IRAN Is Run By The CIA ...

On 3 November 2011, Saman Mohammadi, at The Excavator,points out that:

The British and U.S. governments put Khomeini into power in Iran in 1979
From this we learn:

1. The CIA and its friends toppled both Gaddafi and the Shah.

In each case the West trained the Islamic extremists and then put them into power. 

Historian F William Engdahl says that the Arab Spring is a creation of the U.S. State Department.

U.S. policy consists of provoking revolutions, stirring up troubles, and overthrowing governments.

(The Greeks might agree with that.)


Three Iranian village girls by Damon Lynch
2. The Shah said: "If you lift up Khomeini's beard, you will findMade In England written under his chin."

The Shah told David Frost:

"Do you think that Mr. Khomeini, an uneducated person ... could have planned all this, masterminded all this, set up all the organizations...

"I know that a tremendous amount of money was spent...

"I know that top experts in propaganda were used to show us like tyrants and monsters, and the other side as democratic, liberal revolutionaries who wanted to save the country.

"I know how mean the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, had been towards us... So it seemed that it was really a very well orchestrated conspiracy."


Boys from Isfahan by Detengase
3. The BBC promoted Khomeini, according to Dr. Ronen Bergman, an Israeli investigative journalist and author of the 2008 book, 'The Secret War with Iran'.

A "propaganda tool for Khomeini was none other than the Persian-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation," wrote Bergman.

"The BBC gave free hours of free broadcast to Khomeini from Paris," said Bergman.

4. Historian F. William Engdahl, in his 2004 book A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, wrote:

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski.

"Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. 

 
Iranian kids by Hamed Saber
"Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

"Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States.

"Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.
"Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth.

"The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.


Iran by Jeremy Curl Photography
"The coup against the Shah was run by British and American intelligence...

"During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement.

"By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil.

"With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere."


Children in Iran by Ivan Mlinaric
5. In his 1981 book, Hostage to Khomeini, journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote:

"The mullahs did not come to rule in Iran on the basis of their own power; they were placed in power by men more evil than they - who would use the depravity of backwardness for their own ends.

"In September 1975, the Aspen Institute held a symposium in Persepolis, Iran... 

"In the behind-the-scenes discussion, the plans for reversing the Shah's industrialization program and for turning Iran into a model dark ages regime were mapped out..." 


Two girls and a bicycle by Damon Lynch
6. There is a theory that Khomeini was a British agent.

An MI6 journalist was on the plane with Khomeini when he landed in Iran after the Shah went into exile.

According to The Guardian, British Intelligence recruited Benito Mussolini.

Fritz Springmeier wrote in an article called, To Love Or Hate - Know Your Enemy:

"The Christian Patriot movement and the Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrated with agent provocateurs who will encourage both groups to run to their own destruction...

"The Ayatollah Khomeini was British MI6.

"And tying together Saudi intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and Egyptian intelligence (and previously the Shah’s CIA-led SAVAK) is a group called the Safari Club set up by French espionage."


Old man and the boys, Iran, by Kamshots
7. The Shah's nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful.

This worried the CIA and MI6.

Keeping nations poor is the best way to control them.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown's own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers.

Over one a half million people to became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.


Boys Army by Sharto
4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

The Shah's decision to increase Iranian oil production angered U.S. oil companies and others who wanted to maintain artificial scarcity in the international oil market in order to keep prices high and make more profits.

The Shah said that a couple of years before the Revolution he "heard from two different sources connected with the oil companies that the regime within Iran will change."

5. The Shah began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.

6. The CIA and its friends want to create a clash of civilizations, in order to bring about a new world order and a global authoritarian government.


Iranian kids by Shapour
8. Israel provided financial and political support for Hamas in its early days to create an anti-Zionist resistance movement that spoke the language of violence and extremism instead of love and tolerance.

The CIA and MI6 have deep connections with the Muslim Brotherhood and use this alliance to silence democratic voices in Muslim countries and scare the people of the West about Islam's agenda.

