The coming war against Iran - Part 7
Recipe for Disaster
Door Daan de Wit
This is the synopsis of parts one through six of this series, supplemented with new unabbreviated information. Links have been added only to the sources of new information. The Dutch in the original article has been translated into English by Ben Kearney. The four following tried and true ingredients from Grandma's Cookbook of Explosive War Tactics are a recipe for disaster: a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran, possibly in the spring of 2006. The four ingredients are:
Mix these ingredients together with a recent revolutionary change in policy that makes it possible to launch a preemptive nuclear strike, and your recipe for disaster is ready. With this recipe, the Bush administration has begun preparing an explosive meal that they are getting ready to serve us, perhaps in spring of 2006. 1. A false flag operation intended to start a war, like Operation Cyanide A false flag operation means that you execute a strike against your own people and then assign blame to the enemy. The result is that you appear to be highly justified when you in turn attack your enemy. An example of this is Operation Cyanide, an operation that was devised because of the U.S. desire to become involved in Israel's battle against Egypt in 1967. The U.S. sacrificed a Navy vessel that ostensibly was attacked by Egypt. In reality the ship was deliberately attacked by unmarked Israeli fighters, torpedoed by Israeli ships and shelled with napalm. Contrary to all expectations, a portion of the crew survived the attack, and the American airplane that was already on its way to Egypt to avenge the attack with a nuclear bomb was called back. Given the many common interests of the U.S. and Israel it is not unlikely that the blueprint for this operation will be pulled off the shelf to organize a warwith Iran. 2. A false flag operation wrapped in a war game, like 9/11 and 7/7
Author Webster Tarpley feels that the false flag operation that will precede an attack on Iran will probably be a consequence of a war game or an anti-terrorism exercise. It starts with a war game/exercise - complete with the deployment of personnel and equipment (thus not a virtual exercise) - which resembles the eventual attack. Thus it is a war game that during the game suddenly and without notice becomes reality and goes 'live'. The most famous examples of this kind of exercise that goes live all at once are the war games held on September 11th, 2001 and the exercises held in London on 7/7.
The rationale behind making a war game the occasion for a false flag operation is that it can be organized out in the open within the confines of a secret operation (after all, it is only an exercise that is being planned), and at the moment that the exercise goes live, all defenses are down.
Vice-President Cheney has already directed the division of the military that plans wars to develop a plan for a large-scale air attack in which nuclear weapons are deployed against Iran as retribution for a second September 11th. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld continually urges the members of his staff to take a second September 11th into account. How to prevent this By charting the progress of the war games and anti-terror exercises, and by monitoring them closely, it becomes much more difficult for them to go live. Author Webster Tarpley is one of the people who has taken it upon himself to do this by creating a network of people who provide him with information. Tarpley is asking the readers of DeepJournal to participate in this network by collecting specific information about exercises carried out by NATO and reporting them to DeepJournal, so that it can be compiled and sent on to Tarpley. 3. A false flag operation designed to divide and conquer, such as the one planned by the SAS agents in Basra
In September of last year, two British SAS agents dressed as Arabs - complete with black wigs - were caught sitting in a car full of explosives in Basra and then arrested. These men, along with the secrets they possessed, were of such great importance that they were freed in a spectacular military operation in which even tanks were called in. The SAS agents were most likely setting up a false flag operation with the ultimate objective of contributing to the division of the country and the region. Thus it is the ancient strategy of divide and conquer, the creation of a patchwork quilt of smaller states. It is an old Anglo-Saxon desire - Lawrence of Arabia talked about it. If Iran is conquered alongside Iraq and disintegrates into hostile factions, the West will reign supreme.
4. Diplomatic and military preparations for the war, as with Iraq Diplomatic preparations and a military build-up for a war with Iran are already in full gear. The best example of diplomatic groundwork is the endorsement by among other countries France, Germany and The Netherlands of the treaty of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). This is an indictment against Iran and could be used at a later point as a way to punish the Iranians. Another example (considered 'the strongest evidence') is a stolen Iranian laptop full of computerized simulations and other information about Iran's sinister nuclear plans. The story started to lose traction when news of the laptop was received with skepticism, but ultimately fell apart when former IAEA weapons inspector David Albright discovered that the word 'nuclear' did not once appear in the text, written in Farsi. Was the laptop part of some form of psychological warfare? Another such example of diplomatic preparation is a PowerPoint presentation from the Pentagon entitled "A History of Concealment and Deception". The title refers not to the war tactics of the U.S., but to the alleged nuclear ambitions of Iran. A government official involved in the briefing said that the intelligence community had nothing to do with the presentation, and probably would have disavowed some of it, 'because it draws conclusions that aren't strictly supported by the facts'. Mix these four ingredients together with a recent revolutionary change in policy….
Since September 11th the U.S. has abandoned the policy of deploying nuclear weapons strictly for defensive purposes. Writing about this historic decision by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Washington Post sums it up: 'The global strike plan is offensive and is triggered by the perception of an imminent threat. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02. This plan includes a nuclear option - a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried bunkers.'
DeepJournal
Sign up for the free mailing list. |
9 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4
‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy
8 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - 3
Syria and Iran are like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard
7 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2
On the interests of the parties involved in the Syrian conflict and the role of the media
6 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1
Who is behind the chemical weapons attack in Syria?
1 April 2013
Albert Spits: Creëer je eigen financiële veiligheid
Beluister het interview
|