* Why I think there WILL be an attack on Iran *


Richard Moore


We've been discussing this topic for some time, and I've posted 
several very good analyses (Engdahl, Chossudovsky, etc.). I've also 
been posting LOTS of news articles from a range of sources, of 
varying credibility. All this material can be reviewed in the 
archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/.

 From the perspective of geopolitical strategy, there are good 
arguments both for and against expecting an attack.

For example, there is a possibility of escalation to WW III (nuclear 
exchange with China and Russia). This could indicate either (a) that 
an Iran attack will not happen (to avoid WW III), or (b) that it will 
go ahead (because WW III is the goal). It is also possible that the 
US-Anglo imperialist Axis have determined that China and Russia would 
stay out of the fracas, so the attack can therefore go ahead without 
fear of out-of-control escalation.

 From the analyses we've seen, we know that the Axis surely wants to 
attack Iran (and Syria), if they think the negative outcomes would be 
'acceptable'. They, along with Israel, have articulated a vision of a 
'New Middle East', along with a 'Greater Israel'. The reasons for 
this, in terms of controlling Middle East oil and Caspian oil routes, 
are very clear. Besides the obvious economic gains, this tighter grip 
on the Middle East would be very helpful to US-Anglo elites in their 
longer range struggle against the Sino-Russian Alliance. Clearly the 
fear of a Superpower China, aided by an oil & technology-rich Russia, 
is at the root of all strategic US-Anglo planning -- which is why 
intentionally provoking WW III now remains a distinct possibility: 
perhaps the Axis believes 'every day makes China stronger, better 
fight now than later'.

There is also the possibility that there is a split among US-Anglo 
elites -- the 'realists' may be trying to restrain the neocons. But 
we can't be sure about this, nor can we be sure whether the neocons 
have the power to proceed despite any split, nor can we be sure the 
realists don't also want an attack, either expecting or not expecting 

Because of these considerations, I do not think it is possible to 
predict whether there will be an attack based on geopolitical 
analysis alone. It depends on unknown power relationships at the top, 
and on how those at the top view these various geopolitical options. 
This is not information that is available to us. What is visible to 
us are the many preparations for an attack on Iran. If we survey the 
scope of these preparations, and their timing, I think we will find 
that the evidence for an imminent attack is very strong. For another 
perspective on this, you might want to listen to Alex Jones' take on 
the prospects for war (he predicts war in October): 

* Demonization of Iran

Let's first consider the most obvious preparations. First among these 
is the demonization campaign against Iran, which has been following a 
formula parallel to the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. With Iraq it 
was imaginary 'WMDs', with Iran it's an imaginary 'nuclear threat'. 
In both cases the charges have been without substance, and even if 
there were substance, there would be no motivation for Iran or Iraq 
to initiate attacks, which they know would result in their own 
destruction. Nonetheless the US has managed in both cases, by means 
of media propaganda and diplomatic pressure, to push the EU and UN 
into backing US moves, to one degree or another. In this way the US 
creates the illusion of some modicum of 'legality' for an attack, 
while at the same time building public acquiescence.

Adding to this demonization campaign, the Western media has 
mistranslated statements by the Iranian President, making it appear 
that he is calling for the 'destruction' of Israel. The tempo of the 
campaign has recently picked up, with Iran, along with Syria, being 
blamed for the activity of the Hezbollah freedom fighters. We might 
note here that Hezbollah's weapons are ultimately of Russian origin, 
and yet Russia gets none of the public blame.

* Demonization of Muslims: bringing Europeans 'on side'

It takes relatively little to steer the US public onto the warpath: 
it's been done at least once a generation ever since 1776. It's a 
national tradition. And in the US media, Iran has been continually 
demonized ever since the CIA-arranged 'hostage crisis' some 25 years 
ago. Europe however is quite another matter. While many Americans 
still believe Saddam had WMDs, and was connected to Al Qaeda, most 
Europeans are much more skeptical and savvy.They aren't as impressed 
with the 'nuclear program' claims re/Iran. (In Europe the claim that 
Iran has called for the 'destruction' of Israel plays more 
successfully.) More than that, anti-US sentiment is rather high in 
Europe, because of what's happened in Iraq, and more recently in 
Lebanon. Many European are more worried about Washington and Israel's 
WMDs than they are about any threat Iran might pose. Bringing 
Europeans on side regarding an attack on Iran is a tricky business 
indeed. Why European leaders cooperate with this effort, in support 
of US-Anglo imperialism, is a separate issue, which we'll get back to.

