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 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.