War with Iran was just around the corner. You could almost smell it in the air.

A telltale sign was a recent article by Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal, where he claims that the United States have tried negotiations and sanctions to no avail for 30 years and that regime change now is the only possible way forward. The article was published September 29, 2009, just before the start of the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program.

It is just an example of a long line of articles, studies and publications that push for war and destabilization in the Middle-East. There is a red thread that connects all this with the current administration and its policies towards Iran. If you walk up to this red line as it enters the White House and give it a sharp yank, a man named Dennis Ross will come tumbling out of the White House and from the other end of the line, a document from 2008 will come flying back through time. Both will tell you that the negotiations with Iran were intended to fail. They were going to be the last punctuation mark in the dialog between the West and the current Iranian regime. The stage was set up for war. Since the Iranian nuclear sites are spread across the country and well protected, this would mean nuclear strikes and heavy civilian casualties.

What happened? Miraculously, the first talks defused some of the tension. Agreements were made concerning inspections and enrichment. Low-enriched uranium produced in Iran is to be transported to third countries for further enrichment and fabrication into fuel assemblies for the Tehran research reactor, which produces isotopes for medical applications. Further negotiations are planned.

Is all well and good now?

I am afraid not. The neocons are already jumping up and down, steaming with disappointment, claiming negotiations are a waste of time and that Iran cannot be trusted; that they are stalling and will be developing their nuclear technology secretly.

The plans were laid for decisive action — at a minimum in the form of an attack on the nuclear installations — hoping this would lead to regime change in the end. And this threat is still very real, if lessened substantially for the moment. The problem is that these plans have been in operation for a long time now, and there are substantial benefits to be reaped for the powerful interests behind the scenes that is pushing this agenda. They will not back down. The President and his Nobel Peace Price is all that is standing in the way of this machinery of doom.

Or is he?

WHY?

How did we get so close to military actions against Iran? Interestingly, Michael Ledeen, the author of the Wall Street Journal article, might very well be involved in the sequence of events that has brought us up to this point. If you are aware of his involvement, the main thrust of the article and the timing of its publication suggests that he knew an attack on Iran was imminent:

Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government.We’ve Been Talking to Iran for 30 Years, Michael Ledeen, The Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2009

I am going to try to show how it ties in with a long running US plan for the Middle East and the recent events in Iran.

THE IRANIAN ELECTION

Now, when the dust has settled after the unrest in Iran, the time is ripe to have a look at what actually happened. News reports at the time were tainted by efforts to influence the outcome of the unrest, so, depending on if you live in the West, East, or in the Middle-East, you would have vastly different views of what really occurred. The big divide seems to be between the West and the rest of the world, which is not surprising if you consider the real reasons behind the events in Iran.

To the United States, the unrest in Iran was not so much about a struggle for democracy and protests against a repressive fundamentalist regime, instead it represented the last realistic chance for the USA to save itself from slipping down into an abyss of economic chaos and relative insignificance. The Iranian election was a hub in a power struggle between the United States and a number of countries with an agenda to significantly reduce US influence in the Middle East and in the world as a whole.

It is all revolving around a man with an unpronounceable name and a scruffy suit: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. He might not wield the same power as “The Supreme Leader,” but he is passionate about undermining US economic and military power in the region and by the looks of it — he is succeeding.

THE S.C.O.

He is not alone. Others are working towards the same goal. The threat arises mainly from an organization named The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the members of which, if Iran is included, controls two-thirds of the world’s energy sources in the form of oil and gas. They threaten to dismantle the US dollars role as a reserve currency and oil transaction currency. This would spell doom in big capital letters for the already troubled United States economy. More about the significance of that later…

It is now hard to seriously claim that the United States did not have a hand in stimulating and organizing the unrest following the election in Iran. Too much was at stake for the US not to take the chance to do something about the current regime. It is a logical conclusion of a well-publicized program that was started during the Bush administration with the aim of destabilizing Iran in order to bring about regime change. This explains the extreme bias in the news reporting of major western news organizations as well as the total silence about the wider scenario. The current US administration is getting very nervous. They are using all available means, covert or overt, to destabilize the Iranian regime.

SIGNS OF FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AND MEDIA MANIPULATION

To go out on the streets and protest against a torturing and repressive regime takes courage. We should celebrate the struggle for democracy and freedom in Iran, but in doing that, we also need to be very serious about identifying any attempts by the world’s super powers to manipulate and use protesters as pawns in their geopolitical games.

Suggestions of election fraud were instrumental in getting large numbers of protesters out on the streets. Were these early claims truthful or fabrications by certain interest to fan the flames of revolt? There is still no conclusive proof of any large scale election fraud, and you must ask yourself why Moussavi announced himself to be the winner already on the night of the election and why the Moussavi camp was urging protesters to take to the streets even before the election had started.

When the regime responded to all this by issuing a very early report on the election results, this was cited as proof of manipulation by the regime, and very few fingers were pointed in the general direction of Mousavi and his premature declarations.

