Sabbah Report » Defence

Obama Secretly Sold Israel Bunker-Buster Bombs (Bush Refused)

Haitham Sabbah — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:52:13 +0000

Not much after President Obama's lecture advocating Zionist dreams at the UN, the real ugly face of Obama appears to the public once again.

Commonly known as "bunker busters," 2,000-pound penetrator bombs are stored on pallets in a bunker at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Okla., in this file photo. , AP Photo; Inset: Getty Images

The Man-of-Peace is secretly supplying Israel with 55 powerful bunker-busting bombs capable of destroying buried targets, like arms caches or perhaps sites in Iran suspected of being part of that nation's nuclear weapons program, American officials said Friday.

From Newsweek:

While publicly pressuring Israel to make deeper concessions to the Palestinians, President Obama has secretly authorized significant new aid to the Israeli military that includes the sale of 55 deep-penetrating bombs known as bunker busters, Newsweek has learned.

In an exclusive story to be published Monday on growing military cooperation between the two allies, U.S. and Israeli officials tell Newsweek that the GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators—potentially useful in any future military strike against Iranian nuclear sites—were delivered to Israel in 2009, just several months after Obama took office.

The military sale was arranged behind the scenes as Obama’s demands for Israel to stop building settlements in disputed territories were fraying political relations between the two countries in public.

The Israelis first requested the bunker busters in 2005, only to be rebuffed by the Bush administration. At the time, the Pentagon had frozen almost all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects out of concern that Israel was transferring advanced military technology to China.

In 2007, Bush informed Ehud Olmert, then prime minister, that he would order the bunker busters for delivery in 2009 or 2010. The Israelis wanted them in 2007. Obama finally released the weapons in 2009, according to officials familiar with the still-secret decision.

The Pentagon declined to confirm or deny the report but press secretary George Little said "the United States remains committed to helping Israel provide for its own security and we remain committed to helping Israel maintain its qualitative military edge."

Eisenhower’s worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs

SR Editor — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:01:58 +0000

Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it

By Simon Jenkins*

NATO airstrike in Tripoli, Libya. AP

Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself.

Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".

Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.

On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to Nato warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appal the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.

It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".

I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."

The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.

There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%.

These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial.

The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.

As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour.

There is one piece of good news. Nato has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders ... may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?

* Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard.

Source: Guardian

Empire or Republic. How the Empire Destroys its Own People

James Petras — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 19:07:37 +0000

By Prof. James Petras* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Introduction

On May 29, 2011, President Obama visited Joplin, Missouri , the site of a devastating tornado that killed 140 and pronounced it a terrible "tragedy". But were the deaths the inevitable result of 'natural events' beyond the human intervention?

Coincidentally the same week Afghan President Karzai condemned the killing of a family of 14 by a NATO fighter bomber, running the total to several hundred civilians killed so far this year and thousands over the decade.

The relation between the civilian deaths in Joplin and Afghanistan raises fundamental questions about the priorities, character and direction of the US Empire and the future of the American republic.

Geography of Tornados

Every year at least 20 major violent tornadoes – with winds exceeding 200 mph – hit "tornado alley" and beyond, including central Texas, northern Iowa, central Kansas, Nebraska, western Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. Each and every year at least sixty are killed and several hundred are maimed and injured. This year, through May 2011, over 519 have been killed, 25% of whom were in mobile homes, almost three times as many as those in standard houses.

In other words, these tornado-related deaths are predictable, annual, and region-specific and have a higher incidence among low income households. Government agencies and academics have compiled data banks and time series information mapping the route, frequency and impact of tornadoes.

Information about the nature of killer tornadoes is plentiful. Nevertheless deaths mount from year to year. Fear and insecurity stalks the region's most susceptible to the violent whirlwinds, even as the Congress and White House have increased personnel and funding for 'Homeland Security' twenty fold over the decade .The current budget is over $180 billion. If we add the deaths caused by other 'natural' disasters like the flooding of New Orleans , the numbers of deaths are staggering. What explains this perverse relation between huge public funding for 'homeland security' and the increased insecurity of vulnerable Americans in clearly identified danger zones?

The reason is clear: 'Homeland Security' (HS) is an Orwellian misnomer. The agency is not concerned with domestic, civilian, American security. HS is part of a military-police response to imagined overseas threats, which have not materialized or at least have not produced deaths comparable to tornadoes and floods in the last 11 years.

HS spends billions and employs thousands to investigate, spy and harass citizens engaged in legal-constitutional activities. HS and the Pentagon spend tens of billions on overseas infrastructures – buildings, bases, camps -and over 900 billion in arms. HS and the Defense Department forcefully intervene militarily throughout the world via overt and clandestine operations.

To be precise HS intervenes offensively overseas, attacking civilian targets, while it fails to engage domestically to protect American civilians who are left defenseless in the face of predictable natural disasters.

HS and the Pentagon's sustained violent overseas operations are rejected and regarded as a hostile imperial intervention by the civilians in those countries adversely affected. In contrast, defenseless citizens in the US would welcome large-scale intervention in the form of community shelters, which would provide survival, security, life-saving protection and financial aid for rebuilding their lives. Moreover, Pentagon and HS spending on overseas infrastructure, bases and bombs results in deficits, whereas investments in tornado and flood shelters would stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the US .

The current activity of HS destroys lives abroad and neglects survival at home: It has nothing to do with our "homeland" and even less with our "security". Five percent of HS budget would have prevented many of Joplin 's 'tragedy' (and saved us from Obama's gaseous oratory!) and the other 400 deaths from this year's crop of tornadoes.

Systemic Bases of Perpetual Domestic Neglect

Death from 'natural' events raises a fundamental POLITICAL question: Why is the budget of Homeland Security and the Pentagon directed overseas, toward destructive, offensive, military activity rather than to domestic, constructive, defensive activity to protect American lives and productive economic activity?

The problem is systemic not due to some personal flaw or political idiosyncrasy of the moment. The structures of the US economy and military institutions are oriented 'outwardly' to conquering foreign financial markets and building a military empire. The ideology which informs strategic policymakers is imperial-centered not republican: They do not speak of developing and deepening the economy and security of ' middle America '. Every member of the political and corporate elite talks of 'world' or 'global' leadership – a thinly veiled euphemism for the drive to sustain world dominance. Within the imperial framework the entire 'security' budget is directed toward maintaining offensive military supremacy. No wonder there is a steep decline in all spheres of domestic security – natural, social, personal, health and employment –a phenomenon that proceeds with little public debate. The only exception is when threats to security impinge most directly and forcefully on a significant sector of the population. For example, witness the storm of protest from those directly affected when the politicians moved to privatize social security and Medicare.

Nevertheless, the entire political spectrum, the two parties, the Congress and the White House over the past 30 years, have created an artificial consensus in which overseas wars, foreign aid to patrons (Israel) and clients (Pakistan and Egypt) absorbs the greatest percentage of budgetary spending. No political or economic leadership has stepped forward to articulate the obvious connection between global expansion and domestic decay; to forcefully state that the deterioration of the republic is a direct product of the vast resources channeled into military and economic empire building. Who on New York City 's Wall Street or Washington 's Pentagon is going to even look at or consider a 'security plan' with regard to the geography of catastrophes – tornado alley covering a dozen states and the floods and deaths that overwhelm the lowlands from Montana to Louisiana ?

Listen America

Their message is loud and clear:

Small towns and trailer parks do not count! You have your 2nd amendment (the 'right to bear arms'), you have your 'small government', and you have your flags: 'Wav 'em and weep' as tornadoes blow down your houses and your sons and daughters return wrapped in flags to the Battle Hymn of the Empire!

Conclusion

One might argue that community storm shelters won't break the Treasury or reverse the empire. More to the point, their absence, from the federal, state and local political agenda, is emblematic of the total subordination of domestic America to imperial Washington . The 'cost' of building community shelters at the strip malls and trailer parks in Joplin , Missouri is less than a regional training outpost in Kandahar , Afghanistan . It is not a question of money.

Conquering Afghanistan villages enhances the prestige of the Generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO officials. Can saving 145 lives in Joplin , Missouri match that in terms of world politics or the politics of imperial leadership? For Afghanistan , Washington builds a thousand military shelters and bomb proof bunkers .For the Americans living in tornado alley and the flood plains of the Mississippi people must make do.

When you hear the tornado warning, it's up to you. As a proud, free American you can find a rock to crawl under and say your prayer: the Federal government and Homeland Security have the Endless, World-wide War against Terror to fight and cannot be bothered by a Joplin , Missouri nursing home in the path of a tornado.

We exaggerate: Obama will jet in and speak before the cameras in solemn terms of the 'tragedy' and 'courage' of the people of Joplin ... But will any local politician stand up and speak truth to power? Most of these deaths and (many more to come) are avoidable; under a democratic American republic, the government 'intervenes' to provide protection, health and employment for its people.

In the meantime, as the empire continues to grow it destroys its own people, just like the sow that devours its offspring.

* James Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

Chickens come home to roost: US technology goes to North Korea via Israel and China

Paul J. Balles — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:32:02 +0000

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Gordon Duff, Senior Editor at Veterans Today, observed that "America learned, long ago with the infamous Jonathan Pollard case, that secrets going to Israel end up in the hands of America’s enemies."

According to Duff:

America’s most vital Cold War defence information, nuclear technology, air defence systems, classified weapons and even NATO defence plans in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, all went to Russia as part of an arrangement between the Soviets and Israel. Pollard is doing life in prison for this.

Why is the American public generally unaware of Israel's theft of US military secrets? The Western media adamantly refuses to report anything critical of Israel.

British writer Jonathan Cook, relating experiences of having his articles ditched by the Western press, notes that journalists "learned to tailor their reporting to what was expected by the news desks".

If you can't shut journalists up by threatening unemployment, shoot them, gas them or bomb them, as Israel does with Palestinian journalists.

During the last presidential campaign in America, Reverend Jeremiah Wright became persona non grata with Barack Obama because of a remark the reverend made about the chickens coming home to roost.

Reverend Wright was impeccable in his sermon. Here's what he said that some found offensive:

We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. We killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home.

Wright recounted more US state terrorism:

We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the

playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day.

Wright challenged:

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism.

Terrorism isn't the only breed of chickens that come home to roost. The analogy also applies to dirty secrets involving military technology.

America gives technology to Israel. Israel sells it to China; China gives it to North Korea. North Korea is ready to use it against America.

The evidence is clear. Jonathan Reingold, a military analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, notes that "Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms".

Says Reingold, "The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering US technology and selling to nations hostile to US interests."

American taxpayers pay to provide military technology to Israel and Israel turns around and sells it to China and others.

Are we worried about Iran's nuclear aspirations and missile technology? Reingold adds: "China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran." Remember, they were supplied by the US to Israel and sold to the Chinese by Israel.

According to Jayshree Bajoria, Senior Staff Writer for the Council on Foreign Relations: "China has supported North Korea ever since Chinese fighters flooded onto the Korean peninsula to fight for their comrades in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 1950."