The fundamentalist Mullahs in Iran were used by the CIA and MI6 throughout the post-World War II years as attack dogs against the central government. 

The Taliban in Afghanistan were funded and trained by the CIA and Pakistani ISI. Osama Bin Laden was created by the CIA-MI6 network.

What is the basis of this intriguing relationship? Both the Islamic radicals and the anti-growth Western elite share the same goals: demodernization and war. Khomeini was told to turn back the clock, transform Iran into a medieval country, and brainwash a generation of youth into sacrificing themselves for Islam...
Al Qaeda flag over government building in Libya
9. Why did the U.S. and other Western powers delivered arms to Iran in the 1980s if they considered the regime to be its enemy.

Why did Khomeini decide to release the American hostages on the day that Reagan was declared the new president of America. Why give a victory to your enemy?

But, Khomeini was not an enemy, but a willful pawn of the U.S. and British elite...

And he wasn't even a legitimate Ayatollah.

A superior Ayatollah granted him Ayatollah status in 1963 to prevent his execution. He returned the favor in 1979 by putting him under house arrest and erasing the evidence of his gracious deed...

Modern wars are fought as a means to build a global totalitarian state, make obscene profits for the military-industrial complex, put governments into debt to international banksters, and reduce the population.

Read More

Israel Cabinet Discussing Military Attack on Iran: Report ...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been trying to persuade a majority in the cabinet to support an Israeli military attack on Iran after having convinced the Zionist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of adopting this move.

Haaretz reported that “senior Israeli ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency's report that will come out in November, will have the decisive effect on the Zionists entity’s final decision, noting this discussion is taking place while “more than a million Israelis have had to seek shelter during a week of rockets raining down on the south.”

The Israeli daily further clarified that the cabinet have disagreed over the decision. While some ministers were “publicly dropping hints on Tuesday that Israel could attack Iran”; others said that no such decision had been taken.
In parallel, Haaretz said that Netanyahu warned in a Knesst address Monday of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s increased power and influence and said: “One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat on us.”

For his part, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor said they preferred an American not Israeli move against Iran.

Haaretz quoted Meridor as saying: “It's clear to all that a nuclear Iran is a grave danger and the whole world, led by the United States, must make constant efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons… Iran's nuclearization is not only a threat to Israel but to several other Western states, and the international interest must unite here."

In contrast, Former Zionist Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer regarded Netanyahu’s proposal as a "horror scenario" and said he hoped common sense would prevail. 

IAF Completes Major Drill in Italy

Read More

Syria, the Arab Yugoslavia of Middle East ...

Surrounded by the Turkish veteran member of NATO in the north, the Israeli NATO partner and the navy fleets of the member states patrolling the Mediterranean in the west, the alliance’s Jordanian partner in the south, and in the east hosting a NATO mission in Iraq, which is expected to develop into the 12^th Arab partner, and lonely swimming in a sea of the Arab and Israel strategic allies of the United States, the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad stands as the Yugoslavia of the Middle East, that has to join the expansion southward of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as well as the “new world order” engineered by the U.S. unipolar power, kicked out as the odd regional number, or join Iraq and Libya in being bombed down to the medieval ages.

Following its latest military success in opening the Libyan gate to Africa, the U.S. – led NATO seems about to recruit its 13^thArab “partner,” thus paving the way for the United States to move its Africom HQ from Germany to the continent after removing the Gaddafi regime, which opposed both this move and the French – led Mediterranean Union (MU), a removal that is in itself, for all realpolitic reasons, a threatening warning to the neighboring Algeria to soften its opposition to both Africa hosting Africom and NATO expanding southward and to drop off whatever reservations it still has to the revival of the MU, which lost its Egyptian co-chair with President Nicolas Sarkozy with the removal of former president Hosni Mubarak from power in Cairo.

