Friends, 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 WW III. 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): <http://prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Warning.htm> * 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 conditions. 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' treaties. 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 representatives. 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 grounds. * 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 incident. 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. ________________________________________