At the time of writing this, the North Koreans threaten war against South Korea and the US. If they follow through, our chickens will have come home to an uncomfortable roost.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He’s a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Wake Up, America!

Philip Giraldi — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:53:35 +0000

By Philip Giraldi * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Let us suppose for a moment that an individual enjoying the full confidence and trust of the United States government was given access to the most secret information possessed by the US military, to include how it would react to an attack by an aggressor armed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Let us further suppose that that individual violated his trust in the most egregious and vile fashion, offering to sell the information to anyone, but eventually settling on a nation ostensibly friendly to the US but not in any way a formal ally. The individual then proceeded to deliver defense secrets literally by the carload, not only information that might plausibly have been construed as relevant to the buyer’s own security, but also strategic defense information that could conceivably have led to the deaths of millions of American citizens. That information was then bartered and re-sold to an enemy who was in a position to use it to devastate the United States, together with sources and methods information on intelligence operations that in short order led to the deaths of many American citizens and also foreigners who had been cooperating with the United States.

Let us further suppose that the individual who stole the secrets was eventually caught because the sheer volume of what he was stealing was detected in spite of the indolence and incompetence of his superiors and he was convicted and imprisoned for life. In the damage assessment made after the arrest, it was determined that the espionage had been the most devastating ever experienced by the United States of America, both in volume and in the sensitivity of the information that had been betrayed.

Fast forward a few years. The country that paid the man to steal the secrets becomes a major beneficiary of US assistance and uses the money to set up a lobbying organization that effectively manages key players in the federal government and the media, making it virtually invulnerable to any criticism. Pumped up by hubris, that country seeks on several occasions to obtain the freedom of its spy, claiming inaccurately that he was only taking information used for purely defensive purposes. Fast forward a few more years and legislators in the US Congress known to be advocates of the foreign country that bought the secrets join in, calling for the release of the convicted spy. The media, also compromised and in the pockets of the foreign lobby, obligingly does not report the tale of American legislators who have apparently sold out.

I am, of course, referring to Jonathan Pollard and his friends in Israel and the United States. Pollard did more damage to the United States than any spy in history. And it was genuine damage, not just a mass of documents that had been routinely classified. Pollard’s Israeli handler, aided by someone in the White House who has up until now evaded arrest, was able to ask for specific classified documents by name and number. The Soviets obtained US war plans, passed to them by the Israelis in exchange for money and free emigration of Russian Jews without any regard for the damage it was doing to the United States. The KGB was able to use the mass of information to reconstruct US intelligence operations directed against it and a number of Americans and US agents paid with their lives. Pollard also revealed to the Israelis and Soviets the technical and human source capabilities that US intelligence did and did not have, which is the most critical information of all as it underlies all information collection efforts. Compounding the problem, the United States has never actually been able to accurately ascertain all of the damage done by Pollard because the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the investigation and has not returned the documents that were stolen.

And make no mistake, Pollard did it for money. He has since wrapped himself in the Israeli flag and promoted himself as an observant Jew to justify his crime and to obtain his freedom. He is reported to be a very popular person in Israel, an Israeli citizen by act of parliament, and there is a square in Jerusalem that has been renamed "Freedom for Jonathan Pollard Square." There is also an active "Justice for Jonathan Pollard" movement in the United States supported by the heavyweight Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Never before has there been such a transformation, with a despicable lowlife spy who sold out his country for money turned into a hero.

Pollard is just one symptom of the asymmetrical relationship that makes many mutter "wag the dog" whenever the subject of Israel comes up. If ever a foreign country has stuck its thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam, it is Israel in its willingness to take the United States for a ride while always demanding still more. And when it demands more it is invariably given more, with US politicians and mainstream media ever willing to genuflect and do what is right for the kleptocracy in charge in Tel Aviv.

The latest criminal outrage is a quartet of congressmen who are calling on the Obama Administration to free Pollard to "advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks." Well, first of all, everyone knows that the talks are kabuki, designed to accomplish absolutely nothing while advancing the standing of Obama prior to the US congressional elections in November. Israel continues its creeping annexation of the West Bank aided and abetted by Washington, which will do nothing substantive to stop the illegal and immoral activity. Abbas presumably is being bought off to stay silent while the play unfolds and Hamas, which should be sitting at the table, has been excluded.

That means that the congressmen in question, who actually took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, know that they are doing nothing but throwing yet another bone to Israel. The congressmen are Barney Franks of Massachusetts, Edolphus Towns of New York, Anthony Weiner also of New York, and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. Mark their names well. Franks and Weiner are presumably acting due to tribal solidarity, but Pascrell and Towns are the straight men in the routine, brought along to make the Free Pollard movement appear to be less than a complete ethnically based sell out.

It is time for the American people to rise up and throw these bums out. Putting them in jail for malfeasance and corruption would be even better. I would like to see a panel of USS Liberty survivors and widows and orphans of the dead intelligence officers question Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns about their plan to free Pollard. Better still, I would like to see some US veterans groups and their publications develop a backbone and take up the cause, finally saying that enough is enough since it is our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have paid the price in their blood for the Israeli connection. And then there is the intelligence community. Its leading lobby, Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), has long ignored Israeli espionage and prefers to regularly express concern about "Islamofascism." Look in your own backyard folks, it is the Israelis who are skinning us alive, not the Muslims, and Pollard is the poster child of what exactly is being done to us. He is sometimes cited as proof that spies for Israel are caught and punished, but the truth is that he is the only one who has done hard time in jail and only because of the enormity of his crime while all the others have somehow slipped through our criminal justice system. Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns are only the latest in a long line of collaborator politicians who should sometimes sit back and ponder where their loyalty actually lies. If they persist in their Pollard campaign, they should be regarded as not fit to sit in the congress of the United States. And that goes for anyone else who decides to lobby on behalf of Pollard.

An opportunity is coming in November to remove the snakes from Congress. Let’s organize to get rid of Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns. To be sure they will be replaced by others who are probably just as attached to Israel or fearful of its lobby as they are, but the time will inevitably come when allegiance to a foreign nation that is a strategic liability for the United States will become unseemly. May that day come soon.

* Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. His "Deep Background" column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative.

(antiwar)

Capital Punishment, A Fair Deal For Terrorist Jonathan Pollard

Gordon Duff — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:53:27 +0000

Is America Being Asked To Negotiate With A Terrorist State?

By Gordon Duff* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"Free Pollard" Poster in Israel

"....the depth of Pollard's info that he passed on to Russia (amongst others) was as damaging as the Rosenberg's was during that era. Devastatingly state of the art. Virtually everything that we knew/know about nukes...." (US Navy nuclear weapons expert exclusive to Veterans Today)

Israel is demanding the immediate release of Jonathan Pollard. Pollard, sentenced to life in prison for spying against the United States is a hero in Israel. Jonathan Pollard, an American of Jewish ancestry and Zionist extremist views who publicly acclaims that he tried to destroy America to help maintain the "racial purity of Israel." Pollard may have been spying for Israel but all the information he stole, a truckload of America's most vital secrets, all went to the Soviet Union.

Why did Israel send this information to Russia, the names of all American intelligence assets behind the Iron Curtain, the exact locations of all NATO nuclear weapons facilities, missile silos and detail on how to defeat America's defenses from nuclear attack? America doesn't openly admit it, but this is exactly what was done, and done with one purpose, a surgical strike on America, starting and ending World War III in hours.

This is the current deal Israel is offering this time; If America releases Pollard, Israel agrees to suspend its 62 year ethnic cleansing program against Palestinian Muslims and Christians, for a short time at least.

The American public has never been told the truth about Pollard. Current figures of deaths directly attributed to Pollard's spying are at between 110 and 120 American CIA agents and up to 1600 top American intelligence assets that were foreign nationals. Minimally, Pollard should have faced 110 murder counts for American victims alone. He should have been tried and executed many years ago except for intercession by the government of Israel. Since Pollards sentencing in 1987, they have continually demanded his release.

Pollard wasn't a spy, he was a terrorist.

Pollard had only one purpose, not to spy for Israel but to enable the Soviet Union to launch a successful nuclear "first strike" on America. Pollard didn't act alone but had a series of handlers in Tel Aviv and Moscow,

THIS WASN'T AN ISRAELI SPY OPERATION BUT A JOINT SOVIET/ISRAELI ASSAULT ON NATO

For some reason, the State of Israel has never been called to account for its full complicity in Pollards crimes. Dozens of Israeli military and intelligence officials were fully complicit in along with Pollard and should have been extradited to the United States and tried for their crimes. Additionally, why isn't it a crime for an Israeli to spy on the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union? If Israel and the United States are allies, then spying on the United States for Russia should have been a crime in Israel also.

Instead, Pollard and his accomplices in Israel are treated as national heroes and the American government has remained silent. Moreover, the American press, even when reporting Israel's current demand for Pollard's release, fails to outline the most basic facts of the case and, in particular, the most glaring inconsistencies.

WHEN AMERICA ALMOST DIED

Though the facts behind the Pollard disaster have never been made public, members of America's military, intelligence and national security organizations knew, they had to, it was their job to try to defend a country left vulnerable to attack. Stories of DEFCON alerts tied to Pollard, are spoken of quietly, hushed voices, among retirees, pilots from the Strategic Air Command, NORAD personnel and other top military commands, both American and NATO partners.

Pollard dangled victory in front of a Soviet regime that was the most radical and thoughtless in their history, at a time when the signs of the collapse were becoming clear.

ISRAEL'S SIDE OF THE STORY

This is the rationale Israel gives for asking for Pollard's release:

The Reagan Administration was withholding critical intelligence on potential terrorist attacks on Israel. (Editor's note: Coincidentally, after Israel's withholding information that would have prevented the attack on the Beirut Marine Barracks in 1983, killing 241 Americans including 220 Marines.)

President Reagan's betrayal of Israel and the support for terrorists shown by people on his National Security Council, including advisers who were supplying Iran with advanced weapons including the Hawk anti-aircraft system and 1500 advanced TOW anti-tank missiles. (Iran Contra)

Key Reagan officials were actively building Iraq as an American surrogate power in the Middle East, offsetting Israel's role as sole nuclear power in the region.

(Unstated but clearly implied) The Soviet Union had, by 1982 become a more reliable partner for Israel and was likely to come out the winner in the Cold War. (Editor's note: Worst guess of all time)

WOLF BLITZER AND POLLARD

Wolf Blitzer, then of the Jerusalem Post, interviewed Pollard in his jail cell and wrote an article calling Pollard "Israel's Master Spy." Blitzer tried to paint Pollard as victim of an American witch hunt, the victim of an anti-Semitic FBI. The Washington Post published the Blitzer account and American media pulled in behind this false cover story painting Pollard as a victim.

Blitzer used his support of Pollard to vault himself to the top of Americas most respected media, the voice of CNN.

