FOOL ME TWICE
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
― George W. Bush
That's right - despite almost daily threats of bombing, it now looks more likely that the long-awaited war being salivated over by media executives to boost flagging ratings may kick off early on in 2013! And in spite of George Jnr.'s mangling of an old English proverb (bursting with typical comic relief) the gullible masses can expect to again be fooled about another nonexistent WMD program. With all the sound and fury being generated between America and its favorite Mid-Eastern 'dog-wagging tail' about when an attack should be started you might be excused for buying all the hype that they sit at different ends of the table. Don't! They are not only seated right next to each other, but occupy what is known as a love-seat! The public display is to confuse the target about the timing - nothing more!
The problem has never actually been about Iran developing a nuclear program as it has no death wish and would be quickly reduced to ash by a far more brutal neighbor with an arsenal of over 300 nukes! Instead it is about deterring any other country in that region from offering a nuclear deterrent to the territorial goals of a well-armed aggressor which truly promised to wipe a nearby nation off the map! But this is ignored by mainstream media, which continues to misinterpret the words of Ahmadinejad!
As these two partners in international crime plot their next
home country invasion with consequences for not only the immediate neighborhood but the planet as a whole, read on for real information - the type you will not find on the evening news. Otherwise - shame on you, but you will get fooled again!
Don't Get Fooled Again on Iran
Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming
Monday, March 5, 2012
US think-tank admits Iran is not a threat to either US or Israeli security, devises narrative to sell unnecessary war to public.
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Which Path to Persia? .pdf
The corporate media has recently portrayed a narrative where we see the West apparently warning Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran. It appears that Israel is intent on "going it alone" despite the wishes of its "more rational" Western sponsors. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported in their article, "U.S., Israel Pull Closer on Iran," that, "Israeli officials, meanwhile, said that President Barack Obama's public and private acknowledgment of the Jewish state's sovereign right to defend itself was a crucial gain as the two countries seek to deter Tehran," in regards to Iran's alleged nuclear program.
To the average reader, it would seem that both the US and Israel agree that Iran is an imminent threat against which Israel and the United States simply have differing views on how to counter. In reality, this is a premeditated, deceitful act, already clearly articulated since 2009 in a signed document, on how both nations plan on duping the world into accepting an unnecessary war.
The document, "Which Path to Persia?" published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institution, and signed by Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael O'Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, who often make their way onto corporate-media networks as "experts," clearly states that Iran is neither reckless nor likely to deploy nuclear weapons in any way but as a deterrence to Western-led military intervention. The fear is not of waking up one day to a nuclear holocaust with Israel "wiped off the map," but rather waking up one day and realizing the US and Israel no longer hold uncontested hegemony across the Middle East.
On page 24 of the Brookings Institution report, it is stated, "most of Iran's foreign policy decision making since the fall of the Shah could probably be characterized as "aggressive but not reckless," before adding the baseless caveat, "but Washington cannot categorically rule out the possibility that there are truly insane or ideologically possessed Iranian leaders who would attempt far worse if they were ever in a position to do so." Such a comment could be just as easily said about US leadership, where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.
Image: Screenshot taken from Defense.gov where it is admitted that a US Senator proposed using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan with then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld keeping such options "on the table." While the threat of Iran using nuclear weapons has constituted exclusively of accusations by the West directed at the Islamic Republic, threats of the US using such weapons come directly from America's leadership itself. (click image to enlarge)
Other US think-tanks, including the RAND Corporation , in assessing the threat of a nuclear Iran, noted that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists." The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran poses a risk only to US-Israeli hegemony, not their national security.
The Brookings report would then go on to admit it was the intention of US-Israeli policy toward Iran to provoke a war they knew Iran would neither want, nor benefit from. The goal was to create such a provocation without the world recognizing it was indeed the West triggering hostilities:
...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) -- Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.The same report would go on to say:
In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal. -- Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran's economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:
The report continues:It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.