The U.S. and NATO are poised now to shift focus from Arab North Africa to the Arab Levant to deal with the last Syrian obstacle to their regional hegemony. The U.S. administration of President Barak Obama seems now determined to make or break with the al-Assad regime, distancing itself from decades long policy of crisis management pursued by predecessor U.S. administrations vis-à-vis Syria, which stands now in the Middle East as former Yugoslavia stood in the wake of the collapse of the former Soviet Union when a series of ethnic and religious wars wrecked it, creating from its wreckage several new states, until the Serbian core of the Yugoslav union was bombed by NATO in 1999 to make Serbia now a hopeful member of the alliance.

However international and regional strategic geopolitical factors are turning Syria into a border red line that might either herald a new era of multipolar world order, which puts an end to the U.S. unipolar order, if the U.S. led alliance fails to change the Syrian regime, or completes a U.S. – NATO total regional hegemony that would preclude such a long awaited outcome, if it succeeds:

* Internally, the infrastructure of the state is strong, the military, security, diplomatic and political ruling establishment stands coherent, unified and potent, and economically the state is not burdened with foreign debt and is self-sufficient in oil, food and consumer products. Imposing a complete suffocating economic and diplomatic siege on the country seems impossible. What is more important politically is the fact that the pluralistic diversity of the large Syrian religious and sectarian minorities deprives the major and better organized Islamist opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood of the leading role it enjoys in the protests of what has been termed the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

* Contrary to western analyses, which expect the change of regimes by the “Arab Spring” to be a motivating drive for a similar change in Syria, the changes were bad examples for Syrians. The destruction of the infrastructure of the state, especially in Iraq and Libya, and leaving their national decision making to NATO and U.S., at least out gratefulness to their roles in the change, is not viewed by the overwhelming majority of the Syrians, including the mainstream opposition inside the country,as an acceptable and feasible price for change and reform. 
The Arab Egyptian veteran and internationally prominent journalist, Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, in an interview with the Qatar based Aljazeera satellite TV Arabic channel, cited these bad Iraqi and Libyan examples as alienating the Syrian middle class in major city centers away from supporting the protests demanding change of regime; he even accused Aljazeera of “incitement” against the Syrian regime of al-Assad.

* This overall internal situation continues to deter outside intervention on the one hand and on the other explains why the opposition has so far failed to launch even one protest of the type that moved out millions of people to the streets as was and is the case in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, especially in major population centers like the capital Damascus, Aleppo, both which are home to about ten million people.

* Moreover, the resort of a minority of Islamists to arms allegedly to defend the protesters has backfired, alienating the public in general, the minorities in particular, and highlighting their external sources of funds and arming, thus vindicating the regime’s accusation of the existence of an outside “conspiracy,” but more importantly diverting the media spotlight away from the peaceful protests, weakening these protests by driving away more people from joining them out of fear for personal safety as proved by the dwindling numbers of protesters, and dragging the

opposition into a field of struggle where the regime is definitely the strongest at least in the absence of external military intervention that is not forthcoming in any foreseeable future, a fact that was confirmed in the Libyan capital Tripoli on October 31 by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: “NATO has no intention (to intervene) whatsoever. I can completely rule that out,” Reuters quoted him as saying.

* Geopolitically, it is true that western powers after WW1 succeeded in cutting historical Syria to its present day size, but Syrian pan-Arab ideology and influence is still up to historic Syria, and is still consistent with what the late Princeton scholar Philip K. Hitti called (quoted by Robert D. Kaplan in Foreign Policy on April 21, 2011) “Greater Syria” — the historical antecedent of the modern republic – “the largest small country on the map, microscopic in size but cosmic in influence,” encompassing in its geography, at the confluence of Europe, Asia, and Africa, “the history of the civilized world in aminiature form“. Kaplan commented: “This is not an exaggeration, and because it is not, the current unrest in Syria is far more important than unrest we have seen anywhere in the Middle East.” The change of the regime in Syria will not bring security and stability to the region; on the contrary, it will open a regional Pandora box. Syrian President al-Assad was very well aware of this geopolitical reality when he told Britain’s Sunday Telegraph recently in a weekend interview that Syria “is the (region’s) fault line, and if you play with the ground, you will cause an earthquake”.