What is not reported is that Blitzer was only able to "spin" Pollard as aiding Israel because the damage done to the United States was so severe that it was and is classified. Polland and Blitzer talked about stealing intel on the PLO and Libya, information long shared with Israel but nothing about NATO order of battle or war plans against a Soviet ground offensive against Western Europe, the real heart of Pollards efforts.

The deal cut Pollard, leaving him alive, is the equivalent of giving a drunk driver who plows through a sidewalk filled with kindergartners a ticket for a broken tail light.

WHERE IS AMERICA'S PRESS?

The Pollard story should be a hot one. We have CIA agents rounded up, tortured for months, their networks turned, hundreds head for the gulag, more get a bullet in the back of the head. America is left blind and defenseless during the most brutal period of the Cold War, a period when the Soviets had a real superiority in missiles and the ability to hit any target with pinpoint accuracy, something continually misreported by America.

The nuclear Armageddon prayed for by Christian Zionists would have been a reality, for America at least. Russia would have survived relatively unscathed except for the radiation clouds from North America and Western Europe. This is the real story of Pollard, one totally blacked out in the press. Why is no one asking about this?

WIKIPEDIA ON POLLARD

Admiral Shapiro, who was himself Jewish, stated that he was troubled by the support of Jewish organizations for Pollard: "We work so hard to establish ourselves and to get where we are, and to have somebody screw it up... and then to have Jewish organizations line up behind this guy and try to make him out a hero of the Jewish people, it bothers the hell out of me".

Eric Margolis alleges that Pollard's spying may have led to the capture and execution of CIA spies in the Eastern Bloc after Israel sold or bartered Pollard's information to the Soviet Union. According to one theory , Israeli businessman and convicted Soviet spy Shabattai Kalmanovich may have been made a scapegoat for information from Pollard that had been willingly shared by Israel with the Soviets in order to secure the release of certain Jewish scientists in the USSR.

Ron Olive, retired Naval Criminal Investigative Service, led the Pollard investigation and in 2006 published the book Capturing Jonathan Pollard - How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice. In his book, Olive writes that Pollard was not serving Israel solely, and that Pollard confessed to passing secrets to South Africa and to his financial advisers, shopping his access to Pakistan and recruiting others for money.

EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS

A few weeks ago, a serial killer was arrested in Atlanta, boarding a plane for Israel. For decades Israel was a "get out of jail free card" for anyone, with extradition totally impossible, no matter how serious the crime.

If an African American kills a police officer in any state, he will be executed. Are we saying that, if for instance, the murderer is of Jewish heritage and he kills a CIA officer, even a hundred CIA officers, he can reasonably expect to spent his reflective years in a beach front condo in Israel? Do the families of the dead have to see his beaming face on Israeli television or read his commentaries in the Jerusalem Post?

Well, this is exactly what Israel is asking for and are holding the lives of thousands of Palestinians hostage as a bargaining chip.

This sounds to me like the actions of a terrorist state.

READER COMMENT ADDENDUM (FROM A NUCLEAR WEAPONS SPECIALIST)

Comment:
What the hell Gordon? Ya' got something printed that I cannot find ANYthing to argue with. I feel...kind of depressed. Just kidding.

You know my background, so you know I can't go into some things, but....the depth of Pollard's info that he passed on to Russia (amongst others) was as damaging as the Rosenberg's was during that era.

Devastatingly state of the art. Virtually everything that we knew/know about nukes.

Combine it with what Walker gave, along with what the couple working at Los Alamos TRIED to give away to"Venezuela" (and some say that they had already offered it/sold it to Russia & China), and it's fairly evident that our enemies know pretty much everything we know. I was told at one time that the amount of money spent by Russia and China combined, on obtaining our technology by espionage, was absolutely minute in consideration of what the costs to them would have been if they had to use their own technology, and therefore it was given the highest priority.

They placed virtually no limits on what they would pay for critical design info, and yet, amazingly, they usually got it at bargain basement prices. In the case of the Rosenberg's- for free. Same for Pollard and I believe Ames. I doubt if we'll ever truly know what nuke info Walker and his son passed on to Russia, but it was sold incredibly cheap.

A few thousand dollars for the entire Polaris-sub codes being used in the Pacific, for instance. Much less for entire copies of nuke IPB's and weapon assemby summaries.
To the point tho- Walker will never be released I've been told, and I believe it. He pissed off the wrong people with his arrogance. But Pollard? Probably. G-d damn the people that allow the castration of this country.

* Gordon Duff is senior editor of Veterans Today.

The Devil’s HAARP: weather weapons and recent “natural” disasters

SR Editor — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:14:45 +0000

By Tim Coles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This is the HAARP Research Station in Gakona, Alaska.

In 1997 the US Space Command declared war on the world by committing America to "full spectrum dominance" by 2020, "to close the ever-widening gap between diminishing resources and increasing military commitments". This do1ctrine was approved and expanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2000. For Dick Cheney's Project for the New American Century, however, it did not go far enough. The doctrine was expanded further by the Obama administration, from dominating "land, sea, air and space" to doctrine, ideology and cyberspace. Everything America and its pillars (Britain and Israel) do must, therefore, be understood within the context of "full spectrum dominance".

In 2003 the United States Air Force Space Command announced a "vision call[ing] for prompt global strike space systems with the capability to directly apply force from or through space against terrestrial targets". In order to achieve this, the air force has to control "natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control", hence "weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary," thereby allowing the US to "own the weather" and master "the science of chao", as the US Air Force explained in 1996. Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed in 2010 that far from reversing these trends, "Weather modification will continue to be explored".

A decade earlier, in 1999 the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy warned that, "despite the existing conventions", referring to the UN General Assembly Resolution banning environmental warfare, "military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP [High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program] system", putting into practice then Secretary of Defence William Cohen's suggestion that "electromagnetic waves" could alter the climate and control earthquakes and volcanoes remotely"¹. This was compounded by a Czech military paper, which stated that "HAARP can ionize and heat the atmosphere significantly affecting the airflow, and thus should cause storms, tornados and extreme heat or frost", going on to say that "it can be anywhere in the world to create artificial lightning, stronger than any natural [lightning]".. The latter point was confirmed by the US Air Force paper:

Possible mechanisms to investigate would be ways to modify the electropotential characteristics over certain targets to induce lightning strikes on the desired targets as the [generated] storm passes over their location. ... Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.

"BAE Systems designed and built the [HAARP] facility," according to the war corporation's website, "operating software, and controls under a series of contracts valued at more than 250 million US dollars from the Office of Naval Research". HAARP, according to its Alaska website, "employ[s] the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere", causing an ionospheric lift, "in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale". That is only HAARP Alaska, however, and that is only what they are telling us. According to the website, there are HAARP facilities in Latin America and Tajikistan, about which nothing is known, and, unlike HAARP Alaska, they are not open to selected members of the public.

This means that HAARP is funded by the Pentagon, contracted to (and designed by) private war corporations, developed through America's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, and owned by the US Air Force and Navy - yet we are expected to believe that it is not a weaponized military application. This official position cannot be taken very seriously, especially given that those agencies are committed to "full spectrum dominance".

"The ionosphere is the part of the atmosphere between space and the earth in which electrically charged atoms, or ions, reflect radio waves," BAE explained in a news release, "making long-distance radio communication possible". This is achieved by irradiating the ionosphere in order to send Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves down to submarines and other earthbound appliances. According to HAARP, it is also designed to "x-ray" the earth in order to find oil, gas, minerals, hidden submarines and subterranean bunkers. The tomographer Brooks Agnew explained how:

In 1983 I did tomography with 30 watts, looking for oil in the ground. I found 26 oil wells over a nine State area, and 100 per cent of the time was accurate, with just 30 watts of power beaming straight into solid rock.²

The resulting vibrations give mineral tomographers information about what is under the surface. HAARP, however, by its own admission, uses 3.6 million watts, with the aim of producing an apocalyptic 100 billion watts³. Testifying to the European Parliament in 1998, the physicist Rosalie Bertell

described the background to HAARP... If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region... [HAARP] enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.

In 1998 a European Parliament committee demanded that the US yield its HAARP secrets, which, of course, it refused to do. In 1999, the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection published a Report on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy, incorporating a Draft Resolution, which read:

The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflict widespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern war entails greater environmental destruction than any other environment-destructive activity... [Article 27 of the Draft Resolution] considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States administration [then Clinton's] to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks... [HAARP] could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems... Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us... If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.

The Resolution was delayed until 2003, and subsequently dismissed: HAARP "for Arctic Europe is a military programme. The [European] Commission has no competence, nor indeed the expertise, to carry out the examination requested by the Parliament". In other words, everyone got paid off and/or threatened. In 2000, Rosalie Bertell informed The Times (London) that America and Britain "are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapour rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods", which the US Air Force recommended in 1996, and the MoD tacitly reaffirmed in 2010. Bertell has also stated that

[i]t would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States... The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.

Or simply not mentioned at all. The topic is completely off the media agenda: Rok Golob, a social scientist at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, wrote that "[g]eophysical weapons today is a taboo topic that is often only superficially treated," going on to explain, rather ominously, how

Geophysical weapons are an important aspect of the true integrity of modern warfare, which, in addition to all the most modern weapons also use the scheduler Earth and the natural processes as a weapon... Many scientists believe that a possible cause for ecological disasters are secret and unpunished geophysical weapons in use. This view is confirmed by a number of warnings from international organizations such as NATO, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the official documents the Ukrainian and Russian parliament on the dangers of Geophysical weapons [and now the EU]. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to US President Carter, and J.F. McDonald, Science Advisor to Lyndon Johnson, have published a document on geophysical weapons, which were described as having the real possibility of negative effects on the civilian population.

Compounding Golob's research, particularly in relation to using natural cycles, a Czech military intelligence article explained how, "Under certain meteorological conditions (which are constantly changing, but they can be predicted) ionoféře can "steal" a large amount of electromagnetic energy that is there due to ions located in difficult to imagine quantities". The resulting amount of electromagnetism can be directed against earthbound targets, as the EU commissions have warned, making it the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

According to a pro-HAARP article in Wired magazine, which otherwise dismisses all of the above as a conspiracy theory, "A Russian military journal warned that blasting the ionosphere would trigger a cascade of electrons that could flip [the] Earth's magnetic poles. "Simply speaking, the planet will 'capsize'," it warned." HAARP is "so strong it could trigger earthquakes. And by dumping all those radio waves into the ionosphere, HAARP could turn a miles-wide portion of the upper atmosphere into a giant lens."⁴

On the subject of the "giant lens", shortly before the Haiti, Chile, China, Japan, and New Zealand earthquakes in 2010, "strange lights" were reported in the skies above many of those countries (these from the China earthquake in 2008 (see Video 1 and Video 2). Writing about something else, Wired noted how, "At about 125 miles up, HAARP's waves can energize free electrons, which collide with neutral atoms to produce a glow like the aurora borealis"⁵, which would explain the lights observed prior to the 2010 earthquakes. In 2010, Haiti, which has been subjected to centuries of brutal French and American colonial intervention, was hit by a devastating earthquake which killed 200,000 people. Russian Intelligence reported that

[s]ince the end of the decade of the 70s in the last century, the US "advanced a lot" in the state of its earthquake weapons and, according to these reports, they now use equipment with Pulse, Plasma and Tesla Electromagnetic and Sonic technology together with "shock wave bombs".

