re: What do you think is going on?


Richard Moore


Wow! So many responses. It seems lots of folks have been thinking 
about these same questions, and have some savvy insights to offer.


Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 07:32:42 -0700
From: marc bombois <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
To: •••@••.•••

It's also possible that the quagmire is exactly what the bosses want 
and that Rumsfeld has succeeded, that public opinion simply doesn't 
matter anymore and that Rumsfeld's fall will be merely 
window-dressing. Is the Pentagon actually over-stretched? How can we 
know? Meanwhile, the miltary superbases in Iraq are well under way as 
well as the giant embassy in Baghdad. The original plan may be 
unfolding beautifully. I think we need to beware of the notion of 
elite incompetence. If ever their plans go awry, I suspect their 
immediate response is to ask "How can we turn this to our advantage?"

From: "Robert E. Reynolds" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:51:51 -0400

The US acted in Iraq on the basis of a SC resolution by interpreting 
it as authorizing military action even though it didn't.  It was 
based on the " serious consequences clause".  They knew they could 
not get a second resolution so they went ahead without it.

This time they are insisting that the resolution clearly state that 
it is a "Chapter Seven" resolution.  That would allow them to again 
unilaterally wage war on the basis that Chapter 7 allows for the use 
of military force.

As with Iraq, apparently both the US and Israel have covert groups in 
Iran already doing targeting and

So clearly this time they are looking for a legal basis for military 
action and avoiding charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Iraq venture is a failure, and Afghanistan is starting to slide 
back into chaos.  So how do they put backbone into the PNAC and NSS 
plans for world domination?
If they fail in Iraq and Afghanistan who will fear us?

I would suggest that the logic of the crazies is to make Iran an 
example by using nuclear weapons, thus demonstrating that to defy us 
is to risk extermination.  These are the people who in the first Bush 
administration were proponents of a preemptive strike against Russia 
and they believed that they could survive a nuclear war.  So threats 
of the use of nuclear weapons have to be taken seriously.

The problem with world domination is that once you embark on such a 
course there is no turning back without risking a devastating defeat. 
How do you back away without appearing weak and vulnerable to a 
preemptive strike?

So I think they will risk WWIII and attack Iran.

Recently "Foreign Affairs" had an article discussing the 
deterioration of Russia's
missile and nuclear capabilities and suggesting that this makes them 
vulnerable to a preemptive strike.  Russia  made note of  this. As 
you know Russia for sometime has been
rearming and modernizing its nuclear and missile forces.  Gen. Ivanov 
on a number of occasions has said "We know who the enemy is", and I 
do believe he meant us.

If we go against Iran and ignite a conflagration in the ME, will 
Russia and China standby?   If we use nuclear weapons can they afford 
not to calculate what the consequences might be if they wait for us 
to preemptively strike them? Should they strike first?

The media is once again marching in lock step with the administration.
For instance both the Washington Post and NY Times wrote stories 
about the IAEA report that characterized it is such a way as to 
support drastic action against Iran.  The problem is that the IAEA 
report had a restricted distribution (SC etc) and thus what is the 
basis for such characterizations? Who are their sources?

Bush never backs down, is no doubt crazy, maybe drinking and doing 
drugs, and is supported by a wide spectrum of
crazies, from neo-cons to fundamentalist Christian Zionists. 
Anything is possible.



hi bob,

You've identified a number of key considerations. I question two of 
your assumptions however. The first is about Bush. I don't think he's 
involved in any decision making. The way I read it, Cheney is CEO of 
the current administration, Rumsfeld has been his chief of staff, and 
Bush serves as a face for people to love or hate. Bush's craziness 
serves as a public explanation for dastardly US actions,  but is not 
the actual cause.

The second is about 'appearing weak'. Geopolitics is not like an Old 
West drama, testing the nerve of dueling gunfighters. It's more like 
a chess game. Strength and weakness are measured by what pieces you 
hold and where they're positioned. If the US chooses to abandon a 
flawed attack and consolidate its pieces, that would be considered by 
the other players to be a sign of wisdom, not weakness.


From: "CyberBrook" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: What do you think is going on?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:33:00 -0700

As much as I think they want a full-scale invasion of Iran, and have
undoubtedly plans for it, they know that they are bogged down in Iraq, much
more so than they believed they would be, and therefore don't have the
personnel, money, or materiel to effectively carry it out. Iran is also much
stronger than Iraq was. That said, an air campaign is entirely possible and,
some say, inevitable, targeting nuclear and certain military, defensive, and
administrative sites. We know it won't be in August, a bad time to bring out
a new product, they've told us, and November might be too late. We'll


Hi Dan,

I certainly agree that any attack would be an air attack, more like 
Desert Storm than an occupation.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "they". It is 
important in this discussion, I suggest, to distinguish between the 
neocons on the one hand, and long-entrenched US elites on the other.