So far, none of the statistical efforts to find proof of election fraud hold up to scrutiny.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the 2009 election by about the same number of votes as he did in the 2005 presidential election. The most reliable poll performed before the 2009 election showed he was leading by more than a 2 to 1 margin over Mousavi. 1

Why then did we see an army of experts pronouncing that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad couldn’t have won by such a wide margin? 2

The Western media overstated the surge of his main opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi over the last couple of weeks. They missed almost entirely how Ahmadinejad was perceived to have won the television debate, for instance. There was an extraordinary amount of wishful thinking on the part of American and Western policymakers.Flynt Leverett, one of the foremost experts on Iran and the Middle East in Washington in an interview in Spiegel Online.

Or was it more than wishful thinking?

• Already on May 16, 2007, during the Bush administration, John Bolton talked to the London Telegraph about planned attempts to foment a popular revolution.
• On May 27, 2007, the Telegraph wrote about “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”
• We know he US congress approved 400 million dollars for covert CIA operations in Iran with the aim to destabilize the regime.
• Before the election in Iran, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman mentioned there has been talk of a “green revolution” in Tehran. Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is known for sponsoring other color revolutions around the world.
• Why did Mousavi announce himself the winner already on the night of the election?
• How can we be expected to believe that the regime would endeavor to launch a large scale vote rigging campaign, when they knew Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to win by a large margin?
• Why did the Mousavi camp claim that the election is going to be rigged already a few weeks before the vote?
• Why did Rafsanjani’s wife say people should pour into the streets if Moussavi didn’t win?
• Why did Moussavi’s wife publicly talk about fraud directly after casting her vote?
• Why were Twitter feeds filled with fake images and distorted information, all serving to fan the flames of revolt? 3

Why was there is almost no objective reporting to be found among major western news organizations? Statements from the Mousavi camp was treated as absolute truth and the Iranian government’s claims were immediately classified as lies and propaganda. Articles on Mousavi on Wikipedia sounds like campaign-material straight from his own web page. 4 5

Maybe a regime that is rounding up, killing, and torturing dissidents is not to be trusted, but what has Mr Mousavi done to earn our respect? It turns out he is actually a bird of the same feather. In the 1980’s, he served as the fifth and last Prime Minister in Iran and during that time…

… Peaceful demonstrations were crushed. Mock courts held few minute trials followed by executions. Thousands of young teenagers were arrested, tortured and executed for political charges as trivial as possessing a pamphlet. Under Mousavi´s watch a total of 90,000 were executed. Young girls were systematic raped before execution (per a religious decree so their souls would not reach heaven). Numerous faculty and students (under the banner of the Cultural Revolution) were purged from the universities. Repression of religious minorities intensified. Independent newspapers were shut down. Political activists not affiliated with the ruling ayatollahs were arrested in masses. His government even initiated assassination of the opposition figures abroad. Under his watch a destructive and unnecessary war with Iraq was continued. In the fronts underage children were used as “mine sweepers”. Under his government, the regime´s aspirations for regional hegemony and export of terrorism were formalized and action plans masterminded. The founder of Lebanon´s Hezbollah Ali Akbar Mohtashami was his interior minister. Mousavi´s government was directly responsible for the 1983 truck-bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in Lebanon. His government initiated the Iranian regime´s strive for the nuclear bomb. The crown of his government´s accomplishments was mass execution of about 30,000 defenseless political prisoners within a few weeks with bodies buried in mass graves. 6— Kazem Kazerounian, Forgive Mousavi, But Never Forget His Name, The American Chronicle
June 24, 2009,

It needs to be pointed out that Mousavi’s position as prime minister did not grant him any powers to order torture or executions. As a prime minister in Iran during the 80’s, you had limited powers compared to what usually is the case in western countries, but it is ironic that Mousavi participated in the creation of the current Iranian theocracy, and now he is calling his supporters to tear down the very power structures he helped create. It is also a little odd that the West suddenly starts describing him as a moderate, a freedom-fighter and a reformer, when he used to be called a radical terrorist-supporting anti-American at best.

Indeed, anyone believing Mousavi would be the one to unclench the Iranian fist for a hand-in-hand partnership of peace with the United States is guilty of wishful thinking. It was Mousavi, after all, who was at the center of the Iran hostage crisis and remains complicit in an operation he commended as “the beginning of the second stage of our revolution.” And it was Mousavi who was the protégé of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (chief architect of the Iranian Revolution and founder of theocratic Iran), a former member of Hezbollah’s leadership council, sworn enemy of Israel, and a prime minister under whose watch thousands of political prisoners were massacred in 1988. And finally, it was Mousavi who initiated Iran’s nuclear program in the 1980s and likely would be intent on carrying through Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the foremost issue central to any improvement in relations with the West.— Imagining President Mousavi — Would Iran be any different under new management?, Ranj Alaaldin, Foreign Policy, Posted June 2009.

There was very little mention of Mousavi’s past in western news reports before the election or during the protests after the election. Instead, he was uniformly portrayed as a selfless saviour of the oppressed Iranian people. When you see all major news channels completely leaving objectivity behind, not even pretending to be objective, when Wikipedia pages are turned into propaganda for one of the candidates, a warning bell should go off in your mind.