This would be consistent with the "experiments" conducted by the psychopaths at HAARP.

According to the Russian report, the State Department, USAID and the US Southern Command began its work of "humanitarian invasion" by sending at least 10,000 soldiers and contractors, to control Haitian territory, rather than the UN, after the devastating "experimental earthquake".

It should be noted that, although Obama's Quadrennial Defence Review 2010 does not mention geophysical weapons or weather modification, it does clarify the new doctrine of militarizing aid relief, thereby giving the US a pretext to occupy a given country:

extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defence support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.

One official source that does mention such weapons is the MoD's Strategic Trends Programme 2010, which states that Directed Energy Weapons will be capable of discrete target discrimination, producing a strike beam or field of electromagnetic energy, acoustic energy or atomic scale particles to cause disruptive or damaging effects, at near instantaneous speeds, to equipment, infrastructure or personnel. They will [emphases in original] have widespread employment including: hand emplaced "suitcase" devices; and ground, sea and air-based systems, with applications that include engine disablement and infrastructure attack [emphasis added. These are consistent with HAARP].

"As regards the final result of the tests of these weapons, the [Russian Northern Fleet] report warns that there is a US plan to destroy Iran through a series of earthquakes". "It can't reach Iran, if that's your question," quipped one of HAARP's developers, "Dennis Papadopoulos" - not his real name - speaking to Wired. This statement, buried at the end of an otherwise propagandistic article, is a tacit admission that HAARP is indeed a weapon, otherwise why say such a thing? "Papadopoulos" added: "But if I put HAARP on a ship, or on an oil platform, who knows?"⁶

Why would "Papadopoulos" and his psychopathic colleagues need to put a HAARP facility on a sea platform when they could establish a HAARP facility in a country near to the one they wish to destroy? Contrary to the HAARP Alaska facility, which is partly open to the public, there are numerous HAARP facilities, according to the official website, one of which is in Tajikistan, which is near Iran and borders China. This is in keeping with the statement of "Papadopoulos" about building a facility near Iran in order to "reach" it.

Furthermore, Britain's Ministry of Defence had already written about using unspecified new weapons (possibly neutron) in "outfacing irresponsible nuclear powers and in opposing demographically strong nations". The most "demographically strong nation" is China. Afghanistan separates China from Iran, and is occupied by Britain and America. Tajikistan, which borders Afghanistan and China, is close enough for a HAARP facility, assuming "Papadopoulos" is right, in order to attack China (which suffered an earthquake and flood in 2010), and to attack Iran, especially given Tajikistan's poverty, lack of defence, and weak government. As noted above, HAARP Alaska's website explained how

[a]ll of these installations have as their primary purpose the study of the ionosphere, and most employ the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale.

In other words, HAARP can and does cause natural disasters - they claim on a miniscule level and "to a varying degree". Not wanting to limit their deterrence capabilities, the Russians have built several HAARP facilities. As the US Air Force noted in 1996, the "beauty" of "owning the weather" and mastering "the science of chaos" is that nobody can prove if the given event is anthropogenic or not. Added to which, Obama announced an increase in US exports at a time when Russia is banning exports after its unprecedented droughts in 2010. Wreck another country's economy with a weather weapon, and force it to borrow from the IMF (as we have seen with Pakistan), in order to get them to purchase American exports.

The circumstantial evidence is getting too much to ignore. In 2010, we have had: a "sink hole" form in the ground in Guatemala; landslides in Guatemala and Italy; severe droughts in Russia; forest fires in Russia and Bolivia; floods in China, Taiwan, Pakistan, Niger and Mexico; a hurricane which missed Mexico; a hurricane which hit Burma; a volcanic eruption in Iceland; and earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, China, Japan, and New Zealand; added to which Britain's Ministry of Defence anticipates how new technologies could create "disastrous outcomes, planned and unplanned" - note the word planned - the culmination of which is a "doomsday scenario" meaning "the end of the world, or at least of humanity".⁷ What use is "full spectrum dominance" if there is nothing left to dominate?

Notes

1. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere, Fans Conspiracy Flames", Wired, Issue 17, No. 8, 20 July 2009. This has subsequently disappeared from the internet, but if you type the quotes into a search engine, you can find traces of it from Wired's "Danger Room", etc.

2. Brooks Agnew interviewed in Wendy Robbins (director) and Paula Randol-Smith (co-producer), 1998, Holes in Heaven? HAARP and Advances in Tesla Technology. Robbins's film is very informative, hence very well hidden, and actually contains interviews with HAARP maniacs who essentially admit they do not know what they are doing. Her film is serious and very different from the popular CBC broadcast film on HAARP, which can be found at here. Needless to say, there are massive efforts to make all of this seem like a conspiracy theory, hence the Canadian film shows activists in shadow, making the whole thing seem like science fiction. Added to which, HAARP is also the subject of another propaganda film by former Navy SEAL-turned-pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura - clearly another effort to undermine serious discussion. Furthermore, HAARP has been the subject of X Files episodes and Marvel Comics, as well as Wired magazine's dismissals of its opponents as "tinfoil-hatted lunatics". The propaganda trying to undermine the serious discussion about HAARP is disgraceful, but, considering the kind of world we live in, completely predicable.

3. Official documents cited in Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, Angels Don't Play This HAARP (Anchorage: Earthpulse Press).

4. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

5. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

6. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

7. Shachtman, N., "Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere".

* Tim Coles is a writer and filmmaker.

Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran (Part II The Military Road Map)

Michel Chossudovsky — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:44:04 +0000

By Michel Chossudovsky* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

To consult Part I of this essay click below:
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran (Part I: Global Warfare)

The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war". US military sources intimated that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )

"Theater Iran Near Term"

Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term", simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 "when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006).

The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg:

"The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "Theater Iran Near Term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.

... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)

Different "theater scenarios" for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplated: "The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, February 19, 2007)

In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" of a large scale military operation directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:

"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing-that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack-but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005)

The Military Road Map: "First Iraq, then Iran"

The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil." (USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9)

The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon's military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: "[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (See Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

The Role of Israel

There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.

Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.

Israel is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations" against Iran formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a "green light" from Washington.

An attack by Israel could, however, be used as "the trigger mechanism" which would unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.

In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack --although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO-- would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a view to "defending Israel", rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be "obligated" to "defend Israel" against Iran and Syria.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush's second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the "rogue enemies" of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it" (See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to Cheney:

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005)

Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.

An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel's air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11,2009)

Israel's X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support has "integrate[d] Israel's missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors." (Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009,)

What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather than Israel controls the air defense system: '''This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,' Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. 'So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.'" (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009).

The US military oversees Israel's Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon's global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington's consent. Hence the importance of the so-called "Green Light" legislation in the US Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:

"The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel's use of "all means necessary" against Iran "including the use of military force." ... "We've got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area."' (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010)

In practice, the proposed legislation is a "Green Light" to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.

In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor "incident" could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran.

Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.

Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)

Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the regional commands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map below) as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and decision making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as "partner nations" is integrated into a global military design including the weaponization of space.

Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "

USSTRATCOM's responsibilities include: "leading, planning, & executing strategic deterrence operations" at a global level, "synchronizing global missile defense plans and operations", "synchronizing regional combat plans", etc. USSTRATCOM is the lead agency in the coordination of modern warfare.

In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006).

What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.

Map: US Central Command

Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran

Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a US led nuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe, Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)

Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran" for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat - IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own "secret plans" to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:

"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said."(Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)

Obama's statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating "Islamic terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons.

"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel's Jericho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach.

Conventional bunker buster Guided Bomb Unit GBU-27. B61 bunker buster bomb.

Radioactive Fallout

The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the US and Israel are instruments of peace" harmless to the surrounding civilian population".

"The Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran

Of military significance within the US conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound "monster weapon" nicknamed the "mother of all bombs" The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized "as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed" with the the largest yield in the US conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to US military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the "mother of all bombs" was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).

The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to use the "Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be "ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran" (Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009). The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in extremely large civilian casualties. It is a conventional "killing machine" with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.

The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers.(Ibid). This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a 93-page "reprogramming memo" which included the following instructions:

"The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOAB [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need]." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran)." (ABC News, op cit, emphasis added). To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here

Mother of All Bombs - MOAB: screen shots of test: explosion and mushroom cloud

The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran's infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.

The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb-longer than 11 persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder [see image below] or more than 20 feet base to nose" (See Edwin Black, "Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs", Cutting Edge, September 21 2009)

These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOAB ("mother of all bombs'), is "mass destruction" and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear and despair.

State of the Art Weaponry: "War Made Possible Through New Technologies"

The process of US military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested.

The 2000 Project of the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the US military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World:

"Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars".

This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs", namely the implementation of "war made possible through new technologies". (See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf). The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms.

"Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs - tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example - that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial breakpoint, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces.

Electromagnetic Weapons

Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran's communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004). These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, te US Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledgedthe military applications of weather modification technologies:

"Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally... It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power." (Air Force 2025 Final Report, See also US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning... | (Ch 1) at www.fas.org).

Electromagnetic radiation enabling "remote health impairment" might also be envisaged in the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004). In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the US military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: "[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." (PNAC, op cit., p. 60).

Iran's Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles

Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the US-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pr-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.

Range of Iran

In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert (quoted by Debka), "the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess." (See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran's "Power of Deterrence" Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel acknowledged that "the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach" (Debka, November 5, 2006)

According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel's anti-ballistic missile program, "the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented... It was meant to make an impression -- and it made an impression." (www.cnsnews.com 3 November 2006)

The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the US and Israel, did not in any way modify US-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage on Iran.

Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel's air defense system is therefore crucial. US and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.

Iran's Ground Forces

While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to US and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to US and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.

Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See Islamic Republic of Iran Army - Wikipedia). There are 18,000 personnel in Iran's Navy and 52,000 in the air force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, "the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces)." According to the CISS, Iran's Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolutionary Guards "has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be" (Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq.

For several years now Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. While its Air force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran's military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of US and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates.

It is worth noting that in response to Iran's military build-up, the US has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

While Iran's advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the US and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field.

Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran's military facilities, its communications systems, etc. through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which US military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.

An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.

The expanded budget for the war in Afghanistan currently debated in the US Congress is also intended to be used in the eventuality of an attack on Iran.

Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.

In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle East Central Asian region.

In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon's drawing board for more than five years, threatens the future of humanity.

Our focus in this essay has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out.

The US-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial over the last five years in the decision by the US and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran.

Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet republics has been significantly weakened.

The ongoing US military threats directed against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran's allies in the case of a US NATO Israeli attack.

What are the countervailing forces which might prevent this war from occurring? There are numerous ongoing forces at work within the US State apparatus, the US Congress, the Pentagon and NATO.