From: "Jerold Hubbard" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:53:57 -0500

Dear Richard;

I feel like Iran won't be attacked, wholly,  as things stand.  If 
things change, then this option could be back on the table.  The US 
will not get Russia or China to back a UN resolution of sanctions 
against Iran.  Russia is arming Iran. It will not be a cake walk for 
the US in Iran as it was in Afghanistan or Iraq. The drones which 
have played such an important role in Iraq and Afghanistan, will BE 
of NO effect in Iran as Russia is giving them the equipment to detect 
them and shoot them done. They only travel at about 150 miles per 
hour which would make them a duck shoot for the proper equipment.

What may happen, is Israel maybe used to bomb specific targets in 
Iran. This would be a real probability.  Iran would have no way to 
vent their anger, nor would Russia or China; unless large numbers of 
civilians were killed in this operation.

Bush is on his way out, at least as far as a voice of power and 
imperialistic demand.  36 representatives are signing onto a petition 
to have him impeached.  The religious right, who was the main force 
behind his imperialistic actions, are getting beat up BIG TIME!  They 
have taken religion out of it's comfort zone and put it up for 
detailed examination by the best minds.  And their philosophy is 
being shot full of holes!!!

The elite few, who are calling the global shots, will need not only a 
new Rumsfeld, but a new president as well.

The elite few will have to try another deceptive avenue to cover 
their ambitions towards world imperialism and world colonialism.

Thanks for all your information and thoughts;

Jerold Hubbard,  USA

From: "Meria Heller" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 08:07:25 -0700

I think the new fuhrer intends to hit Iran. I also think Iran will 
then hit Israel, then this war will become global due to the 
interchange of $$$ from globalization.
Bush is on his way out, but that's not enough. He needs to be tried 
in a Court of law along with the rest of his administration.


Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:35:09 -0700
From: Caspar Davis <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
To: •••@••.•••

You may well be right, but I think there is pretty wide understanding 
that Rumsfeld is joined at the hip with Bush and Cheney. It looks 
like all or nothing to me.

I also think Russia and China are having something to say about Iran. 
Iranian oil is important to China.


Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:43:09 -0400
From: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
To: •••@••.•••

Dear Richard,

To steal from Monty Python, I see it is now "Time for something 
completely different."

The Media are burying the Lemmings in a blizzard of "Bird Flu" 
hysteria.  It is all over the TV.

Then we have the States trying to discuss Gay Marriage (go with your 

And, don't forget the huge massive IMMIGRATION MARCHES!!

Iran doesn't make the front page anymore.



Hi Diana,

Interesting view. I suppose any shift away from Iran in the popular 
media might indicate an abandonment of invasion plans. The less 
attention to Iran, the less a change of plans would be seen by the US 
public as a backdown by Washington. Americans do typically see things 
as a battle between Old West gun slingers; that's a central theme in 
the US version of the Matrix.


Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:33:40 +0200 (W. Europe Standard Time)
From: "Earl" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?


I, too, have been a bit baffled by all of this.  I stated a couple of 
times in the past couple of weeks that something just doesn't make 
sense; you elaborated on this quite well.

It could be the original plan is being scrapped.  When there was no 
attack by the end of March, and maneuvers at the UN weren't 
progressing quickly, I started questioning as well.

It could also be that, seeing the increased resistance going into 
Iran and the trouble his administration is experiencing,  that 
another "Pearl Harbor" is deemed necessary, delaying the original 
plans.  And that one could be nasty and the timing a surprise.  Bush 
might make the ultimate gamble, seeing his failing regime and go the 
the "Hail Mary".  There was an article about that a day or two back.

I've been having trouble coming up with meaningful political 
commentary lately because of all this.  It's like waiting for 
something to drop, not quite knowing what that is.

Or, as you say, it might just mean that the real elite are stymied 
for the moment, as they were when France and Holland said "No", but 
this is even bigger.  But rest assured, something will happen, sooner 
or later.  And if nothing happens this year, they can also ridicule 
the independent news sources for being off base.

A large part of this scenario also is the U.S./world economy and the 
strength/weakness of the dollar.