The war-preparation program in Europe, and the UK, focuses on 
stirring up anti-Muslim racism. The program is multi-faceted, 
customized for different audiences, and designed to creep up on 
people from many directions. I'll mention some of the high points.

The Danish cartoon episode was very successful. These were extremely 
offensive cartoons to Muslims, equivalent in Christian terms to 
portraying Jesus as a depraved axe-murderer. For the far right -- of 
which there are many in Europe -- the cartoons worked at a direct 
level, providing a hearty chuckle at the expense of 'dark-skinned 
heathens'. Other Europeans were reached by the subsequent media 
treatment, which downplayed the cartoons themselves, and spun the 
issue around 'free speech'. Muslims were portrayed as being 
'anti-free speech', and justifiably outraged Muslim protestors were 
portrayed by selective TV-footage as 'wild mobs'.  All this remains 
in the European memory after the cartoons themselves have been 
largely forgotten.

(The hypocrisy of this concern for 'free speech' was highlighted by a 
grotesque irony: at the same time these 'free speech' editorials were 
being published, we could read in the same papers of someone being 
criminally prosecuted for publishing 'anti-semitic' remarks. Freedom 
for the goose, but not for the gander.)

In France, the program took a tack that appealed to French cultural 
pride. Muslim schoolgirls were proclaimed to be 'un French' because 
they wore the headgear required by their religion. This manufactured 
incident was then used to stir up controversy and suspicion between 
the Muslim community and the 'real French'. Memories of the bloody 
war in Algeria were helpful here, as was the conveniently-timed 
(covertly incited?) rioting of Muslim youths against economic 

In the UK we see the anti-Muslim program at its most sophisticated. 
MI-5 carefully selected 'boy next door' Muslim types as fall-guys in 
its phony 'suicide bomber' subway operation. By this means, the Brits 
are led to fear that every Muslim, no matter how innocent looking, 
might be a hatching a terrorist plot. BBC took on the role of 
deepening the campaign with documentaries, revealing 'extremist 
schools' and explaining why impoverished Muslim youth are 
'vulnerable' and 'susceptible to radicalization'. So as to appear 
'fair minded' to the British public, the government launched programs 
of 'reconciliation' and 'dialog' with the Muslim community, but the 
real message continues to come through in the form of set-up raids on 
alleged 'terrorist plots' in various 'ordinary Muslim neighborhoods'.

Meanwhile, scattered 'plots' and 'incidents' around the world 
(Canada, Florida, etc.) -- each suspicious in its own right -- 
provide a 'background tableau' for the demonization program.  All of 
this together, however, is not sufficient to deliver popular European 
support for an attack on Iran. But it lays the foundation, a bit like 
a post-hypnotic suggestion, as regards what to expect from 'those 
Muslims'. When a real outrage is staged -- a second 911 -- Europeans 
have been prepared to accept that Muslims will be the perps, and they 
are prepared for the blame to be laid on Muslims generally, rather 
than limiting blame to isolated terrorist elements. And of course if 
Iran is named as the incident 'mastermind' (an Iranian passport 
conveniently found in the debris?), and if the second 911 occurs in 
Europe, then the desired public support in Europe for war is likely 
to be forthcoming -- on cue.

* Stepping up the pace

The pace of war-preparations has accelerated considerably with the 
US-sponsored Israeli invasion of Lebanon, along with the media 
co-feature, the infamous soft-drink suicide-bomber gang. (As usual 
there was a police informer in the gang, most likely the one coming 
up with the fanciful plots and egging on the dupes. Le Carre's 
"Absolute Friends" entertainlngly explains how these kinds of things 
are typically done.)

Blair proclaims that the soft-drink plot was "Britain's 911", but it 
wasn't even close. To have a 'real' 911 you've got to have 'shock and 
awe' -- more people really killed than you ever believed possible 
(for White folks that is). The real '911: The Sequel' is yet to be 
released. Just hope it's not coming to a theater near you. In the 
meantime you might re-rent "A Long Kiss Goodnight", which was 
amazingly prophetic of 911, complete with CIA planning, a Muslim fall 
guy, and a mass-murder incident. As the CIA project leader in the 
film said, and I quote from memory, "We can't fake this kind of 
incident, killing thousands of innocent civilians, we've got to do it 
for real." In order to be sure of enough 'shock and awe', the 911 
Sequel, as with other thriller sequences (one Alien, many Aliens), 
must be even bigger and more dramatic than the Twin-Towers-Pentagon 
production. The soft-drink plot, however, serves very well to prepare 
everyone for the coming big event.