* The regional repercussions of a sectarian civil war in Syria are a deterrent factor against both militarization of pro-reform peaceful protests and foreign military intervention in support thereof. Therefore, when NATO and the U.S. pressure or encourage their regional allies in Turkey and the GCC Arab countries to foment Sunni sectarian strife in the Syrian ally of Shiite Iran as a prelude to civil war, their only pretext for military intervention, they are in fact playing with a regional fire that will not save neither the perpetrators nor the “vital” interests of their NATO-U.S. sponsors.

* Regionally, Iran’s possible loss of its Syrian bridge to the Mediterranean, while its routes to the strategic sea could easily be closed via the Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the Red sea and the Suez Canal by the fifth and sixth U.S. fleets as well as the by fleets of the NATO member states and Israel, and pro- U.S. governments overlooking these sea lanes, is an Iranian red line the trespassing of which could create a situation fraught with potential risks of regional war eruption.

* Regionally also, less a U.S. – NATO decision to go to an all out war on Iran and Syria, military intervention in Syria would not be on the agenda unless guarantees are in place that Israel will be out of reach of expected Iranian and Syrian retaliation.

* The timing of the U.S. – NATO shift of focus on Syria coincides with a deadlocked Palestinian – Israeli peace process and the failure of Barak Obama administration to deliver on its promises to its Arab allies, thus alienating the most moderate among them, namely Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is still being pushed to a collision course with the American sponsor of the process by the U.S. – led international campaign against his overdue bid to secure the recognition of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations.

The failure of the U.S. peace mediator applies more counterproductively to the Syrian – Israeli peace making. Al-Assad regime came to power in a coup d’etat with the precise aim of engaging the U.S. – sponsored peace process in the Middle East. More than forty years later the United States has yet to deliver. This failure erodes the influence of the moderate pro-U.S. Arabs, stands as the biggest obstacle to building a U.S. – Arab – Israeli front against Iran, which is an American and Israeli regional priority, and adds ammunition and forces to the Syrian protagonist. Abbas’ reconciliation accord with the Syrian – based Hamas is a good example to ponder in this context; another is the Palestinian leader’s latest pronounced option of dissolving the self-ruled Palestinian Authority under Israeli military occupation, which would be a death blow to the Arab – Israeli peace process.

* This failure of the U.S. “sponsorship” was a major contributing factor to the changes of the “Arab Spring” in a chain of pro-U.S. Arab regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. However this failure vindicates Syria’s “resistance” ideology, justifies its strategic defensive coordination with Iran,reinforces the popular support for both countries in the region, and gives credibility to the argument of the regime in Damascus that the U.S. and NATO are fueling Syrian protests in the name of change and reform, but in fact exploiting these protests to “change the regime” and replace it with one that is more willing to accept the Israeli – U.S. dictates for peace making.

* The scheduled withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of the year is another regional adverse factor against military intervention in Syria. This withdrawal is leaving Iraq unquestionably under a pro – Iran ruling regime. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was on record in opposing regime change in Syria precisely because of the Iranian influence. Iraq is now overtly replacing Turkey as a strategic depth for its Syrian western neighbor, providing a strategic link between the allies in Damascus and Tehran, after Turkey’s U-turn on its “strategic cooperation” with Syria, its U-turn on its nine-year old “zero problem based relations” with Arab and Islamic neighbors, and its subscription to NATO and U.S. plans for Syria as a member and ally respectively.