The pieces of the puzzle are likely all on the table; I just can't 
fit them together.  Glad I'm not the only one who's scratching his 

[in a follow-up message...]  I just ran across an article that may 
explain what's been going on lately.  Since I also commented on it in 
my blog (just now), I thought you might want to see those 
comments also.


Hi Earl,

A wise person gets all the questions on the table before trying to 
put answers together. Well done.

I fully agree with your conclusion that another Pearl Harbor - 
another 911 - would be a necessary first step in any plan to attack 
Iran. Such an incident would be essential to minimize domestic and 
international condemnation. There is an alternative scenario - based 
on a unilateral Israeli strike - but that would be much more 
problematic in the current world scene.

The question then is whether the neocons will be able to obtain an 
authorization from real power holders to carry out such an incident. 
This refines our considerations, but it only pushes the question back 
one level without answering it.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:26:26 EDT
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
To: •••@••.•••

Richard,  I believe your "rethinking the mess" scenario is what is 
going on.  Both sides are evaluating their strategy.  I believe that 
Israel has seen how incompetent the Washington Likudniks really are, 
and prefers they stay out of the picture until called for; that 
Rumsfeld and his cohorts are now ready to accept the advice of the 
military that has probably told him that it will take a million or 
more troops to successfully  ma ke a ground attack and occupation of 
Iran----a number that the military doesn't have without shutting down 
many U.S. posts around the world, and won't have without a draft; 
that Bush's favorable ratings are so low that he will get little 
support at home for any kind of attack on Iran, and which may even 
result in an impeachment for previous crimes; that an air strike 
against Iran has less certainty of producing good results than bad, 
among which is the possibly of Saudi Arabia's switch to China as its 
protector, etc.

In reviewing strategies, Iran likely sees itself as having the upper 
hand at the present.  It has as much as invited the U.S. to make its 
move, and has already stated that it will retaliate against Israel 
which it is probably capable of doing.  Israel isn't sure, one way or 
the other.  Looking at the standoff as I believe Iran sees it, Iran's 
position on the nuclear issue is about the same as China's position 
on economic issues.  China can cause the U.S. economy to collapse 
whenever that would be in the best interest of China.  The problem 
is, all the world's nations will suffer with a U.S. collapse. 

I believe the problem will be resolved by the next administration 
making a deal with Iran.  In exchange for a nuclear free Middle East, 
the U.S. will agree to defend each country in the Middle East from 
the others and Israel will settle for what it has, or even its 
original borders, rather than pursue its dream of a "Greater Israel", 
and the U.S. will withdraw its forces from Iraq with the agreement of 
some sort of reparations.  I believe that kind of a deal could be 
made any afternoon next week were the Washington Likudniks willing, 
but will have to wait until the present errant clique is history.

But who knows?  All we can do is to make guesses and argue their 
logic.      Tom


Hi Tom,

A very interesting perspective, but I think you are to some extent 
mixing wishful thinking with analysis. Any kind of peace plan for the 
Middle East would go against everything the US has ever stood for. 
(I'm speaking in terms of real history, not the Matrix).


From: "Peter Hollings" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: What do you think is going on?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:35:15 -0400
Organization: Institute for Professionals in Taxation

Richard --

You pose a really interesting question. Here are some factors that I 
think will play a role:

I think we can assume that the powers behind the throne are aware of 
the Bush administration's striking incompetence. He has weakened US 
hegemony and damaged their global project. I think that they will see 
fault with Cheney & Rumsfeld as much as with Bush -- after all it 
seems Bush gave them free rein and he is even less qualified than 
they. As a result, they will want to replace all of them, but how or 
when are unknowns.

Brzezinski, a lieutenant of the Rockefeller's and Trilateral founder, 
has come out against war with Iran (as well as with the way things 
were conducted in Iraq.) His "chessboard" project is badly botched 
and I wonder if it will be recoverable. Perhaps a recovery plan will 
involve more power-sharing in Europe and Asia. This will take time 
and a new team to execute, and likely he (and the interests he 
presumably speaks for) would be opposed to any initiative with Iran 
that risked creating even more problems.

