What is the Role of Iran?
All emphasis and added notation has been furnished by Ron
Beaulieu.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF IRAN?
PART 3
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
April 6, 2009
[NOTE: On
March 24, The New York Times published “China Urges New Money Reserve
to Replace Dollar,” which began with the following: “In another indication
that China is growing increasingly concerned about holding huge dollar
reserves, the head of its central bank has called for the eventual creation
of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar.” The next day,
the London Telegraph published “U.S.
Backing for World Currency Stuns Markets,” which began: “U.S. Treasury
Secretary Tim Geithner shocked global markets by
revealing that Washington is ‘quite open’ to Chinese proposals for the
gradual development of a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund. The dollar plunged
instantly against the euro, yen, and sterling as the comments flashed across
trading screens. David Bloom, currency chief at HSBC, said the apparent
policy shift amounts to an earthquake in geo-finance. ‘The mere fact that the
U.S. Treasury Secretary is even entertaining thoughts that the dollar may
cease being the anchor of the global monetary system has caused
consternation,’ he said. Mr. Geithner later
qualified his remarks, insisting that the dollar would remain the ‘world’s
dominant reserve currency… for a long period of time,’ but the seeds of doubt
have been sown.”
Remember, the cover of The Economist
for January 9, 1988 showed a picture of “The Phoenix” as the global currency
planned for 2018 A.D. I put this information in my book, Now Is the Dawning of
the New Age New World Order published in 1991, and the term New World
Order again is being used today to describe the current situation. On ABC’s
evening news for April 2, Charles Gibson said to Fred Bergsten (Peterson
Institute for International Economics): “It was extraordinary to hear the
British prime minister and the French president at the end of this (G20 meeting) almost suggesting that this represents a New
World Order. Does it?” And Bergsten replied: “In a very important sense it
does represent a New World Order. The G20 includes
five countries from the Americas, five from Asia, five from Europe, and five
from elsewhere. It’s the true globalization of economic decision making.”
Bergsten also noted that the G20 meeting “tells our
country and our people that the world crisis… is being effectively responded
to by global policy.” And establishing “global policy” is the first step in
the Power Elite’s (PE) establishment of a
World Socialist Government.
The Obama
administration has announced its desire eventually to abolish all nuclear
weapons in the world. Assuming Obama has any intelligence at all, why would
he want to return to the days of World War II where an evil aggressor like
Hitler can invade other nations without fear of serious immediate
consequences? Think of an Asia where an expansionist Communist China ruled by
dictators decides to be aggressive (e.g., against Taiwan) and doesn’t mind
losing millions of its own people because it has 1.3 billion of them. And the
only weapons that could be used against them would be conventional ones that
can inflict only limited damage over a period of time. And think of a
sparsely populated nation such as Israel with only conventional weapons to
use against hostile Arab nations with very large populations and armies.
Doesn’t Obama’s desired world free of nuclear weapons make possible the Book
of Revelation’s reference to Iraq’s Euphrates River drying up, making way for
a massive ground assault from the East in the Battle of Armageddon?]
Mike Evans
has written a new book, Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos,
which devotes a great deal of attention to President Carter and Iran. Perhaps
the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 did as much as
anything else to prevent the re-election of Jimmy Carter as president. But
what most people don’t realize is that crises like this are manipulated by
the PE to fulfill their ultimate plan for a World Socialist Government.
I’ve written
about PE members like Cecil Rhodes and David Rockefeller many times before,
and two of Jimmy Carter’s most significant foreign policy mentors were David
Rockefeller and Rhodes scholar Hedley Donovan (editor-in-chief of TIME).
After their meeting with Carter in London, Rockefeller named Carter as the
Democratic gubernatorial representative to his Trilateral Commission (TC), which was established in 1973. According to Laurence
Shoup in Trilateralism:
The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management (edited
by Holly Sklar), membership on the TC assured Carter of favorable
press coverage in his 1976 run for the presidency.
Once Carter
became president, he selected Rhodes scholar Stansfield
Turner as head of the CIA. According to Evans, Iran’s leader Mohammed Reza
(Shah) Pahlavi believed the CIA was behind the unrest in his country during
this time. After all, the CIA and the British under Operation Ajax in August
1953 had helped revolutionaries depose elected leader Muhammad Mossadegh and install the Shah. This was done with the
help of the Ayatollah Seyyed Abolqassam
Kashani, mentor of Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini.
Khomeini had
British connections, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) opposed
the Shah. Evans relates that Iran-expert Uri Lubrani
told him the American Ambassador to Iran (1977-79) William Sullivan “had
little experience in Iran [and] was very much reliant on Tony Parsons, the
British Ambassador.” Parsons attended Oxford University’s Balliol College in
1949, and Reginald Baliol Brett was one of three individuals closest to
Rhodes in his secret Society of the Elect “to take the government of the
whole world.” In an interview with Evans on March 28, 2008, Farah Pahlavi
(wife of the Shah) said Mrs. Ferdinand Marcos sent her a message saying:
“Marcos told me to tell you that wherever Sullivan goes, he creates a
revolution.”