The central force in preventing a war from occurring ultimately comes from the base of society, requiring forceful antiwar action by hundred of millions of people across the land, nationally and internationally.

People must mobilize not only against this diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be also be challenged.

This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people's movement which criminalizes war.

Author's note: Dear Readers, kindly forward this text far and wide to friends and family, on internet forums, within the workplace, in your neighborhood, nationally and internationally, with a view to reversing the tide of war. Spread the Word!

* Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism" (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

Rebalancing The World

Richard Falk — Sat, 29 May 2010 16:35:24 +0000

By Richard Falk* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

It may turn out that May 17, 2010 will be remembered as an important milestone on the road to a real new world order. Remember that the phrase 'new world order' came to prominence in 1990 after Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. It was used by George W. H. Bush, the elder of the two Bush presidents, to signify the possibility after the end of the Cold War to find a consensus within the UN Security Council enabling a unified response to aggressive war. The new world order turned out to be a mobilizing idea invoked for a particular situation. The United States did not want to create expectations that it would always be available to lead a coalition against would be breakers of world peace. The whole undertaking of a 'new world order' disappeared from diplomacy right after the First Gulf War of 1991. What one wonders now is whether the Brazilian/Turkish effort to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis with the West is not expressive of a new world, this time a 'real new world order.'

May 17th was the day that the Brazilian/Turkish initiative bore fruit in Tehran, with Iran agreeing to a ten-point arrangement designed to defuse the mounting confrontation with the United States and Israel with regard to its enrichment facilities. The essence of the deal was that Iran would ship 1200 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey for deposit, and receive in return 120 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% for use in an Iranian nuclear reactor devoted to medical research. The agreement reaffirmed support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as acknowledged Iran's right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which meant the entire fuel cycle, including the enrichment phase.

The bargain negotiated in Tehran closely resembled an arrangement reached some months earlier in which Iran had agreed to turn over a similar amount of low enriched uranium to France and Russia in exchange for their promise of providing fuel rods that could be used in the same medical research reactor. That earlier deal floundered as Iran raised political objections, and then withdrew. The United States had welcomed this earlier arrangement as a desirable confidence-building step toward resolving the underlying conflict, but it wasted no time repudiating the May 17th agreement, which seemed so similar.

Why the discrepancy in the American response? It is true that in recent months Iran has increased its LEU production, making 1200 kg of its existing stockpile amount to 50% of its total rather than the 80% that would have been transferred in the earlier arrangement. Also, there were some unspecified features in the May 17th plan, including how the enriched uranium would be provided to Iran, and whether there would be a system of verification as to its use. In this regard, it would have seemed appropriate if genuinely troubled by this for Washington to request Iran to transfer a larger quantity of LEU and to spell out the details, but this is not what happened.

Instead of welcoming this notable effort to reduce regional tensions, the Brazilian/Turkish initiative was immediately branded as an amateurish irrelevance by the American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. She insisted that the concerns about Iranian nuclear enrichment be left exclusively in the hands of the 'major powers,' and immediately rallied China and Russia (in addition to France and the United Kingdom) to support a fourth round of punitive sanctions that were to be presented to the UN Security Council in the near future. It now appears that the five permanent members of the Security Council will support this intensification of sanctions that is expected to call for an arms embargo on heavy weapons, travel restrictions on Iranian officials, a boycott of banks and companies listed as linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programs, and authority to search ships to and from Iran suspected of carrying prohibited items. Such a resolution if implemented would certainly increase tensions in the Middle East without any discouragement of the Iranian nuclear program. Indeed a new round of sanctions would almost certainly increase Iran's incentives to exercise its full rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and complete its development of the complete fuel cycle as has been previously done by several other parties to the treaty, including Japan, Germany, and The Netherlands.

Given the generally constructive character of the agreement reached in Tehran, the uncompromisingly hostile reaction in Washington can only be understood in one of two ways, neither of which is reassuring. If the U.S. Government, with or without Israeli prodding, had already resolved to impose sanctions, then any development that seems to cast doubt on such a coercive approach would be regarded as unwelcome. The evidence strongly suggests that the United States was determined to go forward with additional sanctions. This made the Brazil/Turkey initiative seem like a deliberate obstruction that was essentially resented as it has been reported that American leaders tried in talk Brasilia and Ankara out of making any independent steps to resolve the crisis.

Perhaps, the more weighty explanation of the hostile response has to do with the changing cast of players in the geopolitical power game. If this reasoning is correct, then the United States angry response was intended to deliver a reprimand to Brazil and Turkey, warning them to leave questions pertaining to nuclear weapons in the hands of what Hilary Clinton called 'the major powers.' In effect, the non-Western world should have no say in shaping global security policy, and any attempt to do so would be rebuffed in the strongest possible terms.

Yet the world of 2010 is very different from what it was in the late 20th century. Globalization, the decline of American power, and the rise of non-Western states have changed the landscape. This process has recently accelerated as a result of the world economic crisis, and the difficulties in the Euro zone. As the famous Bob Dylan 1960's song goes, "The times, they are a-changing." Recall that it was not long ago that the G-8 was scrapped in favor of the more inclusive G-20. Recently, as well, much attention has been given to the rise of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries. What seems most at stake in this attempt to supersede and nullify the Iran deal is banishing the Brazilian and Turkish intruders from the geopolitical playing field. For the West to claim that the Security Council remains representative of the arrangement of power in 2010 is ludicrous. The identity of the five permanent members has not been altered since 1945, which is a misguided effort to overlook the fundamental shifts in world power that have taken place in recent decades. Both Brazil and Turkey were elected to be non-permanent two year members of the Security Council, which both governments interpret as conferring a special responsibility to work for peace and justice in the world. AS the May 17th agreement shows, these governments possess the political will to make a difference in world politics.

Further, this is not just a childish ploy to grab a few headlines and tweak the old guard. The confrontation with Iran is exceedingly dangerous, agitated by Israel's periodic threats of launching a military attack and reports of pushing the United States in an escalating direction. Such a strategy of tension could easily produce a devastating regional war, disrupting the world economy, and causing widespread human suffering. Both Brazil and Turkey have strong national interests in working for regional peace and security, and one way to do this is to calm the diplomatic waters with regard to Iran's contested nuclear program. The fact that Iran seems prepared to go ahead with the agreement, at least if the UN refrains from further sanctions, strongly favors giving the deal a chance to succeed, or at worst, working to make it more reassuring to those countries that suspect Iran of secretly planning to become a nuclear weapons state.
The concern about Iran seems genuine in many quarters, given the inflammatory language sometimes used by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and considering the repressive internal practices in Iran. At the same time, even in this regard the United States leadership has rather dirty hands. While insisting that Iran cannot be allowed to do what several other non-nuclear states have already done in conformity with Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States has acknowledged that it has been engaged in a variety of military activities under Pentagon auspices within Iranian territory. (For confirmation see Mark Mazzeti, "U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast," NY Times, May 24, 2010). Also, it is impossible to overlook the dispiriting silence that has long insulated Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal from scrutiny and censure, as well as the closely related refusal of the Western powers to back proposals put forward by Egypt and others for a nuclear free Middle East.

Back in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, made headlines by contrasting 'Old Europe' (especially France and Germany) that he denigrated as decadent because it opposed the invasion of Iraq, and 'New Europe' that was the flourishing wave of the future in Eastern Europe that favored American policy. Now it is Old Europe that is again partnering with the United States, and so restored to the good graces of Washington. In this sense, Brazil and Turkey are being treated as trespassers who refuse to absent themselves from any further engagement in Middle East diplomacy.

Perhaps, we are witnessing the passing of an era in world politics, which has not yet been acknowledged. It is two decades since Charles Krauthammer, writing in Foreign Affairs, declared that "The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies." The abrupt rejection of the Brazil/Turkey initiative can probably best understood as a nostalgic clinging to the 'unipolar moment' long after its reality has passed into history.

Turkey has already demonstrated the enormous gains for itself and the region arising from the pursuit of an independent and activist foreign policy based on resolving conflicts and reducing tensions to the extent possible, with benefits for peace, stability, and prosperity. Not all of its initiatives have met with success. It tried to encourage the world to treat Hamas as a political actor after it fairly won elections in Gaza back in January 2006, but was rebuffed by Washington and Tel Aviv. Similarly, it brought to bear its mediating skill in trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria, only to have the process break down after a series of promising negotiating rounds. Maybe also the Brazil/Turkey initiative will be effectively beaten down, but that would not mean it was not worth trying, or that such governments should not keep trying to supplant war and militarism with diplomacy and cooperative international relations. Outside of Western diplomatic circles it is already widely appreciated that the May 17th agreement reveals the exciting reality of a new geopolitical landscape in which the countries of the global South are now beginning to act as subjects, and no longer content to be mere objects in scenarios devised in the North. At some point this reality might well be christened as the 'real new world order'!

* Prof. Richard Falk - is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, writer (the author or co-author of 20 books), speaker, activist on world affairs, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.

More hype about Iran?

SR Editor — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:21:02 +0000

By Prof. Stephen M. Walt* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored.

One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition of The Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

GDP: United States -- 13.8 trillion
Iran --$ 359 billion (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran's)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. -- $692 billion
Iran -- $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.--1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran-- 525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. -- 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran -- 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. -- 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran -- 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. -- 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran -- 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons:
U.S. -- 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran -- Zero

One might add that Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action. The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same toal of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizeable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It's a pretty unloveable regime, to be sure, but given Iran's actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren't going to work) or devising strategies to "contain" an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor "threat" in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and Sec Def Gates understand this. I hope I'm right. But I'm still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn't tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the "last resort" that Mullen referred to last weekend.

* Prof. Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Professor Walt is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy, and, with coauthor J.J. Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Source: Foreign Policy
BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

Jeff Gates – Christmas Day Crotch Bomber Tied to Israel, FBI

Jeff Gates — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:15:11 +0000

By Jeff Gates* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Christmas Day "terrorist" is the latest in a series of staged incidents meant to make The Clash of Civilizations appear plausible and "the war on terrorism" rational.

The storyline does not hold together. Not even a little bit. As usual, the source of this media-fueled fear campaign traces directly to Tel Aviv-with a supporting role by the FBI.

How did a young Nigerian Muslim without a passport "slip through" security at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport? Not only did his itinerary feature an illogical travel route, he paid cash for a high-priced last-minute ticket and boarded without checked baggage. How?

ICTS International, the security screening company at Schiphol, was founded by former members of Shin Bet, Israel's civil security agency, and Israeli executives in charge of El Al security. ICTS had already proven its expertise in mounting this type of operation.

In December 2001, Richard "The Shoe Bomber" Reid "slipped through" ICTS security at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Huntleigh USA, an ICTS subsidiary, shared responsibility for security at Logan International Airport in Boston where hijackers for two of the four 911 jets "slipped through" airport security. It gets better.