Why didn’t anyone point out that he himself helped create the oppression he was supposed to dismantle? Why was there no mention of Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s possible involvement in the terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps Baracks in Beirut? 7 Why is there very little mention of US goals or the bigger picture in the region?

Perhaps because it would shine a light into a very dark corner, and few would welcome the illumination, including the courageous Iranian protesters that may very well have been deceived to risk their life for reasons that fundamentally had very little to do with democracy or freedom.

If the US enthusiastically support a candidate whose track record is just as bad as the opponent, that in itself suggests there is more to the story than what meets the eye.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE US-LED DESTABILIZATION OF IRAN

Because of the nature of covert operations, it will take time to prove conclusively that the unrest in Iran partly was sponsored or instigated by foreign powers, but there is a long list of facts and events that strongly suggest this might be the case, and we do know the USA has a long history of supporting coups and running black operations in countries all over the world, including Iran. 8

We know for a fact that covert operations against Iran were launched under the Bush administration. The US congress recently approved 400 million dollars for covert operations in Iran to destabilize the regime. These operations are very likely still active and we know they included provisions for the use of lethal violence in Iran. 9 10 11

Mir Hossein Mousavi’s green revolution share many similarities with other US-backed “color revolutions” in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia. 12.

We have seen the scripts for these covert operations and coups play out over and over in different countries, and remarkably, major news organizations still do not recognize that this could be what is happening in Iran.

These CIA-led affairs usually involve a call to peaceful protest, then it turns out that a large part of the protesters are paid to be violent. Then the organizers of the attempted coup kill a number of their own peaceful protesters using plain-clothed snipers, blaming the current government for the deeds.

I was curious, I wanted to go out and see what was happening. I saw that it was us protesting who were making the riots. We set on fire public property, we threw stones, we attacked people’s cars and we broke windows of people’s houses.”Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Iranian Opposition Tarred By Public Confessions From Arrested Protesters

Forced “confession” or the truth? It is hard to judge, but there have been reports that the US-backed terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has played a big role in the post-election street violence in Iran. 13

RAFSANJANI AND MOUSAVI — TIES TO THE CIA

Rafsanjani and Mousavi have ties to the CIA that goes back to the Iran-Contra affair, so few eyebrows need to be raised about any new deals between the CIA and Mousavi. There is a connection between Mousavi and Michael Ledeen 14 15 16, a neoconservative with an agenda against Iran that is very clear: “the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.” and his recipy for peace in the middle-east is total war:

The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people.

Other noteworthy quotes are:

The defence of the country is one of those extreme situation in which a leader is justified in committing evil.

Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.Michael Ledeen, Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002

In 2003, Ledeen set up the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI), which is an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran. 17 18 He also claims that Iran is the main backer of the insurgency in Iraq. It is as if the US policies towards Iraq and Iran were almost entirely a creation of Michael Ledeen. He has been called “the most influential and unabashed warmonger of our time.”

Mousavi’s connection to Ledeen goes back to the Iran-Contras affair via his friendship with Manuchehr Ghorbanifar (who is an Iranian arms merchant, a former CIA informant, and allegedly a MOSSAD double agent). 19 20

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF NEDA AGHA SOLTAN?

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, told worshippers at Tehran University: “I want the judiciary to … punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson.” Ominously, he used the term “mohareb” – “one who wages war against God” – a crime punishable by death.

Khatami’s sermon, broadcast live on state TV, included accusations that the unrest was supported by Israel and the US, and that foreign journalists had reported falsely. He claimed Neda Agha Soltan, who became a symbol of the opposition when her death was caught on video, was a victim of protesters, not the security forces. “Government forces do not shoot at a lady standing in a side street,” he said.Iran opposition alleges plot to implicate Mir Hossein Mousavi, Robert Tait and Ian Black, The Guardian.

It doesn’t make any sense for the Iranian government to target and gruesomely kill a young girl in an area where there were very little protests, but it makes more sense for any groups that want to fan the flames of unrest to target an unusually beautiful young girl and then blame the government for the shooting. If you already have created the picture of a murdering repressive regime, you know it will work. No one is going to consider any other possibilities — even though this tactic is a tried and tested method used by the CIA over the years. It was used as recently as in the CIA-led coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002, the events of which bear a striking resemblance to what has happened in Iran. 21

So who killed Neda Agha Soltan? If she was killed by a US bullet, this ultimately means president Barack Obama killed her, since he allowed the destabilization plans to remain in operation. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took aim and Obama pulled the trigger. 22 23

What did Obama say in his New Year’s message to Iran? He expressed a wish for an “engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.” He also warned Iran that it cannot take its rightful place in the community of nations through terror or arms.

Let’s see now…The US kills innocent civilians in Iran through terrorist bombings performed by the US-sponsored terrorist groups like the MEK, Jundallah, and the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). So, Obama sends a reconciliatory message to Iran but at the same time he supports terrorism in Iran and Black Ops to overthrow the Iranian government, possibly even using snipers to kill demonstrators, including an innocent young Iranian girl. What did he say? Honest and grounded in mutual respect?