Farah Pahlavi
knew Sullivan was in contact with many groups in Iran who were opposed to the
Shah and wanted to replace him with Khomeini. The PE liked Khomeini, who was
a Fascist according to author David Pryce-Jones. This is because the PE plans
to create a techno-feudal Fascist New World Order on its way to a World
Socialist Government.
Evans
presents the view that Carter administration officials simply missed the
threat of Khomeini’s rise to power, but I believe it’s just too improbable
that they overlooked his references to the U.S. as the “Great Satan” and his
urging his followers in the early 1970s to
assassinate Americans.
The
importance of Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski (ZB) in all of this also shouldn’t be
ignored. ZB in his 1970 book Between Two Ages
had praised Marxism, and in 1973 David Rockefeller made ZB
the first director of his TC [Trilateral
Commission]. This was the same year (1973) Rockefeller in The New York
Times praised Communist China’s ruthless Chairman Mao. For the PE,
Communism serves as the antithesis of Capitalism in its plan to synthesize
both into a World Socialist Government. [The power elite implement the
mechanism of THESIS—ANTITHESIS to arrive at the desired SYNTHESIS].
During the
Carter presidency, ZB was duplicitous regarding the
Shah. Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post in “Carter Set To Tell
European Allies He Fully Backs Shah” (January 5, 1979) related that in a
briefing by ZB, reporters were told “President
Carter will reiterate his support of the Shah.” However, when Carter met with
these allies, French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing in his Le Pouvour et la Vie said: “The President Jimmy Carter
told us suddenly that the United States had decided not to support the regime
of the Shah anymore.”
ZB urged dropping support for the Shah, instead opting for a
military coup by those supporting the Shah. This was also the position of the
CIA. Without the support of the U.S., the Shah’s fate was sealed and he
departed Iran on January 17, 1979.
According to
Evans, President George Bush’s and President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates participated in a meeting with ZB during the Khomeini takeover in Iran, and Gates
related that ZB “outlined the U.S. stance regarding
the ouster of the Shah and Khomeini’s new Islamic Revolution very succinctly:
Acceptance of the Revolution; recognition of Khomeini’s government; supplies
of arms contracted by the Shah delivered to Khomeini; and a future working
relationship.”
This was all
part of ZB’s “Green Belt” or Pan-Islamic strategy
to create a buffer against Soviet southward expansion. Khomeini wanted to be
the leader of the Muslim world, and Evans reveals that a former naval
intelligence officer and CIA operative informed him “that the U.S. government
wrote checks to Khomeini in increments of approximately $150 million.”
However, the PE wants no national leader, including Khomeini, to become too
strong, as that could pose problems in achieving their ultimate goal. Thus,
one can understand why the PE’s military enforcer (the U.S.) would supply
Iraq and Iran with the ingredients with which to make chemical weapons of
mass destruction to use against each other. And Evans even acknowledges
“there are those who believe the U.S. may have subtly encouraged the
Iran-Iraq conflict.”
Other
examples of how the PE limits the strength of any one nation include the Milner
Group’s (Lord Alfred Milner carried out Rhodes’ plan after the latter’s
death) Sir Percy Cox as British High Commissioner in late November 1922
drawing up what became the Iraq-Kuwait border, which deliberately did not
allow Iraq access to the sea so its influence in the Persian Gulf would be
limited. Similarly, the British comprised Nigeria (and other African nations)
of competing groups. And the recent stalemate of Russia and Georgia (with
U.S. support) over South Ossetia was another example of national power
limitation.
Regarding the
Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Lord Milner told
the British House of Lords in 1923 that Jews could be the majority population
in the region west of the Jordan River, but the region “must never become a
Jewish state.” Relevant to Palestine, British Mandate Administrator Herbert
Samuel was a member of the Milner Group, and in 1921 he appointed Hajj (Muhamud Effendi) Amin Al-Husseini as Mufti (interpreter/judge of Muslim law) and
then head political administrator of Arab Palestine. This was after
Al-Husseini came in fourth in a vote after Samuel
pardoned him for murder. Al-Husseini had killed
many Jews, but was pardoned by Samuel, who was himself a liberal Jew. Why?
This was because the British PE members led by the Milner Group (including
Samuel) played different factions (Jews and Arabs) against each other in
order that no one group would become too powerful. For part one and two click
below.
Click here
for part -----> 1, 2, 3,
© 2009 Dennis
Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Dennis
Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor
in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been
a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm,
and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has
also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has
written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation,
including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a
guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as
ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national
television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not
Available
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF IRAN?