The Crotch Bomber told U.S. authorities that radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki counseled him on the incident. Born and raised in New Mexico, Al-Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2004 after advising the two 911 hijackers who trained in San Diego. He also advised U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan who is charged with shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009.

It's not yet clear whether FBI agents were monitoring the Nigerian while he too was advised by Al-Awlaki. If not, that would be an anomaly in a repetitive pattern of FBI complicity.

FBI agents not only monitored Major Hasan and Al-Awlaki before the Fort Hood shootings, they also monitored the San Diego hijackers while they were advised by Al-Awlaki. It gets better.

Though the Nigerian was foiled while trying to ignite 80 grams of PETN, an explosive sewn into his underwear, that amount was barely enough to dislodge the arm on his seat - of course that assumes it could have been ignited.

Without a blasting cap, this "terrorist incident" was doomed to failure even before he "slipped through" security. Could this get even better? Oh yeah.

We were told about his father alerting the C.I.A. station chief in Lagos However we were not informed that his father, a banker, oversaw a Nigerian defense firm that hired Israeli Defense Forces personnel to train Nigerians-in security.

Nor were we told that, for decades, Nigeria has been a central hub for Israelis laundering the proceeds of their transnational organized crime. That's not all.

The Iraq War Connection

Four days after 911, San Diego special agent Steven Butler came to the San Diego home of Iraqi-American Munther Ghazal, the Iraqi closest to Saddam Hussein then living in the U.S.

That's the same day Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz proposed in a principal's meeting at Camp David that the U.S. should invade Iraq. Iraq?!

Agent Butler paid rent and cashed checks for the two San Diego hijackers while they were being advised by Al-Awlaki. What did Butler want to know? Was Ghazal funding Mel Rockefeller with whom he had traveled to Iraq in 1997.

While in Baghdad, they confirmed that Saddam Hussein had mothballed Iraq's WMD program after the 1991 Gulf War-and was prepared to negotiate his departure without this war. That was four years before 911. The FBI has yet to interview Mel Rockefeller.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects are once again profiting off the misery of both sides in a "Clash" that they played a key role in creating. It was Jewish Zionist Bernard Lewis who first coined the term, The Clash of Civilizations.

Only later was Harvard professor Samuel Huntington branded with that premise when his book by that name was published in 1996, five years before 911.

Israeli-American Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security (aka the rabbi's son), now promotes firms that manufacturer highly intrusive body scanners that are terrific for spotting crotch bombers unless, of course, an Israeli firm is in charge of security.

News reports suggest that the stock of body-scanning firms soared $3 billion in value after this latest "terrorist" incident. Imagine the glee among clients of the Chertoff Group.

Meanwhile the U.S. has been transformed from the wealthiest nation to the world's largest debtor. Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz projects a $3 trillion tab for a war based on fixed, flawed and outright fabricated intelligence-every cent of it borrowed, including $700 billion in interest.

Tel Aviv: The Common Source of Terror

That's not all. Controlling shares in ICTS are held by Menachem Atzmon, board chairman since 2004. While treasurer of Israel's long-dominant Likud Party, Atzmon was convicted of campaign finance fraud. His co-treasurer, Ehud Olmert, resigned as Prime Minister in 2008 after being acquitted of fraud amid multiple corruption charges.

Did I forget to mention that ICTS was also handling security for London's bus system when the U.K. was targeted for its terrorist attack? Did I neglect to note that six months prior to the Shoe Bomber's flight on American Airlines, Richard Reid was stopped at Schiphol while boarding an El Al flight to Tel Aviv. Shin Bet allowed him to board so he could be monitored in Israel.

Did the Israelis inform their loyal ally about Richard Reid? What do you think?

Remember the October 1983 truck bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut that left 241 Americans dead? A former Mossad case officer conceded they had a description of the truck. Did our ally tell us? What do you think?

Our withdrawal from Lebanon left the field open to those who specialize in displacing facts with what targeted populations (including our own) can be deceived to believe.

Recall our belief in Iraqi WMD? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger? Iraqi meetings in Prague? All were false. All were traceable to Tel Aviv. Are you still having trouble connecting the dots?

As the U.S. sinks into bankruptcy, we are ridiculed abroad for failing to acknowledge the obvious: Americans have long been the target of a fraud operated by Israelis, pro-Israelis and those supportive of their goals for the region.

What better way to wage war on the U.S. than from within? How else can Israel expand except by duping its super power ally to wage wars for Greater Israel? Never mind the cost in blood and treasure. As an ally, the U.S. is easily portrayed as guilty by association.

Those promoting the Crotch Bomber scare are part of the problem. In the Information Age, this latest false flag operation is typical of how treason proceeds in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity. Those media outlets marketing this latest lie are an enemy within.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, merchant banker, educator and consultant to governments worldwide; served for seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. He is the author of Guilt by Association, Democracy At Risk and The Ownership Solution. See his website Criminal State

Obama adds 675 million Muslims to the ultimate US Terrorism List

Franklin Lamb — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:08:07 +0000

Lebanon reacts: Would it be simpler just to put the whole world on?

By Franklin Lamb* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

However President Obama is judged on various subjects for his first year in office, he has already made history in the way that neither his predecessor nor any other leader has ever managed.

On January 3, 2010, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued new security directives to all United States and international air carriers with inbound flights to the U.S. effective January 4, 2010. The TSA press release sought to assure the traveling public: "The new directive includes long-term sustainable security measures developed in consultation with law enforcement officials and our domestic and international partners."

At midnight Washington DC time, January 3, it went into effect and placed 675,000,000 (675 million) more Muslims and Arabs on yet another 'Terrorism 'list. Also added were Nigerian and Cuban Christians but they were not the target.

675 million is the approximate total number of people on the new list from the ten prone to terrorism Countries as the Washington Post called them this morning, or terrorist leaning countries according to Fox news, (Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen) and the four current State sponsors of Terrorism ( Iran, Syria, Libya and Cuba).

All 675 million of these citizens are subject to being watched, patted down, and full body scanned under arrangements calling for 'intense screening' by the national airlines who would like to transport them to the US. As with the new H. R. 2278 Congressional initiative against satellite TV providers, the airlines flying from or via the 14 countries will have to enforce the new stringent security measures or themselves risk losing their lucrative US bi-lateral landing rights and potentially, end up on yet another US Special Global Terrorism facilitator list.

In addition to the approximate 675 million covered by the new measure, with the average birth rate of these countries being approximately 45 live births per 1000 per year, it means that more than 17,000,000 newborns will join the new US T list even before their first gulp of their mommy's milk. And every subsequent years worth of new 'T babies'.

The new list initiative is enough to warm Dick Cheney's heart, reputed as he is to have never seen an Muslim or Arab (except those he does business with) he didn't want terrorized by a listing or other means, but the international rebellion against this latest US War on Terrorism initiative has begun.

As this report is being prepared, Nigeria has just weighed via media reports reaching Beirut around noon on 1/5/09 and its government has demanded that their 150,000,000 (150 million) citizens be immediately scratched from the new T list of 14 countries singled out for special treatment. Nigeria Information Minister Dora Akunyili announced today that Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, did not accept the new Terrorism list and we do not have a history of terrorism and such a move could not be justified. It is unfair to include 150 million Nigerians on the US list for tighter screening because Nigerians do not have terrorist tendencies.

It's no secret these days that anyone who even looks like they could be Arab or Muslim is already on a 'mental US Terrorism watch list' evidenced by reports of some passengers deciding not to board flights after observing Hijab wearing females or Abaya wearing Muslin or Arab men looking at them. What often happens according to airport security officials is that non Muslims sometimes stare at Muslims trying to detect something unusal or suspicious about them and then the Muslims stare back wondering why they are being stared at and both parties become paranoid.

The Lebanese, bless them all, ever alert to foreign intrigues, and were among the first objecting to being placed on the new US T list.

On Sunday night's (1/3/09) late and wild van ride back to Beirut from Beital in the now frigid and frequently bitterly cold and windblown, Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, this observer got an ear full. Our driver, by appearance, down to the Akek (Amber) ring on his little finger, neatly trimmed short beard, black wool jacket and black baseball cap, was a Hezbollah guy. Fellow passengers were accepting as Abass treated us to his new CD of Resistance music, (again and again!), including the popular songs Haydar, Hayder and Oh Hussein!, and the catchy Ali, Ali! (Ali was the cousin and son in law of the Prophet Mohammad who Shia Muslims believe should have been the first Khalifa (successor) of the Prophet rather than Abu Bakr and his line including Omar (the second Khalifa) and Othman (the third Khalifa). In important respects, from this succession argument grew the Shia-Sunni conflict now deeply splitting Islam. On the van, it was a party atmosphere among the fifteen or so passengers most of whom were returning from week-end visits to their families with Bekaa toting delicacies of one kind or another. Van users, including this one, prefer Hezbollah drivers on the Beirut-Bekaa run because they know every pot hole on the route over the West Lebanon Mountains, don't try to overcharge riders, are unfailingly polite to the elderly and infirm-assisting them on and off the vans, and perhaps most importantly, these guys drive like bats fleeing hell, which cuts travel time by about one-third.

But those probably most grateful for riding with drivers like 'Abass' are those whose documents might not be quite in order or they just might be carrying contraband of some sort. For them our driver was golden because drivers like him are routinely waived thru various check points en route once their affiliation is noticed. One can't help wondering what would happen if a US 'profiling' system was in place and a van was pulled over by a Pennsylvania State trooper named Lawrence and his flashing red light, for ID and luggage inspection or just to sniff inside the vehicles quickly rolled down windows. Would the van still have passengers traveling to Beirut or would he ask to share a smoke?

The friendly young man sitting next to me opened a carry on case and while not wanting to appear snoopy, one could not help noticing that it was packed with filled honey comb and softball sized clumps of Red-bud Hashish (known locally by Western clients as 'H & H', with sometimes the prized honey fetching more than the Red-bud) two ancient Bekaa products. Appreciated from before Roman times each harvest achieved bumper crops this year. The near record yield was recorded despite a couple of DEA funded 'photo op' anti-drug 'raids' last summer that the locals laugh at. The chatty kid told me lots of couriers make at least twice weekly Baalbek trips.

One Baalbek young lady, a member of the large Jaafar clan ( which producers some of Hezbollah's best fighters) , studying Journalism at Beirut's American Lebanese University (LAU), commented to this observer after our driver took a music break to tune in the news, Oh, your country just added 14 more Muslim countries to another airplane Terrorism list. Mabrouk!

This opened an animated discussion of the ways things are going these days between the Obama administration whose sweet words last spring have become the source for scowls and ridicule in Lebanon due to deep disappointment and, once more dashed hope of America becoming an honest broker in the region --and of course, the various US Terrorism lists.

A teen ager from the back of the van sing-songed Wouldn't it be easier just for you Americans to put the whole world on your terrorism list and then let everyone on the planet convince you they should be taken off? And another smart alec grinned: Or you could just stop giving Israel weapons to kill and terrorize us and then there would be no need for any terrorist lists at all? Within two seconds, not more, an old woman who must have been in her 80's, wrapped in an Ashoura black covering, and who appeared to be sound asleep, lifted her head and shouted Enshallah! (God willing!) and returned her head forward to slumber. With that sage intervention the van erupted and shook in laughter.

