The coming war against Iran - Part 7

2 January 2006 |

mail this article |

print |

This article is part of the series: The coming war against Iran
[ 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 ]

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:

A false flag operation intended to start a war, like Operation Cyanide
A false flag operation wrapped in a war game, like 9/11 and 7/7
A false flag operation designed to divide and conquer, such as the one planned by the SAS agents in Basra
Diplomatic and military preparations for the war, as with Iraq

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'.
Military preparations are also being made. Premier Sharon of Israel says that his country is making military preparations and recently let it be known that he has alerted his army that it must be ready to attack Iran in March. There have already been mock attacks carried out against a replica of an Iranian nuclear facility. With the help of front companies and safe houses, Israeli and American secret agents with false passports are now setting up a material infrastructure that will make money, weapons and personnel available by the time the first bombs have fallen. Aerial targets are now being mapped with the cooperation of Israeli and Pakistani specialists. In 2004 there had already been an entire year of unmanned surveillance flights carried out in order to trigger Iranian radar and gather information about Iranian air defenses. But it is also an intimidation tactic that is standard procedure prior to an attack. The U.S. is using Israeli-trained Kurds to gather military intelligence in Iran and the U.S. is deploying a group of approximately 10,000 Iranian rebels there.
It was revealed in the Turkish press that on December 11th, 2005 CIA chief Porter Goss personally urged his Turkish colleagues and the Turkish premier to be prepared for American air strikes on Iran, reports UPI. The press agency cites the Turkish publication Cumhuriyet, which reports that Goss warned Ankara of the enormous danger of the Iranian nuclear program. A BBC reading of the Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak has Professor Hayrettin Karaman adding to the news about Goss by quoting the German press agency DDP and going on to say that Goss has granted American approval to the Turkish government to seize PKK camps in exchange for Turkish support of U.S. goals. Two days prior to Goss' visit, Turkey received a visit from FBI director Robert Mueller. This was preceded by a visit to Washington by Turkish general and Commander of the Armed Land Forces Yasar Buyukanit.
It is said that several senior officers of the American Air Force involved in the planning for the war are doing so reluctantly, specifically with regard to preparations being made for an unprovoked nuclear attack. Many insiders are under the impression that the war is unavoidable.

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.'

… with Iran as the target...
In August of last year, Bush said this regarding a war with Iran: 'As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country'. A former senior intelligence agent: 'It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it. This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign.' Journalist Seymour Hersh: 'In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran.' At the direction of the administration, the war planners of USSTRATCOM are anticipating an aggressive act on the part of Iran by preparing for a conventional and/or nuclear reaction - an attack on Iran. 'In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran', writes former CIA agent and security consultant Philip Giraldi.
John Pike, president of the think tank globalsecurity.org: "The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution". In reference to the policy the American government is pursuing with Iran, Ex-CIA agent and current security expert Vince Cannistraro said: "Its very, very, very dangerous." Ex-Minister and head of the Labour Party Tony Benn believes that Prime Minister Blair will also take part this time, if only because England is as militarily dependent upon the U.S. as it is: the Trident warheads will not function unless the U.S. switches on its global satellite system.

... and the attack can begin. Spring of 2006?

In December of last year it was made known that Premier Sharon may have ordered the army to be ready for possible military action against Iran by the end of March of this year. While Sharon denies this, the Times (which disclosed the information) takes into account the possibility that it is an example of campaign rhetoric, given that national elections in Israel are coming up in March.
It just so happens that campaign season for U.S. midterm elections will be getting underway at that time. As a number of specialists contend, a war with Iran would not turn out bad at all for the Republican Party.
On the day after the end of the Iranian calendar year (March 20th), Iran will debut an oil bourse based on PetroEuros, not PetroDollars. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam's political, as well as lucrative, shift from PetroDollars to PetroEuros was reversed. This initiative by Iran is viewed by William Clark, author of the book Petrodollar Warfare, as an 'obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market', as noted in an article dating from October of 2004, entitled The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of 'the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars', writes Rob Kirby of Kirby Analytics. He goes on to write: 'What strikes me as being even odder is the date - March 23, 2006 - that the Fed plans to cease reporting this data. Any guesses as to what else [of major significance] is supposed to happen on or about this date? It just so happens that on March 20, 2006 - everybody's favorite Middle Eastern Nation, Iran - is scheduled to begin trading oil for Petroeuros on their own "newly minted" Iranian Oil Bourse [IOB].' According to the writer, this point coincides with the large amount of dollars held in reserve outside the U.S. What if those dollars get dumped and the Euro is chosen as the world's new reserve currency? Read about it in this DeepJournal article: Impending world-wide recession through nose-dive dollar . Kirby writes that the ensuing dollar shortage would be compensated for by printing extra dollars, but by then it won't be possible to follow the trend because the M3 data will no longer be published…..
It is also the case that the IAEA will issue a report on Iran in March.
The Iraq war began in March of 2003, perhaps because of the temperature in the region at that time of the year.
From The Telegraph (India): 'Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush's term ends.' This is not an observation to be taken lightly, considering that one year before the attack on Iraq, just such a meeting took place…

____________________________________________________________________________

DeepJournal
Sign up for the free mailing list.

12 September 2013 |

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4

When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.

10 September 2013 |

Why is Syria under attack? - 3

8 September 2013 |

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2

In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.

7 September 2013 |

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1

On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.

28 August 2012

Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival

Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.