Part 1
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 27, 2006
For many years,
one has heard of an 1871 plan of Albert Pike (Luciferian)
and Giuseppe Mazzini (Italian revolutionary referred to as an
"established point of light when rays traversed the world") to
overthrow all religious and monarchical authority. It called for 3 world wars, the third of which would be between Islam
and the Judeo-Christian West. There has been much debate over whether
this plan was a hoax because author William Guy Carr learned of it from the
writings of Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Chile in the 1920s,
which would be after the First World War and in anticipation of the Second
World War. However, most researchers have not bothered to find out that
Cardinal Rodriguez referred to 2 French books from the 1890s---BEFORE
any world war occurred ! In one of them, LE PALLADISME
(1895) by Domenic Margiotta, Pike is referred to as
"the Great Luciferian Pontiff," and the
author relates that Pike wrote a pamphlet describing a "project of
universal destruction" in which the religions of the world, including
Islam, would literally war against each other. [The PE are waiting for the
religions of the world other than Islam, to increase in titer
so that all forces concerned will have more ability to neutralize (destroy)
one another—This will serve two prime objectives of the PE: 1) To facilitate
their goal of depopulation; 2) To eliminate any prospects of a prospective
contender against the New World Order—for the resultant factions will
primarily be those who agree with being controlled by world socialist
dictators and all who disagree will be easier to eliminate. rwb].
Margiotta also reveals that according to Pike's plan,
"There are also the outcasts, the miserable ones, several millions of
free-thinking deists, and 2 million atheists, dedicated by the great Luciferian Pontiff
to the reprobation of the sect, threatened by complete extermination or by
complete conversion to the religion of the 'True Light' (Lucifer)." The original
Pike pamphlet has not been found, but we know that this sounds like Pike,
because in both his MORALS AND DOGMA (1871) and INDO-ARYAN DEITIES AND
WORSHIP (1872), he praised Lucifer and on page 817 of MORALS AND DOGMA he
opined that "The Papacy and the
rival monarchies...tomorrow, perhaps, will destroy each other....The world
will soon come to us for its Sovereigns and Pontiffs. We shall constitute the
equilibrium of the Universe, and be rulers over the Masters of the
World."
Since Muslims
(among others) were part of the Pike plan, it is important to look at what
the role of Iran might be in bringing about a global conflagration, since an
Iranian sect today believes such a conflict could bring the Mahdi (a Muslim prophet who is supposed to appear before
the end of the world). In an article, "Later than we think" (THE
WASHINGTON TIMES, February 6, 2006), Arnaud de Borchgrave
explained that Iranian "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shiite creed has convinced him lesser
mortals can not only influence but hasten the awaited return of the 12th
Imam, known as the Mahdi. Iran's dominant 'Twelver' sect holds this will be Muhammad Ibn Hasan, the righteous
descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He is said to have gone into 'occlusion'
in the 9th century, at age 5.
His return
will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this
cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal
peace....President Ahmadinejad
reckons the return of the Imam, AWOL for 11 centuries, is only two years away
[from 2009]. Mr. Ahmadinejad is close to the
messianic Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction the 12th Imam's return
will be hastened by 'the creation of chaos on Earth'." An attack on Iran would also certainly
drive oil prices up, plus the
leaders of Iran could also send thousands of suicide bombers into Iraq to
create even more chaos in that country. Regarding the chaos in Iraq, one
might want to reflect upon the description of "chaos theory" in SPIRITUAL POLITICS: CHANGING THE WORLD
FROM THE INSIDE OUT by Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson (who worked
for Lucis Trust, formerly Lucifer Publishing), in
which they revealed that "at the heart of the most random or chaotic
event lies order, pattern, and causality, if only we can learn to see it in a
large enough context."
There is no
evidence that Albert Pike was ever a close personal friend of Cecil Rhodes,
but at about the same time Pike developed his plan which he shared with
Mazzini, a young Cecil Rhodes began to develop his own plan for a secret
Society of the Elect "to take the government of the whole world,"
in Rhodes' own words. And since those carrying out Rhodes' plan would come to
control British foreign affairs for decades, it is worth examining Britain's role in promoting a pan-Islamist
movement, especially pertaining to Iran and Iranians. The radical Islam
of the Iranian mullahs today traces its origin back through the Muslim
Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928) to the 1870s.
According to Robert Dreyfuss in DEVIL'S GAME: HOW THE UNITED STATES HELPED
UNLEASH FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM (2005), "from the 1870s
to the 1890s, Jamal Eddine
al-Afghani (an Iranian) was supported by the United Kingdom." Afghani in
1885 proposed the idea of a British-led pan-Islamic alliance, and "in
1882, in India, according to a secret file of the Indian government's
intelligence service---Afghani officially offered to go to Egypt as an agent
of British Intelligence." Afghani formed many secret societies, and his
chief disciple was Egyptian pan-Islamic activist Mohammed Abduh.