I expect that there is a schism between Bush and Cheney. I think that 
Bush's recent trip to visit the Hoover Institution is evidence that 
Condi is coaching him and arranging for a little remedial education 
-- but, from the hawks that briefed him there, I do not see a major 
change. The upshot is that Bush will be more hands-on as he attempts 
to rescue his presidency. A lot depends on how he defines this, but, 
given his personality, I think it likely that he will pursue some 
vision that he thinks history, not current popular opinion, will 

Public pressure is mounting for Bush to withdraw from Iraq, but a 
Shia majority in Iran and near-majority in Iraq do not bode well. 
Some sort of alliance or merger of those two countries along Shia 
lines would result in a more formidable regional power that would 
threaten our vital interests (oil). I do not think Bush would allow 
this to happen. This might be mitigated by either destroying Iran (as 
was done in Iraq in 1991), or by economic sanctions, or by keeping 
troops in Iraq. So, there is even more reason to go after Iran than 
there was before the Iraqi invasion. Of course, Russia and China are 
opposed, but there is little that they could do in the short-term, 
other than a self-destructive economic war on the dollar. This 
represents a continuation of the neo-con game plan and is consistent 
with the current "preemption" policy in the National Security 
Strategy. I can imagine that Bush is being told that it was never 
promised that Cheney's "long war" was going to be easy. A wild card 
is the group working under James A. Baker to develop a strategy for 
Iraq. Given his resume, one might expect that he was chosen to make 
things work in the political dimension internationally.

The major wild card is how the American public can be brought along. 
Another terrorist event might help. The Air Force is primed to bomb 
Iran within 24 hours of a terrorist event in the US, so it could 
(mostly) happen within one news cycle. A key consideration is whether 
a wartime presidency would again sell to the US public and whether 
this would serve to maintain an impeachment-proof Congress after 
November, or, whether the strategy might work in reverse. There is a 
growing 9-11 truth movement, and I have seen what I think might be 
efforts to blunt its effect in the media. The stakes are getting 
higher, but Bush is a gambler.

My 2 cents.

Peter Hollings


Hi Peter,

Good thinking, except I think you're exaggerating the importance of 
Bush's personal role. He can be sacrificed, if that's the plan, and 
there's nothing he can do about it. His role in history is of 
interest only to himself.


Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Leo Klausmann <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
To: •••@••.•••

I've been thinking about this question as well. All the mainstream 
media outlets in the usa have promoted anything that happens on the 
Iran issue to headline news, whether its refusal to stop enrichment 
(again and again), the military exercises, the effects of sanctions, 
etc. The BBC has even been running a very in-depth series this past 
week on the political history of Iran, I've learned a lot of 
interesting tidbits from it. What's most unique about the situation 
is that the geopolitical realities that people who pay attention to 
alternative media have known for at least two years are leaking 
through. For instance, last week the white house demanded that Russia 
stop arm sales to Iran, even though I read about the air-defense 
system sale planned for this summer last november; or just yesterday 
Iran announced that they would immediately strike Israel with all 
their munitions the second the first bomb falls on them (that's 
always been the geopolitical reality of attacking Iran, but now the 
mainstream media jumps on it like its breaking news).

  Considering all this, it would have been wiser for the neocons to 
stage a second 9-11, a false flag attack that would play into 
Cheney's order he made last year, which was that the military should 
strike Iran as soon as the next "terrorist attack" occurs within the 
usa. Now that more and more people are waking up, and more and more 
geopolitical realities are in the news, its going to be a lot harder 
to rush in and nuke the whole place, which is the only way that Iran 
could be prevented from doing too much damage to assets in Iraq and 
Israel. I'm still not convinced that the Elites have totally given up 
on Bush and the neocons; plus, getting rid of Bush before 2008, when 
our electronically-rigged "voting"system will get the next guy in 
office anyway, would be such a fiasco that I think most, if not all, 
brainwashed "patriots" would find it truly disturbing. However, not 
attacking soon means that the air-defense system will likely be in 
place in only a few months and China will be even stronger and 

Perhaps the scenario of Israel becoming soon fed-up with the slow UN 
sanction and using all of the bunker-busters it got from the USA to 
assault Iran is likely; that might just depend on if the Elites think 
that most people will buy the hogwash that the Israeli military acts 


Hi Leo,

Thanks for your observations. It's interesting that Diana (above) 
seems to be watching a different media than you are, as she observes 
a downplay of Iran news and you see the opposite.

I agree that Israel does not act without Washington's approval. I 
think everyone knows this except segments of the US public. Certainly 
Russia, China, and Iran understand the reality. For this and other 
reasons, a 'unilateral' Israeli attack would be much more problematic 
than an approach based on a second 911.

It is possible however that Israel would break with tradition and 
actually act on their own, playing the role of General Jack D. Ripper 
in Dr. Strangelove. The outcome of that scenario is very hard to 
predict, and the risk to Israel would be formidable.