HONESTY

With all this in mind, his address to the people and regime of Iran could be one of the most deceitful and shamelessly dishonest messages from an American president ever:

There is only one possible explanation that explains the New Year’s message from Obama to Iran. It is clear that Iran knows about the US plans to promote unrest in Iran and the US administration is of course aware that the Iranians know about it. 24

The message was not directed towards the leaders of Iran; it was targeted to the Iranian people and western media and the message had several functions: It was intended to help the less US-critical Mousavi in the election. And if Mousavi didn’t win, all they need to do is activate the plans for generating unrest as well as their schemes for replacing the current regime. If this was to fail, then the US administration could always say: “We offered dialog and reconciliation, but they responded by stealing an election and killing peaceful protestors, proving all they want is conflict. Well, lets give them what they want.” Tomahawk missiles and Stealth bombers again scream across the skies.

WAR OR NEGOTIATIONS

We saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama declare that they were ready to engage with Iran in a dialog about its nuclear program, but they also set a deadline before which Iran must respond to US offers to negotiate and made demands they knew Iran would not agree to.

This follows a script you can find in a report authored in 2008, a script that is designed to lead to war with Iran. The report is named “Meeting the Challenge - U.S. policy toward Iranian nuclear development” and it basically is a roadmap to war with Iran. Anyone who wants to understand the administration’s policies towards Iran need to read this and a few other related reports. If you do, you will see that their recommendations in these reports are implemented one by one by the Obama administration, inexorably inching us forward to the intended end point which is war in some shape or form.

We know the architects behind this strategy. One of them is Dennis Ross and he now works for the administration as a special adviser on the Gulf and Southwest Asia, diligently working to implement the strategy he helped create. 25 26 27 28 29

Sponsoring efforts to violently overthrow the current Iranian regime may not be the best way of stimulating a dialog. It tells us that dialog or negotiations are not seen as important. A military “solution” is preferred and this should not be a secret to anyone; the strategy has been out in the open for a long time. But why then did the talks with Iran result in a lessening of the tension? Why did Obama back down on the demands for total cessation of uranium enrichment? Is he not committed to the plan?

Even if he is, he still would find it hard to take an unreasonable standpoint in talks held jointly with other superpowers. It is also entirely possible that the script now has evolved into a version that is more attuned the fact that there now is very little support for military strikes on Iran. In order to insulate the USA from the fallout of an attack under these circumstances, another actor must step in and do the dirty work for the United States, eventually leaving Obama with the task of setting up a new regime in Iran, an operation that is going to run much more smoothly if the United States is not implicated in the attacks on Iran and instead is seen as wanting to normalize relations. A nuclear variation of the bad cop, good cop routine…

When Obama says that “we’re not going to have talks forever” with Iran and that the administration would not rule out “a range of steps.” — we know why. We have already read parts of the manuscript.

Obama’s “friendly” New Year’s message to Iran is a prelude to war. The tremendous wave of disinformation in the news is also a sign the US hasn’t scrapped the plans to attack Iran. The growing web of lies about the Iranian nuclear program 30 31 32 and the lies about Iranian weapons being smuggled to Iraq, 33 34 35 is all part of an ongoing demonization of Iran with the ultimate aim of launching a war or some form of limited military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations 36 — now that they failed to oust Ahmadinejad and ‘Supreme’ Leader Khamenei. 37

There has been no clear evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. The USA is insisting the documents on the “Laptop of mass destruction” are proof of such a program, but these claims are not taken very seriously by most experts. Foreign analysts and the IAEA seriously question the authenticity of the documents. There are indications that suggest the documents originate from the US supported terrorist organization Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) via Israel’s Mossad, so you could understand if they are regarded with suspicion. 38 39

A US-led full-scale war with Iran is problematic on so many levels that it is very unlikely to take place, but there is another possible solution: Let Israel attack Iran’s nuclear installations using tactical nuclear weapons. This has the added benefit that it destroys any proof that Iran’s nuclear ambitions might have been centered on power generation for civilian use, as all IAEA inspections have indicated. Any sane member of the human race would consider this to be completely reprehensible alternative, but we have learned that plans were developed for nuclear attacks on Iran back in 2005 under instructions from Vice-president Dick Cheney’s office. 40

Fast-forward to 2009 and we hear John Bolton argue that this is the time for an Israeli strike 41 42 and Joe Biden gives a green light to an Israeli nuclear attack against Iran in an ABC News interview.

Are there any signs of preparations for an attack? It has been known for years that Israel has been planning and training for a nuclear strike on Iran. 43 More recently, Israeli submarines sailed through the Suez Canal on their way to the Red Sea. 44 The London Times 45 report that Israel has received approval from Saudi Arabia to use its airspace for attacks against Iran. Recently, Israely Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said there was no guarantee Israel would not launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 46

A recent poll showed that 66 percent of Israelis would back a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is interesting. It is not likely that Iran would dare launch any direct nuclear attacks on Israel, since they would get a prompt and strong nuclear response from Israel and suffer serious consequences even if they manage to damage Israel’s capabilities to strike back. The Israelis know a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran inevitably would lead to increased terrorism, and ramped up Hezbollah attacks on Israel but they still consider it a good alternative. Why? Israel is a tiny country. It would not be difficult to eradicate it from the map using a few nuclear blasts. Nuclear suicide bombers is the stuff of nightmares for Israel.