Some analysts have suggested that the destruction of Lebanon was 
preparation for an Iran attack in a military sense -- providing a 
buffer of protection for Israel when the shit hits the fan. I don't 
see much sense in this view, even if Israel had been more effective 
in disabling existing Hezbollah units. Hezbollah's arsenal, though 
frightening to Israeli civilians, is kid stuff compared to what Syria 
and Iran have on hand -- not to mention what Russia has on hand in 
the case of escalation. I see the Lebanese adventure as being 
important to war preparations, but for other reasons.

The adventure provided a way to bring Syria into the demonization 
spotlight. and to further highlight Iran -- by blaming them for 
Lebanese suffering (hutzpah extraordinaire!) This prepares the public 
mind to accept a simultaneous attack on Iran and Syria, when the time 
comes. The adventure also broke the ice as regards blitzkrieg warfare 
against civilians, tested the waters as to how the global public 
would react to such carnage, and provided a testing ground for 
damage-control propaganda.

The Lebanon adventure was a test-run, of relatively little strategic 
significance in its own right -- but it was very significant as an 
indicator of timing, particularly when staged simultaneously with the 
soft-drink incident.  Blair seized on the confluence of these events 
by describing an "Arc of Terrorism" (ie, the Muslim world), and he 
and Bush now use the phrase "Muslim fascists".

The attack on Iran is being carefully orchestrated, and judging from 
the tempo of the music, we seem to be nearing the Finale. If the 
'realists' intended to interrupt this performance, I think they would 
have intervened before now.

* The two-faced role of European elites - a bit of background

European elites have been engaged in a treasonous conspiracy against 
the people of Europe ever since the adoption of the Maastricht 
Treaty. While that treaty was sold as being 'the necessary first 
step' in creating the European Union, it's actual purpose was to 
ensure that Europe follow the US and UK down the path of 
neoliberalism and globalization -- the path toward denationalization 
and an elite-controlled world government. The 'fiscally conservative' 
(ie, neoliberal) treaty was drafted not by Foreign Ministers, but by 
Finance Ministers -- the bankers 'inside men' in governments -- and 
that pretty much tells the story of where real power lies in Europe.

The problem for European elites was that postwar Europeans -- having 
lived under the Nazi regime -- had a fiercer passion for democracy 
and social justice than did their US and UK counterparts. European 
newspapers, for example, represent a far wider spectrum of opinion 
(communist, socialist, etc.) than can be found in the popular US & UK 
media. While Reagan and Thatcher were able to easily lead their sheep 
by the nose into neoliberal national decline, the project in Europe 
has been considerably more difficult and time consuming. The Brussels 
super-government has needed to cultivate a 'progressive Green' image 
-- quite the opposite of its true colors -- in order to seduce the 
people of Europe into transferring more and more sovereignty to 
Brussels. Meanwhile, with less publicity, that same sovereignty was 
being signed over to the globalists in the form of 'free trade' 

This tension between elite designs and European public sentiment 
continues to be strong. We saw a dramatic exhibition of this tension 
when elites tried to stuff a new (power centralizing) constitution 
down the throats of Europeans. The outcome -- defeat of the 
constitution -- was very encouraging, showing that Brussels had 
underestimated the common sense and dedication to democracy of the 
European people.

The treasonous mindset of European elites was starkly revealed by 
official responses to the constitutional defeat. Officials totally 
ignored the expressed sentiments of the people -- which were against 
neoliberalism and greater centralization -- and talked only about how 
the constitution might better be sold next time. Some even said it 
had been a mistake to put the constitution to a popular vote, and 
wished that a different strategy had been followed, via national 
parliaments. These are the musings of conspirators, not of democratic 

This background glimpse has been necessary in order to provide a 
perspective from which to evaluate the role of European elites in the 
preparation for an attack on Iran. We need to understand why the 
public pronouncements of European leaders are often quite the 
opposite of their actual sentiments and objectives. We need to dig 
deeper than those pronouncements if we are to assess how these elites 
might view a war with Iran.