* Internationally, the latest Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UN Security Council is indication enough that the U.S. – NATO endeavor to change the Syrian regime has trespassed another red line. Loosing its navy facilities in Syria would leave Russia out of the Mediterranean Sea and render it a U.S. – NATO lake. China whose competitive edge in Africa is being challenged following the change of regime in Libya would view the fall of Syria to become a U.S. – NATO launching ground against Iran as a real threat to its similarly competitive partnership with Iran. Chasing Beijing also out of Iran will render the emerging Chinese economic giant at the mercy of NATO partners if they succeed in securing their control over Iran and Syria because such a control will secure also their control of both strategic oil reserves in the Middle East and central Asia. This is absolutely a Chinese red line.

* Diplomatically, U.S. – NATO plans of military intervention in Syria has been denied any cover of United Nations legitimacy by the Russian and Chinese vetoes. Legitimacy of the Arab League is still lacking; freezing the membership of a member state, like was the case with Libya, needs consensus, which is not forthcoming.

TWO OPTIONS

This is the geopolitical strategic context in which the Syrian pro-democracy transformation is desperately trying to survive the U.S. – NATO undemocratic means of coercing Syria into compliance. Both mainstream opposition inside the country and the ruling regime are almost in consensus on reforms and fundamental changes that will move Syria to what is being now termed as “the second republic” through dialogue.

Both this opposition and the regime are on record against the militarization of the peaceful popular protests demanding reform and change and more adamantly against foreign intervention whatever form it takes, but both are seeking internal national unity as well as foreign support for a package of reforms inclusive of lifting the martial law, limiting the role of intelligence arms of the state to national security, empowering the civil society, curbing political and economic corruption, political pluralism, competitive elections, changing party, electoral and media laws, balancing the executive – legislative power, promoting judiciary and rule of law, and more importantly ending the constitutional Baath Party monopoly of power. Carnegie Endowment in its “Reform in Syria: Steering between the Chinese Model and Regime Change” of July 2006 proposed most of the reforms. In less than six months, President al-Assad has already issued successive presidential decrees enacting all these reforms.

However the U.S. – NATO axis of “the responsibility to protect” advocates are persistent on creating facts on the ground that would empower them for foreign intervention and place them in a position to trade their support of this reform package internally in exchange externally for Syrian foreign policy agenda, which has nurtured during four decades of al-Assad rule a network of regional and international alliances that enabled Syria to maintain a defense option in its 44-year old struggle to liberate the Israeli – occupied Syrian Golan Heights and to stand steadfast against dictating conditions on Damascus to make peace with Israel on Israeli terms.

These adverse factors leave the U.S. and NATO with two options:

First pressuring NATO member, Turkey, to discard its nine-year old “zero-problem based relations” with its regional neighbors to what Liam Stack described in the New York Times on October 27 as “hosting an armed opposition group waging an insurgency … amid a broader Turkish campaign to undermine Mr. Assad’s government” in its southern Syrian neighbor, which is the same reason why Turkey has been for years waging military incursions into Iraq and why Ankara was on the brink of war with Syria late in 1990s.

Second, to escalate the militarization of the peaceful protests. On August 14, 2011, Israel’s Debka Intelligence news reported that developments in Syria point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist “freedom fighters” covertly supported, trained and equipped by foreign powers. According to Israeli intelligence sources: NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are drawing up plans … to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers … The delivery of weapons to the rebels is to be implemented “overland, namely through Turkey and under Turkish army protection … According to Israeli sources, which remain to be verified, NATO and the Turkish High command, also contemplate the development of a “jihad” involving the recruitment of thousands of Islamist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war … Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria!

The editorial board opinion of The Washington Post on September 28, 2011 had a foresight: “The appearance of such forces is not to be welcomed, even by those hoping for an end to the Assad regime.”

However, the U.S. and NATO seem now in a race against time

Read More

The World’s Deadliest Table And Why It Must Be Destroyed ...

Is the world’s deadliest table made of glass? Of wood, metal, plastic, bamboo or some high-tech composite material?

Does it have three legs, four, six or more? Or, is it one of those massive tables that seats dozens of people?