In Israel, Iranian nuclear weapons is portrayed as a much more imminent threat than in the US and the reason for that is not that the Israelis have more information about the Iranian nuclear program than US intelligence agencies have. No, US and Israeli intelligence agencies work together in a covert war against Iran’s nuclear program; a campaign that even involves assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. 47 48

The reason for the Israeli saber rattling it is more pragmatic. This is a good time for Israel to launch a strike, and it does not matter if Iran’s nuclear program currently is 100% civilian, which it currently appears to be, according to US intelligence reports. 49 50

Previous US intelligence assessments concluded Iran had a nuclear weapons programme in operation until 2003, when it was halted. If Iran restarts the nuclear weapons program, it is likely to do so at well protected, secret locations, since they are well aware of the threat of Israeli or US preemptive strikes.

But if Israel do not attack now, they might miss the window of opportunity that currently exists. Iran will have time to install new Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles on nuclear sites. The US and Iran might establish friendlier relations — a prospect that Israel have nothing to gain from in the long run. In a twisted way, it makes sense for Israel to attack now; it will strengthen their position and in the end, from this position of strength, they might be more likely to make concessions towards the Palestinians, so incredibly, an attack against Iran could possibly lead to an earlier establishment of the inevitable: a Palestinian state. 51

What do we have? Israel acquires nuclear weapons secretly, refuses all inspections, supplies the world with fabricated evidence of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program on a “Laptop of mass destruction”. Then, quite possibly, Israel attacks Iran, using their own nuclear weapons, even though they know Iran most likely has no ongoing nuclear weapon program, content in knowing this cannot be proved after the attacks.

The future of the Middle-East is balancing on a knive’s edge. It is a focal point of a multitude of interests and Iran has been caught up in a tangled web, weaved by many actors in the region, including themselves, and as the tensions mount to a breaking point, it is impossible to judge who will be left entangled, freed or flung away in a random direction. If it is Iran, Israel or the USA that is left battered and bruised with a lot of revealing cobwebs in their face remains to be seen, but the stakes are high for all involved. A cautious approach would be to slow things down, start to unravel the webs and reduce tension, but the hawks in Israel and the USA have trouble sleeping at night. They claim they hear a high-pitched whine which they believe come from subterranean Iranian centrifuges. They desperately want to silence that annoying abstract tinnitus, even if it is replaced by a terrifyingly real choir of death and destruction.

To insulate the United States from some of the consequences of an attack, it likely that the USA will engineer a scenario in concert with the Israelis that gives the impression that the US forces wanted to stop the attack but that they were unable to do so. It will also help to hide the existence of a long running US plan to attack and control a number of Russian “client regimes” in the Middle-East:

MEDIA

Will the war mongering succeed? If we buy the prewar propaganda, it will. We know that lies and disinformation are very important tools in wars and intelligence operations. The Iraq war is a good example. Now, the lie comes in the form of a laptop of mass destruction, but the difference this time around is that the devastation from the nuclear attacks will ensure that the attackers will not suffer the embarrassment of being exposed as liars.

Will we allow it to happen again? The problem is that most forms of mass media do not dig deep enough to uncover any of these machinations until it is too late. You can speculate if this is because they are incompetent, manipulated or part of a disinformation apparatus. We know media manipulation is a top budget item for the CIA. 52 The “National Endowment for Democracy”, NED, has been caught red-handed editing the Wikipedia article about the organization and its role in sponsoring coups all over the world. 53

The answer might be that news organizations usually are not directly complicit — they are in the infotainment business. Short and simple lies always beats complicated truths. If the message is too long, few will bother with it and there is little incentive for investigative journalism under those circumstances.

TALL TALES AND DISINFORMATION IS EASIER TO SPREAD

Our conversations in real life or on-line are normally also very short. Most people are not interested in changing their views on a subject; they want to confirm the views they already have and they want to subscribe to the most commonly held beliefs. As a result, hard-nosed interests are having a field day and far away in a foreign country — children get blown to pieces in front of their parents.

Is it too much to ask that we sit down and try to objectively check the facts and make a conscious decision to try to find the truth? Next time we dismiss an idea, maybe we need to think hard about what the consequences are if we are wrong. Perhaps we need to clench our teeth and endure a little painful cognitive dissonance in order to keep in touch with the real world, even if this means reevaluating ourselves, as well as certain news networks and the power-structures behind the current US administration. If we did, it would be much more difficult for certain interests to gain support for various wars and destabilization programs all over the world.