The strongest reaction came from 'Mustapha' who appeared to be some sort of Salafist recently arrived from the gulf. Claiming to have friends in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, he expressed a strong opinion and with anger in his voice:

Does your government think Muslims with self respect and who value the Koran will allow his family especially his wife and his daughters to be body scanned? He would rather die. This will not happen. One phone call and your Embassy in Lebanon will close faster than the one in Yemen. I think sometimes that you Americans have no idea about these latest aggressions against Muslims? Are you out of your minds? We are a peaceful people with a few extremists doing some crasy things but only in response to crimes against us like in Palestine. Stop provoking us and leave us and our lands!

Will frequent flyers start to Glow?

As Mustapha expressed, Muslims and Arabs find the full-body scanner treatment abhorrent and they will likely oppose in strongly. In this they are not alone with many questions being raised from cost (approximately $ 200,000 each or 10 more expensive that the usual metal detectors) to questions whether such devices would have even detected the type of bomb allegedly used on Christmas Day in Detroit.

While the Israel Defense Industries has announced a crash program to build and distribute quickly a cheaper and improved full body scanner (FBS) version, the stock of American Science & Engineering, a US company that makes the full body scanners skyrocketed after Christmas and hit $82 dollars per share on 1/4/09, up from around $ 42 this summer.UK companies like L-3 Communications and Qinetiq hope to fend off competitors in landing quick orders. Qinetiq announced yesterday that it can perfect a stand-off full body scanner to reduce privacy issues.

Former Bush Homeland Security director, Michael Chertoff admitted to NPR the other day that he is in the hunt for contracts for his new consulting firm, while denying that his advocacy of fbs when he held his post is a conflict of interest. Janes Weekly claims the fbs are here to stay.

There are many critics of FBS including claims that it tends to fry hearing aids, and sends massive doses of ionizing x-rays radiations to the thyroid and breast areas. Others insist dogs are more effective and much cheaper.

Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, a leading U.S. expert on the biological effects of X-radiation has concluded after exhaustive research that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation. His studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America's cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed makes for a significant radiological impact.

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children. Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, in London claims that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

Privacy Issues

The ACLU and similar civil liberty organizations in England and Europe are waging a campaign against fbs on privacy grounds some arguing that the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved. US and European Child porn laws are applicable in the view of some lawyers and there is growing concern that TSA type at airports around the World do not commit offences under child pornography laws or sell to the likes of the National Enquirer, the UK Sun, NY Post etc. full body scan images of celebrities, movie stars and others. Some governments are expressing concern that images could end up on the Internet.

A 12-month trial at Manchester, England airport of scanners revealed naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

According to a US Congressional source, the Obama administration's new list is meant to parry the coming expected rampage from the likes of Russ Limbaugh. Already some conservatives such as retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney who wants to get young Muslim men naked in the worst way. The former US Air Force general's comments during a recent Fox News broadcast. "We've got to go to more than just the normal process that they're talking about now," he opined on Saturday. "We have got to go to very; very strict screening and we've got to use profiling. And I mean, be very, very serious about the profiling. If you are an 18-28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip searched. If we don't do that, there's a very high probability that we're gonna lose an airliner."

The Obama administration has expressed for months an interest in revamping the Terrorism lists and who is on them who should not be. Now is the time to rethink the whole T list concept. They can boomerang and cause many more problems than they were constructed to prevent. The Obama administration should proceed on a case by case basic with people suspected of planning violence. It should immediately scrap the latest 675, 000,000+ Mega Special Global Terrorism List and try good works rather than threats and serial humiliations to build trust and friendship among Muslims and Arabs who are identical to ourselves in what they are working to accomplish in life for their loved ones.

* Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon. He can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Obama Nobel Lecture draft leaked

SR Editor — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:40:51 +0000

TOP SECRET: The speech Barack Obama won't deliver
As dictated to Daniel Simpson

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Excellencies, Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Dear Friends around the world, My fellow Americans.

I stand here today humbled, more than ever, by the task before us, grateful for the honour youâ€™ve bestowed, and mindful of the sacrifices we must make to do it justice.

Twenty Americans before me have lent their names to this most eminent of prizes, among them three presidents, two sitting. Though challenged by the upheavals of fractious eras, their skill and vision hewed faithfully to the spirit of our forebears, who travelled across an ocean to seek sanctuary, and declared all who made their home there to have been created equal. Where possible, they worked to stem those tides in humankind that would drown us in the storms of violent conflict. And so we recall these efforts, and their fruits, praising Theodore Roosevelt for brokering peace, not chiding him for wielding his trademark stick to subjugate Cuba and the Philippines.

Others were inspired by a higher calling, rising above themselves to speak truths we shirk from hearing. Of these transformative figures, none was more righteous, more perspicacious, than Dr Martin Luther King, who accepted this award 45 years ago. I was surprised to be asked to follow him, and shared with you my doubts that I deserved to be doing so. But Iâ€™ve come here on the understanding that this ceremony is a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century, and for America to lead.

Putting America first should not require us to put the lives of other peoples second. When our nation became mired in Vietnam, sacrificing millions to its quest to contain Communism, Dr King called us â€œthe greatest purveyor of violence in the worldâ€. A year to the day after speaking those words, he was murdered.

As I was raised in his shadow, whirlpools of destructive logic sucked Americans ever deeper into worldwide battles. From Vietnam, the fog of war spread. We laid waste to Cambodia from the skies, before Pol Potâ€™s brutal forces tilled its killing fields. And for the sake of defeating the Soviet Union, we armed Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, spawning a terrorist menace that defined the first decade of this century.

I do not seek to defend these actions here, or those of an earlier September 11th, when a coup hatched in Washington robbed Chile of its elected president, because he was a Marxist. Thousands â€œdisappearedâ€ under the market-friendly despot we supported, like so many other enemies of freedom, before and since, from the Congo to Cairo, Central Asia to Latin America, always in the name of a greater good. Ours. Whatever thwarts those who might challenge us, we can live with.

We armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Islamic Republic of Iran, ignoring his use of poison gas while it suited us. But once heâ€™d threatened our interests by invading Kuwait, this became grounds for deposing him, though the weapons we claimed to fear no longer existed. As the last head of the Federal Reserve said, â€œit is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.â€

Whether we control it, or prevent others from doing so, this is why we care about the Middle East. Since the British Empire fell, weâ€™ve guarded what our State Department called â€œa stupendous source of strategic powerâ€ and â€œone of the greatest material prizes in world history.â€ As every Iranian schoolchild knows, but Americans rarely recall, we once overthrew their government, to ensure it kept pumping oil to our satisfaction. So hated was the regime we installed in Tehran, and so vicious its secret police, that we helped to foment an Islamic Revolution. And so we conjured enemies anew.

Rather than remain trapped in the past, I want to move forward. We are not alone to blame for the worldâ€™s problems; and for all thatâ€™s wrong with America, much is right. But our delusions make us a menace to ourselves, and even the civilised order we say weâ€™re defending. Americans arenâ€™t alone in being hypocrites. Nor are we by any measure the worst. Our reference points for wickedness are the tyrannies of Stalin and Hitler. However, when senior Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, it was the American chief prosecutor who said: â€œWhile this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.â€

For much of this past American century, as in others bestridden by Empires that came before ours, the morals guiding relations between states have been those of Dostoevskyâ€™s Crime and Punishment. To quote the murderer Raskolnikov: â€œhe who can spit on what is greatest will be their lawgiver, and he who does the most will be rightest of all.â€ Itâ€™s ugly, so we prefer to cover it up and tell ourselves stories, most often about our benevolence, or â€œthe shining city upon a hillâ€ we call our homeland.

When the Spanish-American war brought us to primacy, Mark Twain surveyed our impact on the Pacific. â€œWe have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors,â€ he observed. â€œAnd so, by these Providences of God â€“ and the phrase is the governmentâ€™s, not mine â€“ we are a World Power.â€

But without our cherished myths, or the lies that led us into Iraq and Vietnam, thereâ€™d be fewer conflicts. No one welcomes war, and Americans arenâ€™t by nature belligerent people. Even our â€œGreatest Generationâ€, among them my grandfather, was reluctant to join World War II until Pearl Harbour. And their fight in the name of a larger freedom has served us since as a rallying call.

Thereâ€™s always an axis of evil that needs vanquishing. And as Hermann Goering chillingly warned: â€œthe people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.â€ Itâ€™s easy, he explained: â€œAll you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.â€

I donâ€™t need to remind you that we were attacked, on American soil, eight years ago. At that moment we faced a fateful choice: whether to seek justice, or debase it. The armchair warriors won. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have died, in the name of avenging three thousand of our own. We donâ€™t even count how many weâ€™ve killed.

Iâ€™ve said before I donâ€™t oppose all wars. I supported the pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance. But can we do that by killing more innocents? Where would we need to send troops? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Somalia? And how many corpses might convince a hostile horde to change its thinking? Before we rained destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans firebombed dozens of Japanese cities. Up to half a million were slain, and millions more lost their homes before surrender was so much as discussed.

As I said at the start of the decade, letâ€™s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and shutting down the financial networks that support terrorism. Itâ€™s work for policemen, not soldiers; our armed forces should defend us, not attack. War by the one percent doctrine of pre-emption is aggression.

To repeat, Iâ€™m not here to look backwards. Weâ€™re here to remember the urgency of now. This is no time to indulge in the narcissism of self-flagellation, or to take the tranquilising drug of mass denial. A nation that believes its hype is heading for disaster. Now is the time to rise from the valley of hubris, to walk the sunlit path of accepting limits. Now is the time to obey the same rules we impose. Now is the time to admit that our actions have consequences, that weâ€™ve been al Qaedaâ€™s top recruiter.

Our pursuit of â€œfull spectrum dominanceâ€, our ambition â€œto hold unquestioned powerâ€, has not made the world any safer. We started a nuclear arms race, and doused it in gasoline. We helped Pakistan get the bomb, and looked away while it ran a weapons hypermarket. Now weâ€™re helping India break the rules, just as Israel has for decades while it stockpiled warheads. Exactly how many isnâ€™t clear, because Israel denies access to foreign inspectors.

Iran is the only oil-rich state in the Middle East thatâ€™s beyond our influence. Together with Israel, we keep threatening to attack it. But while we talk up â€œthe Iranian threatâ€, our intelligence agencies say Iran halted its weapons programme years ago, and wants nothing more than the option to reactivate it. The idea it could wipe Israel off the map is absurd. The Israeli nuclear arsenal guarantees that. Israelâ€™s prime minister calls Iran an â€œapocalyptic cultâ€ that â€œglorifies blood and death, including its ownâ€. But for years the two countries were allies, and Israel accepted the rhetoric was mostly for show. Its priorities only changed when Iran became the regionâ€™s number two power. And that only happened when we invaded Iraq, and installed a pro-Iranian government.