Is the table in the kitchen? The dining room? In a secure office conference room somewhere? Or, do they all meet at the same table in a MacDonalds restaurant every once in a while?

Where is this bloody table anyway?

1. US Senator Kerry knows where it is: Asked whether using force was a possibility in Iran, the Democratic lawmaker told reporters: “I don’t think anything should be taken off the table at this point in time.”
2. Obama refers to the table frequently: In terms of a response to the alleged Iranian plot, “we don’t take any options off the table,” which is a government euphemism for considerations of military attack.
3. Obama also stated that: “Yes. I think that a nuclear armed Iran is not just a threat to us, it’s a threat to Israel. And it is a game changer in the region. It’s unacceptable. And that’s why I’ve said that I won’t take any options off the table, including military, to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

1. ·  “The continued presence of all options on the table“. In his interview with CBS news, American President Barack Obama refused to rule out the possibility of a military strike against Iran.
2. ·  When Mr. Bush was asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said that: “All options are on the table.”
3. ·  Dick Cheney too, the brave U.S. politician who received five deferments to avoid serving his country during the Vietnam war… “But I’ve also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table,” he said, appearing to leave open the possibility of military action.
4. ·  Cheney on Iran, March 7, 2006: “For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” Cheney said in a speech to his owners at the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
5. ·  In an article encouraging Obama to prosecute Donald Rumsfeld for War Crimes it was declared that: “The evidence against Rumsfeld has been on the table for years now.”
6. ·  Bush was also referring to the table in March 13, 2002: “And so one of the — what the Vice President is doing is he’s reminding people about this danger, and that we need to work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table, and — but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.”
7. ·  The man picked by President Bush to run the Pentagon Robert Gates also made it clear that “all options are on the table“. When asked if he believed the US was winning, he replied flatly: “No, sir.”
8. ·  When pressed on whether the Syrian situation is a diplomatic challenge or a military one, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said that “all options are obviously on the table.”
9. ·  In a reference to the White House’s battle to depose Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Lobbyist, R. Bruce Josten said, “To quote what they say every day on Libya, all options are on the table.”
10. ·  Bush said: “He [Saddam] told the world that he would show us that he would not develop weapons of mass destruction and yet over the past decade he has refused to do so. And the Prime Minister and I both agree that he needs to prove that he isn’t developing weapons of mass destruction. I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table.”

14. Hillary Clinton, in Foreign Affairs: “Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”
15. During a press conference in Baghdad, Gen. John Abizaid said “all options are on the table..,”
16. In an article about the Israelis secret service involvement in the Iran plot, Michigan Representative Mike Rogers said that: “I don’t think you should take it off the table.”
17. U.S. Senator John McCain who is now promoting military intervention in Syria says: “The United Statesshould be willing to put all aspects of our policy on the table…”

Based on the public statements from some of the world’s most respected mass murderers, I think we can all agree that the evidence against this table is overwhelming and it’s clear that this is one extremely deadly table…

Since it’s primarily U.S. politicians that are referring to this table – no European politicians that I know of are putting anything on or, are taking anything off the table – it would appear that the table must be physically located somewhere within the borders of the U.S.

And high powered politicians in the U.S. continue put things on and off this table like there was no tomorrow.

Well there is a tomorrow and I’d like to propose that we destroy (or perhaps recycle?) this table before the U.S. invades Syria to “protect civilians ” or for “humanitarian” reasons.

This table is a willing accomplice in numerous deadly and often genocidal conflicts and with your help and support, we can put an end to this insane warmongering once and for all.

Now, can someone please confirm exactly where we can find the world’s deadliest table?

Read More

US Begins Huge Military Maneuvers Aimed at Iran ...

The United States will this week commence huge military maneuvers aimed at Iran, with a massive air fleet patrolling middle eastern skies ready to land at any time, in response to Iran’s involvement in an alleged assassination plot that experts have labeled dubious, amidst fears that US and Israeli targets could be hit by attacks.