We know Barack Obama has betrayed almost every promise he made before the election. We know he has cozy relations with members of Neoconservative think tanks like the PNAC 54 and organizations like the CFR 55 56

Blood is accumulating on his hands. It started with innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Now, a trace of blood from Neda Agha Soltan and other protesters may also be found on his hands. A war against Iran would add an unknown number of victims, possibly numbering in the millions. Barack Obama’s charisma and eloquent rhetoric could be the lubrication that is going to help the world slip into an even uglier future if certain interests gain the upper hand.

Who would have something to gain from a war against Iran?

There are two historically important factors in US policies of war:

These two powerful special interests are (a) the highly influential beneficiaries of military spending and war dividends or, as the late President Eisenhower put it, the military-industrial complex; and (b) the equally powerful proponents of Greater Israel (from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean coasts), known as the Israel lobby. Evidence shows that both of these groups view their interests better served by war and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.— New Rhetoric, Same Translation, Obama’s Doublespeak on Iran, Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, Counterpunch.

The recipe for war is complete after adding a certain third ingredient to the mix:

PETRODOLLAR WARFARE

It has been suggested that the driving force of United States foreign policy for many years has been the status of the US dollar.

Wars supposedly have been motivated by the urgent need to maintain the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and oil transaction currency.

What bearing has this on the threat of war against Iran?

The status of the US-dollar is threatened by Iran’s new oil bourse 57 using only non-dollar oil transaction currencies. Iran is also actively cooperating with US arch enemy Chavez in Venezuela, as well as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Paraguay and Brazil.

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros. This has been claimed to be one of the main reasons for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. After the invasion, the administration reversed the decision and again used US dollars as an oil transaction currency. 58 59

The US dollar is under severe threat. There are signs that an increasing number of countries want to abandon it as a reserve currency. Following the Iranian election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to Yekaterinberg, in Russia to attend the ninth meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The member states of the SCO share a common agenda against the United States: They want to dismantle the US dollar hegemony by ending the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency and oil transaction currency. 60 61

The importance of the SCO meeting is illustrated by the fact that Ahmadinejad prioritized it over the situation at home with violent riots and efforts to overthrow the current regime. If Iran joins the SCO as a full member, the SCO then controls two thirds of the world’s oil and gas resources and will have the necessary clout to diminish US influence in the region. In his speech before an audience that included the top leaders of the SCO countries, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:

The international capitalist order is retreating. It is absolutely obvious that the age of empires has ended and its revival will not take place.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wearing funny hats at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) conference in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on June 16, 2009. (Image courtesy of www.kremlin.ru)

US actions against Iran is driving Iran straight into Russian and Chinese arms. If Iran is going to become a full member of the SCO, the United States will seriously have to consider the consequences of any military actions against Iran. The failure in toppling the regime in Iran leaves the US with very few options and very little time.

Will the United States silently sit and watch as its power in the region is eroded 62, or will they desperately play one of the few remaining cards: Allowing Israel to launch a nuclear attack on Iran, hoping this might further undermine the current regime?

President Barack Obama and his message to the Iranian people help us understand the emerging US policy under Obama, and it is not a pretty picture. Talks about a new era of dialog and negotiations are either heavily burdened by his neo-conservative allies and only marginally serious, or simply window dressing for western consumption. The most positive spin on Barack Obamas dishonest new years message is that he agreed doing it as a last straw attempt at averting an attack on Iran by helping the efforts to achieve regime change through a coup. Obama must have known that his message eventually would appear shamelessly dishonest to a large part of the world after the US-led attempt to oust the Iranian regime. The failed attempt and the US duplicity leave the US remarkably powerless. The President has lost all credibility. When he extended his hand in an offer of negotiations, this was mostly a show for western consumption. He must have known that the blood on his hand would be visible to the Iranians, but he also knew it looks better to have made the offer — before attacking Iran.

US ECONOMY

The events in Iran can be explained by Iran’s central role in a power struggle that not only threatens the United States influence in the region and its strategic interests against Russia and China; it also threatens the core of the US economy at a time when it is the most vulnerable.

If the dollar lose its status as a reserve currency, the economic and military might of the US will dwindle. The USA will lose the economic construction which helps finance its wars and which gives the USA a license to print money.

The leaders of the United States will have to go back to their Texas farms, shooting tin cans, or frogs to stimulate their cowboy mentality or their need for torture and evil deeds, whichever applies. Well, that was the previous president. The new president may have other hobbies…

On the surface there are few similarities between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but in many cases, Obama is continuing the policies of the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfelt era, an era which has hurt the USA on many levels — not only because the USA has been painted into a corner economically and strategically — the reckless policies under George W. Bush have made it clear to a number of countries that their best interests are served by attacking the USA economically, going for the jugular while the beast is faltering. 63

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war. — Ron Paul in a speech before the U.S. House of Representatives, February 15, 2006

A TUG OF WAR

There are very strong strings running between Barack Obama and the financial elite, the neo-conservatives and the military-industrial complex. They will not allow him to back down, instead they are pulling hard on the strings that attach to his trigger finger.

The United States has a long history of using coups and interference as tools to further its strategic and economic goals, but all across the globe, its support for dictators and human rights abuses have backfired. When we now look at the situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran — we know it all started with US interference in various forms: The United States support of Saddam Hussein. The US coup against democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. The Taliban, created by US training and arming of Mujahideen forces.

With the back against the wall and few friends in the world, the US is now facing a team of emerging Asian super powers. They are staring the US down, and they are not blinking. They are fully aware of the US role in sponsoring conflict, war, torture, repressive regimes, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrorism.

Perhaps it is long overdue for the United States to do something about its standing in the world and its status as one of the most hated nations on Earth. Attacking Iran, either directly or through Israel, will certainly not help. Maybe Obama’s only really good option is to fight harder against the strings that control him, but the force of the pull suggests that the devil himself is at the other end.

Maybe Barack Obama knows that he risks meeting the same fate as another president who fought the same battle and dared form his own policies, John F. Kennedy, by some considered to be the last real president of the United States.

But wouldn’t it be a great defining moment in history, if president Barack Obama were to announce to the world that he has decided to cut the cords that are pulling for war, and that he knows this might lead to his assassination, but that he is willing to take that risk?

We know this would be a great speech. A speech that doesn’t ring hollow, a speech that reverberates with true passion and conviction. If he would dare confront the corporate interests that have taken control of federal agencies and institutions, if he dared question the right of lobbyists and industry to run a country, if he transformed the CIA into an agency that respected human rights, an agency that protected rather than perverted the principles that guided the creation of the United States, then there might be a small glimmer of hope.

But it will never happen.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. — Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 - 1968)

That was in 1963.

This is the nightmare today: The forces behind the assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy appear to be in control of the president. They are feeding disinformation to major news organizations in preparation for another war. The architects behind US wars declare that the number civilian casualties are secondary. A ratio of about 300 Iraqi civilian deaths (mostly women and children) to one US soldier is the current standard. We see torture of Iraqis, including abuse of children in front of their parents. The torture program was mandated by the US government and supported by a frighteningly large percentage of its people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— United States Declaration of Independence.

How could it go so wrong?

Do we need to ask how the USA ended up being hated by a large percentage of the world population? A war on terror fought by sponsoring terrorism? A lunatic president going to war partly because he wants to jump-start the end of the world as prophesied in the Bible? 64 Torture, drugs, lies and interference? Destroying the world climate? Disregarding civilian casualties? Dragging the world economy down and asking others to pay the bill?

Is there a special hell reserved for the souls of nations? If so, both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States are prime candidates for permanent residency.

Torture, nuclear power, oil, dictatorship, intolerance, media manipulation — all are problematic concepts, polluting our minds, and our environment, but they are part of the old world and they are failing. We have a chance to build a new future based on less polluting activities.

Let’s take that chance.

While we’re at it, maybe we also should take a hard look at why monotheism frequently leads to intolerance and wars. And why conservatism leads to indifference to human rights. I’ll bet the explanation is similar in both cases.

Just my two eurocents…

1. 1 The Iranian People Speak, Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty, Washington Post ¶
2. 2 Ahmadinejad won. Get over it, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, POLITICO ¶
3. 3 Is Twitter a Tool for US Covert “Black” Operations to Achieve Regime Change in Iran?, Newswyrdy. ¶
4. 4 Mir-Hossein_Mousavi, Wikipedia. ¶
5. 5 Mir-Hossein_Mousavi article discussion, Wikipedia. ¶
6. 6 1988 Executions Of Iranian Political Prisoners, Wikipedia ¶
7. 7 Robert Baer: Don’t Forget Mousavi’s Bloody Past, TIME, Thursday, Jun. 18, 2009. ¶
8. 8 Iran Busts Another CIA Network, Payvand’s Iran News. ¶
9. 9 The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. by Seymour M. Hersh, ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, PREPARING THE BATTLEFIELD. ¶
10. 10 Halt Cheney’s And Now Obama’s Covert Iran Operations, Allen L Roland, The People’s Voice, June 20th, 2009 ¶
11. 11 Lessons Learned: Iran-Contra, the CIA, the CRS, and Cheney’s Assassination Squads, AlterNet. ¶
12. 12 The Mousavi campaign in Iran and the lessons of past “color revolutions”, Niall Green. ¶
13. 13 Iran finds US-backed MKO/MEK fingermarks in riots, PressTV. ¶
14. 14 Michael Ledeen, Sourcewatch. ¶
15. 15 Who is Michael Ledeen?, William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service. ¶
16. 16 Michael Ledeen, Wikipedia. ¶
17. 17 Coalition for Democracy in Iran, Profile, Political Research Associates. ¶
18. 18 WASHINGTON MIGHT HAVE PICKED IRAN’S FUTURE KING AND PREMIER, William O. Beeman, Director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. ¶
19. 19 Ghorbanifar, Mousavi, and the CIA, Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign policy Journal. ¶
20. 20 Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s Iran/Contra Connection?, Revolutionary Flowerpot Society. ¶
21. 21 “THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED”, An award-winning documentary, Google Video, Wikipedia description. ¶
22. 22 Neda Soltani’s death as reported by CNN, (Video, graphic content). ¶
23. 23 Neda before she is shot. (Video). ¶
24. 24 Iran attacks Obama interference, (Video). ¶
25. 25 Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development, Bipartisan Policy Center. ¶
26. 26 Dennis Ross’s Iran Plan, ROBERT DREYFUSS, The Nation, April 27, 2009. ¶
27. 27 Ross Is Clearly a Major Player, Jim Lobe, March 3rd, 2009, LobeLog.com ¶
28. 28 Obama Implements Neocon Strategy Against Iran, March 03, 2009. ¶
29. 29 NEOCONS FORM NEW ANTI-IRAN GROUP WITH SUSPECT BI-PARTISAN, CLAIM., Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make The World A Better Place. ¶
30. 30 Bush Lies about Iran on Now-Ruz ¶
31. 31 Who’s Telling the Truth About Iran’s Nuclear Program?, Muhammad Sahimi. ¶
32. 32 Nuclear program of Iran, Wikipedia. ¶
33. 33 IRAQ: The elusive Iranian weapons, Los Angeles Times. ¶
34. 34 The Bush Administration’s Bogus Claims About Iran’s Weapons Smuggling, Gareth Porter. ¶
35. 35 Iran War Lies, Democrats.com. ¶
36. 36 U.S. military chief says clock ticking on Iran nuke, Reuters 7th of July, 2009. ¶
37. 37 Regime Change Iran: Movement Seeks to Eliminate ‘Supreme Leader’ Position, Threats Watch. ¶
38. 38 The ‘laptop of mass destruction’, Gareth Porter, Asia Times. ¶
39. 39 IAEA Conceals Evidence Iran Documents Were Forged, Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service. ¶
40. 40 Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund, The meaning of the Philip Giraldi story, Antiwar.com ¶
41. 41 Time for an Israeli Strike?, The Washington Post, July 2, 2009. ¶
42. 42 JOHN BOLTON: A TRUE REPUBLICAN WAR MONGER, Gary Ater, Uncommon Common Sense. ¶
43. 43 Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran, Times Online, January 7, 2007. ¶
44. 44 Israeli sub sails Suez, signaling reach to Iran, Reuters. ¶
45. 45 Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran, Times Online. ¶
46. 46 Israel’s ‘options open’ on Iran, BBC NEWS, 21 September 2009. ¶
47. 47 Israel launches covert war against Iran, The Telegraph, UK, 16 Feb 2009. ¶
48. 48 Report: Iran accuses U.S. in researcher’s disappearance, CNN, October 8, 2009. ¶
49. 49 National Intelligence Estimate – Iran: Nuclear Intentions and
    Capabilities, 2 Dec 2007. ¶
50. 50 Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran – Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments, Newsweek, Sep 16, 2009. ¶
51. 51 Why Israel Will Bomb Iran — The rational argument for an attack, David Samuels, Slate, April 9, 2009. ¶
52. 52 “It may surprise some to discover that the largest single category of covert activity concerned tampering with free elections around the world. [...] The second largest covert action category is ‘media and propaganda.’ [...] The third largest category is ‘Paramilitary/Arms Transfers.’ “, See The Pike Papers. ¶
53. 53 There is an interesting discussion at the Wikipedia talk page for NED. ¶
54. 54 Project for the New American Century, Wikipedia, ¶
55. 55 Obama’s Council on Foreign Relations Crew, Steve Watson, Global Research. ¶
56. 56 Council on Foreign Relations, Wikipedia. ¶
57. 57 Iranian Oil Bourse, Wikipedia. ¶
58. 58 Petrodollar Warfare, Wikipedia. ¶
59. 59 The World’s Foremost Terrorist — The US Government. ¶
60. 60 De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire The Yekaterinburg Turning Point, Dr. Michael Hudson, Op-Ed News. ¶
61. 61 The American Empire Is Bankrupt, Chris Hedges. ¶
62. 62 ANDREI ARESHEV: THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION AND NEW ‘GREAT GAME’[ ¶
63. 63 The End of Dollar Hegemony, Ron Paul ¶
64. 64 Confirmed by president Chirac in a new book. “Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophecy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”: Bush, God, Iraq and Gog – was religion motivation for war?, Clive Hamilton. ¶

I want to help Newswyrdy | the Post Author Anton Molander to pursue this further by making a donation.

 Email The Full Text of This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, October 16th, 2009 at 01:53 and is filed under Banner, Iran, Obama. You can follow responses to this entry through the Comments RSS Feed. Pinging is currently closed.

Related Posts:

• Is Twitter a Tool for US Covert “Black” Operations to Achieve Regime Change in Iran?
• It Is a Lack of Integrity

Recent Posts:

• Will Touchscreen Text Input Make Normal Keyboards Obsolete?
• Tinkering With Tin Cans Can Save The Planet
• Obama, A Window Dresser In A Doomsday Store Or A Real President?
• Is Twitter a Tool for US Covert “Black” Operations to Achieve Regime Change in Iran?

Useful Links:

• Newswyrdy Home
• Subscribe to the free newsletter!
• Become a writer for Newswyrdy