From: "Sonia Corbett" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:01:37 +1200

You could be right! Do you read Michael Ruppert's website? His recent 
speech "The Paradigm is the Enemy" puts Iran into global context -

Sonia Corbett,
New Zealand.

From: X
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: What do you think is going on?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006


You echo thoughts I have entertained for some time. After two hundred 
50 years of an WASP Anglo-Saxon elite rule that is convinced it is 
the Chosen People of God, the US old boys establishment is not about 
to turn things entirely over to a gang of gangsters like Perle, 
Wolfowitz Feith, Bolton, if they cannot deliver. Rumsfeld was given 
the job of harnessing these war hawks to the WASP task of securing 
total control of energy in coming period in Mideast. He used the 
neocons to do so and their Israel apparatus. It proved a colossal 
failure and now endangers the entire empire.

The Generals' revolt is one manifestation of the old guard 
establishment reaction. The PUBLICATION in Harvard's website of the 
Mearsheimer Walt paper shortly after the de facto firing of Harvard 
President Larry Summers; The Abramoff scandal which takes aim at the 
money channel between Tel Aviv, Las Vegas and Bush is another. The US 
Special Prosecutor indictments which soon will hit Karl Rove, new 
emerging sex in the White House and GOP scandals: are as I see it all 
part of how the old WASP elite deals with those who don't deliver. 
These guys are not amateurs at the game of power.

From: "SHRIKUMAR" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Reply to your query on Iran
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 21:55:02 -0400

Dear Mr. Moore:

The buzz in the US is that the US Military is in an advance state of 
preparedness for attack.  We contacted Michigan Senator Debbie 
Stabenow's office in Washington D.C. and were told to expect war at 
any time.

However, given the low ratings and the predictable outcome of the UN 
deliberations it appears implausible that Russia and China both will 
switch over to the US position.

The option of Nuclear attack is still on the table as stated by 
President Bush himself a few days ago...but there is substantial 
opposition within the armed forces as revealed by Seymour Hersh's The 
New Yorker Article.

Israel however is not bound by such consideration.  It has bunker 
buster nuclear bombs.  Can the Jewish state use them without a wink 
from Washington?

It is anyone's guess.  As of now, September is the most likely date 
of attack...close enough to elections and a desparate gamble to 
change the equation.

Oil politics is very much ruling the real deciders!  Iran's real 
crime is that it is the 2nd largest producer of oil.  Any threat of 
disruption of its oil supply makes billions for the oil companies.

If average citizen of the US was as concerned as the immigrants of 
the US who had massive demonstrations on May lst and earlier...they 
can certainly change the policies of the US.  Will they?

Peace activists in the country atleast some of them are active and 
trying to awaken the is very slow and no one seriously 
believes that with Iraq situation being so bad that US will be 
foolish enough to act in Iran.

But that is what we thought the last time.  I will investigate 
further and we plan to go and meet Cindy Sheehan and see if she will 
speak out against Iran Attack.

My sincere appreciation for all your efforts for Peace.

Shrikumar Poddar
   2601 Cochise Lane
   Okemos, Michigan 48864-2055

From: "John Lowry" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: What do you think is going on?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:18:39 -0700

I have long been curious why no one has asked how it happened that 
all the "intelligence" services of the "free west" came to the wrong 
conclusion about Iraq's possession of WMD.  I read one account about 
how Saddam developed weapons-making systems that could be quickly 
activated but without actually incurring the large cost of 
establishing production lines and inventories.  The few weapons that 
were produced in systems development were squirreled away in Syria, 
that story goes....

I have long felt that the "losers" of the cold war, the intelligence 
services of the former Soviet Republics, didn't quietly go away. 
They conspired to  strip us of the title "the world's only remaining 
superpower." Saddam had become a buddy of theirs after we 
double-crossed him over Kuwait, and lured us into the current 
situation.  We fell for it.  Now that we are in this mire, Iran (and 
Korea) pop up to remind us just how limited our power really is.  I 
believe Russia and China will (quietly) assure us that if we start 
using nukes (again) it will be all-out war with them, which the 
mathematical models show we lose.

Certainly no one wants that, and if Bush is truly mad, the generals 
have shown they can act out of conscience.

Imagine, one of the Mississippi freedom riders hoping for a military 
coup to save the USA!


Hi John,

Interesting observations. I don't see any evidence, however, that 
intelligence services came to wrong conclusions. It seems in fact 
that the neocons had to go to considerable lengths in order to ignore 
the intelligence they were getting.



Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
   cyberjournal forum 
   Achieving real democracy
   for readers of ETM 
   Community Empowerment
   Blogger made easy