As we reported last week, during US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit, Israeli hawks attempted to persuade Panetta to give the green light for a military strike on Iran. Within ten days, details of an alleged assassination plot against a Saudi ambassador emerged and the foiled attack was blamed on Iran. Innumerable experts immediately voiced their doubts about the authenticity of the plot, with 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer labeling the story “a truly awful Hollywood script”.

The US military will respond this week with a series of significant military maneuvers designed to threaten Iran, including, “an American air fleet in Middle East skies ready to land at any moment for any contingency,” reports DebkaFile.

“The United States launches a large-scale exercise over the Middle East deploying 41 giant transports of the 22nds Airlift Squadron Monday Oct. 17,” states the report, adding that the aircraft will be packed with fully equipped, battle ready troops.

A further seven warships from the Stennis Battle Group will also “provide ground troops with combat support and strike land and sea targets.”

The Israeli, Egyptian and Saudi armies have also been placed on maximum preparedness, echoing reports that U.S. troops being sent to the region have also been put on full alert.

The maneuvers are also linked to the scheduled release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas on Tuesday, an event that US intelligence officials fear could set off a chain of attacks in the region against US and Israeli targets. Should embassies be targeted, US troops will be in place to react swiftly.

Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall.

Back in July, CIA veteran Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership.

Whether the maneuvers are merely designed to be an act of belligerence against Iran or represent preparations for an actual military strike in support of Israel remains to be seen, but as Gulf News reporter Patrick Seale pointed out Friday, the window of opportunity for an attack on Iran is closing.

“Some western military experts have been quoted as saying that the window of opportunity for an Israeli air attack on Iran will close within two months, since the onset of winter would make such an assault more difficult,” writes Seale, adding that the Israelis’ eagerness to launch the attack has “caused considerable alarm in Washington and in a number of European capitals.”

Both Republican and Democratic US lawmakers have issued strong statements against Iran in recent days, with several all but calling for war. Last week, New York RepublicanPeter King called on the Obama administration to put troops on standby, labeling the alleged Iranian assassination plot “an act of war”. On Sunday, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that the US and Iran were on a “collision course”.

Read More

Iran calls US assassination allegations ‘evil plot’

Iran's US ambassador Mohammad Khazaee. File photo

UNITED NATIONS - Iran called US allegations of a plan to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington an "evil plot" by the United States, in a complaint sent late Tuesday to the United Nations.
Iran's US ambassador accused Israel of carrying out the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with US support, in a letter sent to UN leader Ban Ki-moon and the UN Security Council.
"Iran categorically and in the strongest terms condemns this shameful allegation by the United States authorities and deplores it as a well-thought evil plot in line with their anti-Iranian policy," Mohammad Khazaee said in the letter.
US authorities said earlier they had uncovered a plot by the Iranian government to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir. The US administration has vowed to hold Iran to account.
Two men have been charged with conspiring with Iranian government factions to stage the attack and one is in US custody.
Khazaee expressed "outrage" over the allegations in his letter to the UN council, where Iran faces mounting pressure over its nuclear programme. The Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions because of Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment.
He said the US accusations were to "divert attention from the current economic and social problems at home and the popular revolutions and protests against United States long supported dictatorial regimes abroad."
"Iran has always condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations," and has been a victim, the ambassador said. "A clear recent example of which is the assassination of a number of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years carried out by the Zionist regime and supported by the United States."
An Iranian particle physics professor at Tehran University was killed in a bomb attack outside his home in January 2010. Another scientist was killed in Tehran on November 29, while nuclear chief Fereydoon Abbasi Davani survived an assassination attempt the same day.
Khazaee said "The Iranian nation seeks a world free from terrorism and considers the current US warmongering and propaganda machine against Iran as a threat not just against itself but to the peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region."
The envoy told Ban: "As the secretary general of the United Nations you have an important responsibility in enlightening the international public opinion about the dangerous consequences of warmongering policies of the United States government on international peace and security."

Read More