So what do we do now to solve these problems? Bombing Iran would not bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons. It also wouldnâ€™t make Israel more secure. I rule it out categorically, and withdraw all plans for a nuclear first strike on Iranian bunkers. Destructive power can only be tempered by restraint.

Thereâ€™s no longer a technological difference between the process that generates fuel and the process for building bombs. Once you can enrich uranium for reactors, it just takes time and investment to enrich it for missiles. If weâ€™re serious about disarmament, we also need to restrict enrichment by everyone, outsourcing it to an international agency. This alone makes nuclear power no answer to climate change.

Itâ€™s no less misguided to pretend we can clean up coal. Plans to bury carbon dioxide are unproven, and they wonâ€™t work any time soon. The global demand for energy will be hard to meet without making radical changes. If we carry on insisting that â€œthe American way of life is not negotiableâ€œ, we can hardly expect others to think differently. But we all have to, immediately, or there wonâ€™t be a future to get rich in. If everyone consumed like Americans, weâ€™d need another half dozen planets. And if the one we live on heats up as scientists forecast, much of it will be uninhabitable this century. Ice caps and glaciers will melt, seas will rise and crops will fail. Billions of people will struggle to find food and water, and the world will be full of refugees.

Weâ€™re almost past the point of no return. Long-term targets are irrelevant. The gases weâ€™ve emitted already will heat up the atmosphere for a century. Unless we stop adding to them quickly, weâ€™re committing ourselves to a runaway warming process, unlike any this Earth has seen for millions of years. Faced with that prospect, and the deadlocked talks on a climate treaty, thereâ€™s no alternative left but to act unilaterally.

Iâ€™ve signed up to a British initiative called 10:10, and promised to reduce my personal emissions by ten percent in 2010. Iâ€™m also committing to bolder executive action. I pledge the United States will cut output of carbon dioxide, and other heat-trapping gases, by a tenth next year from current levels. The year after, weâ€™ll cut another tenth, and again, and again, for ten straight years, until weâ€™re free of fossil fuels by 2020.

To achieve this, we need to transform our economy, on a scale unseen since the start of World War II. Converting our factories to rearmament was what finally dragged us out of the Great Depression. To support our transition to a less destructive paradigm, America will turn itself over to sustainable energy. Trillions of dollars will be spent on a new Manhattan Project; only this one wonâ€™t build an atom bomb. Instead it will share clean technology through the United Nations. There can be no solution to climate change that doesnâ€™t include such partners as India and China. Even if they burn coal, we should stop, and help them cut their carbon output however we can.

Domestically, we wonâ€™t just scrap subsidies for fossil fuels. We plan to nationalise and liquidate our oil companies, and switch the nationâ€™s cars to electric power. Theyâ€™ll be charged from a network of wind and solar farms, hooked up to a direct-current smart grid. And we will pay for this by ceasing to arm the world.

America spends almost as much on weapons as every other nation combined. The Pentagon gets more money today than at any time since World War II. And our exports dwarf those of our rivals, creating the opponents of tomorrow. As President Eisenhower warned: â€œEvery gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.â€

It is time to start changing priorities. Next year, we will cut military spending in half, and shrink it as we scale back our presence. Over the coming decade, this will free up trillions of dollars. So far weâ€™ve been tentative, scrapping a few costly weapons while increasing the total we spend. But an overhaul of energy policy will enable us to shut down bases overseas. No longer will we need hundreds of foreign outposts to protect resources, or the shipping lanes and pipelines that ferry them. We can leave that work to regional powers, and resume our rightful place in our own backyard.

Every last soldier will leave Iraq next year, and our bases there will be bulldozed. We will also withdraw at once from Afghanistan. A generation ago, Mikhail Gorbachev said he wanted to do the same, but he first raised troop levels above 100,000. As a result, 1985 was the deadliest year of the Soviet occupation. We will not repeat the same mistake. Iâ€™m reversing last weekâ€™s announcement of escalation, and our draw down will begin from tomorrow. We canâ€™t just arm warlords and pay off the Taliban. All the money and blood we spill achieves nothing. We can only destabilise Pakistan, and the government there wonâ€™t help us do that. The only constructive way forward is to face our impotence.

We cannot provide security without peace, and we cannot impose that by will, or force of arms.

We cannot build abstractions like good governance. We can only pay reparations and send aid. Afghans have to shape their own future.

We cannot defend against terrorism by bombing civilians. And even the most surgical air strikes canâ€™t stop terrorists plotting in Europe, or training in Florida.

We cannot privatise war by funnelling taxpayer dollars to mercenary contractors.

Our suicide pact with militarism has to end before it bankrupts us, strategically, financially and morally. We cannot keep stalking the world creating new enemies.

No, we cannot.

Half a century ago, Eisenhower warned us what was happening. To win World War II, he said, we created â€œa permanent arms industry of vast proportionsâ€, and â€œonly an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals.â€

This is a challenge weâ€™ve ducked until today. And make no mistake: it will not be easy. The military-industrial complex has no fixed address. Arms companies spread production nationwide, so Congressmen and women defend their business, for fear lost jobs will cost them votes. Other lobbies complicate things further, like those pressing Israelâ€™s case in Washington. To underline our resolve to curb the arms trade, all military assistance to Israel will be scrapped, and no sales allowed until it retreats within its 1967 borders, and dismantles illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

Capitalism has been at war with democracy, and winning. Weâ€™ve blown trillions in the banking casino, privatising its gains and socialising the cost. Not for nothing is Goldman Sachs called â€œa great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.â€ For a more sustainable world, we have to dismantle the structures that shape it.

I canâ€™t achieve that alone. We all have obligations to prevent our national priorities being perverted, as Martin Luther King understood. â€œA nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programmes of social uplift,â€ he said, â€œis approaching spiritual death.â€

The day after Dr King was killed, Robert F. Kennedy spoke of â€œanother kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions, indifference and inaction and slow decay.â€

In words as relevant now as then, Kennedy said we â€œtolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilisation alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they require.â€

Weeks later, he was assassinated too, campaigning for the presidency, and an early retreat from Vietnam. Instead, the war dragged on, and Cambodia was mercilessly bombed. For that, and other crimes, a previous winner of this prize should face prosecution. But if Henry Kissinger stands trial some day, he shouldnâ€™t be alone in the dock. Cases can be made against presidents too, and I plead no special immunity ahead of time. I should be held to account like anyone else.

The press should never become the presidentâ€™s men, and the public need to organise against him, to force his hand like Martin Luther King, to collectively make change we can believe in. Together weâ€™ll enact these commitments. In themselves, they wonâ€™t end violence, they wonâ€™t end lawlessness and they wonâ€™t end disorder either. But theyâ€™d warrant the faith youâ€™ve placed in my work, and theyâ€™d leave our children a legacy of justice. And for that small measure alone, we can be thankful.

God bless us all. Thank you.

Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi – Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

SR Editor — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:26 +0000

The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.

November 01, 2009, American Conservative.

By Sibel Edmonds* and Philip Giraldi** | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general's report called Edmonds's allegations "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds's revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft's Justice Department confirmed Edmonds's veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, "If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it."

* * *

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let's start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as "Susurluk" by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet EymÃ¼r, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, EymÃ¼r was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while "most wanted" by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He's rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for "Turkish interests"-both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual's phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money...

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It's also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as "agents of influence."

EDMONDS: Yes, that's correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, "We've got this and this, let's sit down and talk." And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI-Pakistani intelligence-has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman's assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn't start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target's intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attachÃ©, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD's and DVD's. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attachÃ© got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attachÃ© flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it's a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, "We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names."

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?

EDMONDS: No.

GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger's group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker's group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attachÃ© in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client's conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You've previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attachÃ© would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn't confined to the State Department and the Pentagon-it infected Congress as well. You've named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn't have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky's mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky's townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don't know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information-in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11...

EDMONDS: I don't know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Ã‡atli's group, Fethullah GÃ¼len.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word "al-Qaeda." It was always "mujahideen," always "bin Laden" and, in fact, not "bin Laden" but "bin Ladens" plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama's presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of "change" being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naÃ¯ve blogosphere. First of all, Obama's record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA's wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It's an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing-in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama's change: his administration seems to think it doesn't even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama's choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity's operation centered on Chicago.

* Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

** Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative's Deep Background columnist.

Source: The American Conservative

Alan Hart – What is it, really, that most endangers Israel’s future?

Alan Hart — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:09:49 +0000

Cartoon By Khalil Bendib

By Alan Hart *

A nuclear armed Iran? No.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that some in Iran's current leadership do want their country to possess nuclear weapons and that they do succeed in developing them. What then?

Is it conceivable that Iran would launch a first strike on Israel?

The answer has to be no. Absolutely not! An Iranian first strike would bring retaliation that would not end until Iran had been annihilated, wiped from the face of the earth. One needs only a sound mind to understand that no Iranian leadership will ever be stupid enough to provoke such an outcome.

Why then are Israel's military and political hawks (and their neo-con associates in America) so determined, apparently, to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons? Is it because they are deluded, perhaps to the point of clinical madness? No. The real problem for Israel's leaders is that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb or two or several would greatly restrict their freedom to impose Zionism's will on the region by brute force of all kinds.

Yehoshafat Harkabi

In passing it's worth noting the latest comments of Mohammed El Baradie, the outgoing chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In an interview with the Austrian Die Presse published on 18 October, he said, "The threat of Iran's nuclear program is exaggerated." He added: "Bombing Iran is not the solution. An Israeli attack would turn the entire region into a fireball." (It might also bring about, I add, the complete collapse of the global economy).

So what about other military dangers to Israel's future?

There are none. And that's not simply because the Zionist state is the military superpower of the region. There is not now, and there never has been, an Arab military threat to Israel's existence. As I document in detail in Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the Arab regimes never had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. And when Eygpt was taken out of the military equation - a process started by Henry Kissinger and completed by President Carter - the Arabs could not fight even if they wanted to.

So what is it, really, that most endangers Israel's future?

The answer was put into words by Yehoshafat Harkabi, the longest serving Israeli Director of Military Intelligence. In his seminal book, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1986, he wrote about the "pressing need for (Israeli) self-criticism". He went on (my emphasis added):

"Certainly Israel is not guilty of everything that has gone wrong in the occupied lands. But self-criticism is imperative in order to counter-balance the tendencies to self-righteousness and self-pity that stem from basic Jewish attitudes, from the historical experience of persecution, and from the ethos fostered by Menachem Begin. No factor endangers Israel's future more than self-righteousness, which blinds us to reality, prevents a complex understanding of the situation, and legitimizes extreme behavior."

If Harkabi was alive today, I imagine the self-righteousness on display in Israel's rubbishing and rejection of the Goldstone Report with its accusation of Israeli (and Hamas) war crimes would make him vomit.

Does anybody know of a cure for self-righteousness?

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor