon. The arguments for a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian (yet to be developed) nuclear threat are being made but after the lies and deceptions of Iraq WMD, terrorist sponsorship, etc. the Bush administration needs something more convincing.

The recent capture of 15 British Navy personnel somewhere along the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a stretch of water straddling a portion of the much-disputed border between Iraq and Iran, couldn't have come at a better time for the US. Border skirmishes are nothing new and up until now incidents have gone largely unreported by the mainstream media. But an incident such as this, whether contrived or otherwise, is different simply because of the timing.

It couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Hot on the heels of a modest but widely-backed UN resolution, some countries usually allied to Iran have distanced themselves, publicly at least. So why risk a diplomatic incident with Americas biggest ally, the UK, right now? Surely to do such a thing makes you at least a greater international pariah than before, and at worst creates an ideal opportunity for the US to encourage a chain of events that eventually justify all-out military action.

Many have been suggesting that some kind of false-flag incident is imminent and maybe this is it, or the start of several, but whether this is it or not is so far unclear. Its certainly not in Irans interest to capture the British personnel and threaten to put them on trial for spying unless they're damn sure that they have their facts right. Unlawful abduction would bring memories of the 1979 hostage crisis flooding back to the world community and even the most ardent supporter would find it difficult to defend the Tehran government. The longer this crisis continues the worse it'll get for Iran. We all know (except the Bush administration, it seems) that war with Iran would result in a far worse situation than what we are witnessing currently in Iraq. My guess is that in two months time much of Iran won't exist. I hope I'm wrong.

Fox News Filters The Truth Yet Again

The US carried out two seperate airstrikes yesterday on two different locations in Iraq. One was in Arab Jabour, a mostly Sunni Muslim suburb south of Baghdad, and resulted in the deaths of 8 suspected terrorists. The other occured at a similar time yesterday evening, in Mosul, and led to the deaths of 8 Kurdish troops and wounding six more. The Kurds were part of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a supporter of the U.S. in Iraq and the attack was a blue-on-blue incident (ie. friendly fire).

The news of both attacks were released to the media at the same time this morning and early reports by news outlets covered both incidents - except for good old reliable Fox News. They made the effort to mention that during the Arab Jabour raid 'no U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians were injured' and that 'Iraqi soldiers did not take part in the clashes' - almost makes you feel that the war in Iraq is being won, doesn't it? Thanks Fox for being so fair and balanced. 'We Report, You Decide'? No comment.

Why The Bush Approval Ratings Will Fall No Further

President Bush is riding low at the moment, with approval ratings at just 32% - just 26% for how he is handling Iraq - and apparently he is still in a downward spin. You'd assume that he still has some way to go before these ratings bottom out, in which case you might be suprised to find that these figures are unlikely to sink much further. Why? Because roughly 30% of the American people will approve of him no matter what. Nixon bottomed out at 28%, even during Watergate, and why? Because approximately 30% of Americans can be fooled all the time; 30% are blind to reality and hold on tighter to their beliefs the worse things get. So if you're waiting for George Bush's rating to continue going down in the hope that the extra overwhelming public opinion will lead to impeachment or resignation, forget it. The current 70% or so is the maximum level of dissatisfaction that we are likely to see, so those citizens better get a lot louder or smarter if they want to bring about change, cos they ain't getting any bigger.

The Truth Behind The Iraq Invasion And A Possible US Conflict With Iran

I originally wrote the following in January 2006 and have decided to resubmit it, with minimal alterations, because of its increasing relevance to the current situation in the US/Middle East:

It is now openly obvious why the US (and its 'coalition of the willing') invaded Iraq (without UN backing) in 2003 under the banner ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. It wasn't for the reasons the Bush administration maintained at the time (suspected WMD, a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, etc. etc.) but to do with the petrodollar. Many people suspected that oil was the underlying reason but few were aware of the more important need to maintain the 'petrodollar recycling' system.

Petrodollar recycling was introduced by the US in the early 70's, when Middle Eastern countries were beginning to produce oil of their own under the OPEC group of nations. Previously, most of the worlds oil was supplied by the US and all trading in this market was carried out using US dollars. When OPEC came into competition with the US oil giants, the Americans struck a deal with their Middle Eastern counterparts in which they would supply Saudi Arabia, etc. with arms as long as OPEC traded their oil in dollars. This meant that if a country wanted oil, for example Japan, they had to sell to the US their home-produced products (Toyota cars for example) in order to raise the necessary dollars to buy their oil from an OPEC country. These dollars were then invested back into the US by, for example, Saudi Arabia and this left the US in a great position. As long as they could print enough dollars to meet demand they would continue to dominate the worlds oil markets and would (and did) make a fortune doing so. This is what ultimately has made the US into the worlds only superpower, with the ability to afford the necessary military might to match.

Thirty years later, at the turn of the millenium, this cosy arrangement came under threat. Saddam Hussein announced his intention to begin trading oil in the other world currency - Euros - and began doing so before the US invasion in 2003. This gave the US serious concerns. With a massive dept of trillions of dollars (made worse by the habit of the average US citizen to spend far more than they saved, using credit to do so) the US could not afford to stand by and watch the petrodollar recycling system be undermined. The risk to the country's status as sole superpower was massive and with the debt the prospect of US economic collapse was very much a reality.

When elected into office, George Bush had as priority #1 to sort out this petrodollar threat by gaining control of Iraq and in 2003 he invaded. One of the first post-war actions was to revert the country's oil trading currency back to the US dollar, even though this meant that approximately 13% of Iraqs trading value was instantly lost (because the Euro was worth more than the dollar at the time). The invasion was also to serve as an example to neighbouring oil producers not to go down the same 'petroeuro' route.

Unfortunately, Iran has plans to begin trading its oil in Euros and Saudi Arabia is giving serious consideration to the idea. Should this happen the US is likely to economically implode, with its massive military very quickly becoming an unaffordable asset. America would become little more than just another country and its global influence would be consigned to the history books, something that is regarded as unthinkable by the corporate elite.

So the US looks increasingly likely to carry out an attack on Iran, probably involving tactical 'battlefield' nuclear weapons (in an attempt to destroy underground installations there). It is not because the Iranians are close to producing their own nuclear arsenal (the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” (see source) but rather to keep the petrodollar on track.

Wargame simulations carried out by the US resulted in the following conclusion being reached by Sam Gardiner, the retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades: “After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.” The problem is, as was highlighted in the Iraq invasion and post-war years, that the neo-cons in the Bush administration are prone to acting illogically and against advice provided by people who know far better than themselves. Internationally-respected reporter Seymour Hearsh wrote the following in The New Yorker one year ago:

In my interviews [with former high-level intelligence officials], I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’ the former [CIA] intelligence official told me. But the [Bush administration officials] say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned – not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there."

However, a disturbing article by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi who, in an article entitled “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,”, said:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Should the US decide to carry out such an attack on Iran, China would undoubtedly become involved, since its massive economic expansion is heavily reliant on oil from the region. The US is leading us down a road to potential global conflict in order to protect its dominance in the world oil markets and is seemingly likely to bring about the pre-conditions to justify an attack regardless of the consequences. Hopefully there will be no 'coalition of the willing' giving Bush and Cheney some kind of international credibility and this may help to deter them from following their plans through, but we're surely in for a bumpy year, one in which the spectre of the US administration and its shadowy backers showing its true colours is quite horrifying.

How the US war with Iran will play out

It seems so obvious, particularly since the Iraq 'thing', how the US (with help from the UK) plan to build up to war with Iran. It appears that they are employing the same method as with the pre-Iraq war :

"A report, put together by Campaign Iran and published at the end of 2006, revealed that Daily Telegraph's political editor Con Coughlin, the man who 'broke the story' of Iraq’s 45 minute WMD capacity, was behind 16 articles containing unsubstantiated allegations against Iran over the past 12 months. The Press Complaints Commission has launched its third investigation into Coughlin in as many months after a number of high level complaints about his latest article on Iran. The investigation is looking at an article by Coughlin on 24 January relying on an unnamed "European defence official" alleging that North Korea is helping Iran prepare a nuclear weapons test."

(source: UK Indymedia)

So convinced am I of the certainty of this that I predict the following train of events:

1. the US struggles to bring the Iraq situation under control and the Iraqi government continues to fail to meet the benchmarks set by the US.

2. these failings, coupled with the 'threat of nuclear weapons' scenario, causes an increase in tensions between the US and Iran.

3. a specific incident, maybe a 'terrorist' attack on US soil or something equally horrific, provides the pretext needed for a first strike by the US against Iran.

4. the war, far from being a short-sharp, shock-&-awe experience, drags out and draws in neighbouring countries (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) into a bigger, uncontrollable and unpredictable confrontation.

5. World War III rages on relentlessly for several decades, with every nation in Europe, the Middle East and Asia being directly involved at some point.

And all this to save the petrodollar from collapsing, sending the already-bankrupt US economy into free-fall.

Hey, Bush, here's that holy crusade you wanted! You better hope that there IS a second comming and your ass gets raptured good and early, since there will be plenty of people wanting to see you hang as a war criminal after all this.......

CIA Director Quietly Buys Nuclear Attack Insurance

From The Onion:

BETHESDA, MD—According to sources at the Allstate Insurance Company, CIA Director Michael Hayden purchased nuclear-attack insurance Wednesday, paying a $100,000 monthly premium for his homes in suburban Washington, Pittsburgh, and near Cheyenne Mountain, CO. "It's a typical nuclear policy that protects the insured from damages caused by fallout—pretty straightforward, though at that monthly rate, I don't usually sell too many of them," said Bethesda, MD–based Allstate agent Gary Rutter, adding that Hayden paid for the first premium with a certified bank check to guarantee that the policy would take effect no later than next Monday. "After he purchased the insurance, he asked again if everything was set for Monday. I assured him it was, and then he left." Insurance agents throughout the D.C. area reported selling 35 such policies in the last week, all to high-ranking government officials.