The fact that Europe has backed away from participating in the 
invasion and occupation of Iraq does not tell us much in this regard. 
It may appear that European leaders are champions of peace, but they 
really have no choice -- it would be political suicide for them to 
openly support such blatant imperialism. And if they can't support 
it, they might as well make some political points by pretending to be 
against it. Just as a progressive-Green image must be maintained as 
long as possible, so must a peace-loving image. We saw some of the 
elite's true colors as they participated (first covertly and later 
overtly) in the destabilization and destruction of Yugoslavia. In 
that case an intensive propaganda campaign succeeded in bringing 
Europeans on side. Now we are seeing another such intensive 
propaganda campaign -- in the run-up to an Iran invasion. This 
campaign has required the collaboration of European elites and their 
political stooges.

* Europe and the Clash of Civilizations

I believe that the best way to understand the real attitude of 
European elites is to examine that question in the context of 
Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". (Needless to say, Huntington 
is merely an articulator of elite designs, not a prime mover.) In 
Huntington's vision for global order there is one super power (the 
US), and nine regional powers, each in charge of its own 
'civilization' / culture. None of the regional powers is permitted to 
be anything like a match to the one super power, and we see this 
reiterated in the neocons' agenda for global domination, published by 
their Project For a New American Century. The PNAC agenda can be seen 
as part of the implementation plan for Huntington's vision. The 
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq represent the opening moves in 
pursuing that plan.

Nations which remain as obstacles to the vision include Iran, Syria, 
Venezuela and other Latin rebels, Russia, and China. The neocons have 
been trying to pick all these off piecemeal. WW III will occur when 
the neocons turn their guns on Russia and China, or when Russia and 
China decide to confront the agenda. This could happen early if the 
neocons decide to go for a quick first-strike win, of if China and 
Russia decide that continued appeasement is fatally undermining their 
strategic position. Iran, as mentioned at the beginning, might turn 
out to be the escalation flash point for either reason.

Another primary characteristic of Huntington's vision is its emphasis 
on 'irreconcilable' cultural differences. In Huntington's fantasies 
White European civilization is 'naturally democratic and 
humanitarian', while other cultures, to one degree or another, are 
incapable of such a high level of civilization. It's all a rehash of 
the British Empire's racist "White Man's Burden", and now as then as 
then it is a thin mask for barbaric imperialism. Blair's 'arc of 
terrorism', Bush's 'Muslim fascists', the systematic Muslim 
demonization program in Europe, and the increasing cooperation of 
NATO with the Pentagon (eg, Yugoslavia) -- all of these serve to help 
turn Huntington's fantasies into reality, to help realize his scheme 
for global management.

As European leaders implicitly collaborate in this scheme, for 
example by assisting in the Muslim demonization program, I suggest 
this indicates they have bought into their assigned role within 
Huntington's vision. With Germany as regional power, and enjoying 
good relations with the lone superpower, European elites would fare 
relatively well in the new world order. They've long grown accustomed 
to playing second fiddle to Uncle Sam, to accepting US-Anglo 
domination of energy distribution, and relying on the Pentagon to 
keep the world safe for their commerce and investments. If the new 
order promises to maintain this second-tier status for European 
elites, and if they aren't up to challenging the US for the top-dog 
position, then it makes sense for them to go along and cut the best 
deal they can. The fact that most Europeans would find this agenda 
repugnant forces their leaders to keep their objectives to 
themselves, while justifying their various collaborations on other 

* War with Iran: the expected scenario

The ground has been carefully prepared for Western publics (each by a 
culturally-customized propaganda campaign) to accept a second 911 as 
genuine terrorism, to blame it on Muslims, to expect immediate 
retaliation against the alleged perps, and not to be surprised if 
those perps turn out to be Iran and Syria. The soft-drink plot has 
all the earmarks of a prelude to a finale, ensuring that everyone 
will have their suspicions tuned to the right frequencies when the 
finale begins, as the curtain opens on '911 the Sequel' -- most 
likely somewhere in Western Europe. The Madrid train bombing 
demonstrated that US-Anglo intelligence operatives, including their 
Al Qaeda assets, are capable of operating effectively on European 
soil. There is no need for European leaders to compromise their own 
intelligence services by direct collaboration in a false-flag 

When news of the outrage incident lights up televisions around the 
world, it will be accompanied by reassurances that the perps have 
already been identified and retaliatory strikes have been launched. 
By 'coincidence', the nuclear submarines will be exactly on station, 
the cruise missiles will be programmed exactly right, and the 
vulnerable warships will be either (a) sitting ducks for propaganda 
purposes, just like the Battleship Arizona at Pearl Harbor, or (b) 
out of range of Iranian missiles, just like the out-of-port aircraft 
carriers when the Japanese attacked. One good way to look for clues 
as to the exact timing of 911-2 would be to keep track of ship and 
troop movements in the Middle Eastern region. 911-2 will not be 
staged until all ducks, large and small, are carefully lined up.

The war strategy, quite clearly, will be for a lightning first strike 
using a mixture of conventional and nuclear weapons, and presumably 
accompanied by a sophisticated satellite-based communications-jamming 
technology. The goal will be to neutralize Iran and Syria's missiles, 
either by hitting them before they can be launched or else by jamming 
their guidance systems. Iran and Syria will learn they are under 
attack at the same time they learn about the false-flag incident that 
they are being accused of perpetrating. They'll be as surprised as 
the rest of us, as regards the exact timing. Indeed, the stealth 
bombers will probably be in the air, heading for their targets, 
before the outrage incident even occurs. Timing is everything in a 
first-strike operation.

I doubt if a first-strike can be entirely successful, barring a 
simultaneous air-burst of thermonuclear weapons that wipes out the 
entire populations of Iran and Syria in a split second. I don't think 
the propaganda preparations have been effective enough to permit that 
option, although it is a real possibility. More likely there will be 
significant retaliation from Iran and Syria, providing good 
propaganda footage of wrecked shipping and destroyed targets in 
Israel, and leading to a global energy crisis and an economic 
collapse. WW III is an alternative outcome, and again I must say 
there are too many unknowns to venture a guess on that one.

* Why economic collapse benefits elites

For one thing, it would be hard to avoid a collapse for much longer 
even without a war in the gulf, so it makes sense to create the 
crisis under controlled conditions, rather than let it come on its 
own accord. The whole global economy is hopelessly over-inflated, 
over-leveraged, and entirely unsustainable -- a bubble waiting to 
burst. The US, with its astronomically increasing debt, and alarming 
budget deficits, may be the sickest of the sick, but it's not alone 
in its economic hospital ward. We are quite obviously in a global 
pre-depression scenario, as many respected analysts have pointed out. 
In addition, the onset of peak-oil awareness adds a momentous new 
dimension to the meaning of 'collapse'. We are talking about a 
collapse from which full recovery will never be possible, if we 
measure that by our current styles of energy consumption.

For elites, depressions are a time of ownership consolidation. On 
paper they may lose billions, but if they hold on to their stock 
their percentage ownership of infrastructure and resources remains 
unchanged. As purchasing power generally plummets, everything becomes 
a buyers market, and those with liquid assets (ie, wealthy elites) 
can buy up real estate, stock, corporate assets, etc., at 
bargain-basement prices. When recovery eventually occurs, even if not 
a full recovery, those lost billions come mostly back, and the 
percentage of overall ownership has been greatly increased, more 
highly concentrated in elite hands. Such was the story of the Great 
Depression of the 1930s.

Peak oil adds another dimension to this scenario, the Clash of 
Civilizations project adds another, and Patriot-Act fascism adds yet 
another. An energy crisis and an economic collapse provide a perfect 
opportunity for US-Anglo elites to make progress in each of these 
dimensions, particularly if the collapse is 'caused' by a 'terrorist 
act'. People will blame the 'terrorists' when the lights go out, the 
petrol pumps are empty, and the jobs disappear. They will accept 
astronomical increases in energy prices, relocation to refugee center 
/ labor camps, and Gestapo-like 'security measures'. No questions 
will be asked when 'mopping up' operations are carried out against 
Venezuela, Cuba, and similars. People will 'regrettably understand' 
as mass starvation occurs in many parts of the world, contributing to 
the elite agenda of global population reduction. By letting things 
get as bad as they possibly can, elites will be able to architect 
their new world order from the ground up, and people will be grateful 
for any improvement in their situation, willing to accept whatever 
comes with it.