Abduh's ideas were promoted in Egypt in THE LIGHTHOUSE magazine, which
influenced Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt.
After the
British literally took control of Egypt in 1881, Flora Shaw in 1886 went
there as a correspondent for William Stead's PALL MALL GAZETTE. Stead was a confidante of Cecil Rhodes, and
both Rhodes and Shaw (and Gandhi) were disciples of John Ruskin, who wrote of
the British that "We are still undegenerate in
race; a race mingled of the best northern blood." Ruskin also espoused a
Socialist doctrine in TIME AND TIDE
(1867), with greater Government
authority over the people. Stead introduced Shaw to Rhodes in 1889, two
years before Rhodes' secret society was formed, and Shaw became an ardent
supporter of Rhodes' dream.
Upon Rhodes' death, his plan was implemented by Lord Alfred
Milner, whose allies controlled British foreign affairs for decades. One of
Milner's allies, Sir Edward Grey, misled the German Ambassador to England
into thinking Britain would not enter the conflict over the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, thereby leading to the First World War in 1914. In
the MONTREAL GAZZETTE
(September 11, 1912) is related by Abdul-Baha that
"the time is less than two years hence" when "a tiny spark
will set the world ablaze." Abdul-Baha was the leader of the Baha'i, which promotes world
government and one common faith. The Baha'i religion was founded in
Iran by Baha Ullah,
known as the "Point" or "Unity" who spoke of a United
Nations of the World as early as 1860. And according to Robert Dreyfuss in DEVIL'S
GAME, the Baha'i religion has been accused of having ties to British
Intelligence, with Abdul-Baha knighted by the
British government.
Before World
War I, the British had already helped the family of Ibn
Saud create the first fundamentalist (Wahhabi)
Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia, and helped install Hashemites
as kings of Iraq and Jordan. After the First World War, Sir Percy Cox in
November 1922 drew up what became the Iraq-Kuwait border, which deliberately
did not allow Iraq access to the sea, so it would remain dependent upon
Britain. This would play an important part in Iraq's resentment toward
the West and Kuwait, which helped to cause recent conflicts in that region.
After the
Second World War, the pan-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood was used by British
Intelligence (MI6) and the CIA against nationalist leaders Gamel Abdel Nasser in Egypt and democratically elected
Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. When Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil in the early 1950s, the British and CIA funded his overthrow in August
1953 with the help of Ayatollah Seyyed Abolqassem Kashani, and
reinstalled the Shah of Iran. The U.S. then in 1978 removed from power the
Shah, who was succeeded by Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini, who had been mentored by Kashani.
In 1979,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski thought he could use the Iranian government, including the Iranian
Shiite mullahs as part of an "arc" of resistance from Egypt
eastward against Soviet expansionism. When "students" supported by
Khomeini took over the U.S, Embassy in Tehran,
Iran, it presented a crisis. However, as Robert Dreyfuss
notes: "Along with the threat from Khomeinism,
some U.S. policy makers also saw opportunity...using the Islamic right to
undermine the Soviet Union in its own empire, deep in Central Asia....The
twin Islamic movements in Iran and (Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations
like Al Qaeda in) Afghanistan, inspired Brzezinski and Bill Casey (President
Reagan's CIA director) to pursue the Islam-in-Asia ('arc-of-Islam') theme
aggressively."
Brzezinski
developed a plan of financial and other support for Afghanistan hoping to
lure the Soviets into involvement in a quagmire there, and the Soviets
invaded in December 1979. After this, Zalmay Khalilzad (current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), a
neoconservative RAND strategist, wrote a paper explaining "the Khomeini
regime also poses risks to the Soviets. The change of regime has encouraged
similar movements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and might even affect Soviet
Muslim Central Asia."
Perhaps it is
useful at this time to remember that according to a 1952 map prepared by the
World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government meeting in London in
1952, when the World Government comes into being, U.S. forces would be
patrolling Central Asia (e.g., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.). Brzezinski at
Mikhail Gorbachev's first State of the World Forum in 1995 said: "We
cannot leap into world government through one quick step. A consensual global
system requires a process....The precondition for eventual and genuine
globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward
larger, more stable, more cooperative units." This is the same strategy
proposed by Cecil Rhodes' Association of Helpers member P. E. Corbett in POST-WAR WORLDS (1942).
Relevant to
this, the Bank for International
Settlements (BIS, the world's central bank
for all nations' central banks) produced in 2003, Paper No. 17, "Regional
Currency Areas and the Use of Foreign Currencies." The BIS has been promoting the "Amero"
as the currency for a North American Monetary Union, first proposed in 1999
by the Fraser Institute of Canada. The ultimate goal of the power elite
is to link all regional economic arrangements into a single global system with one global currency which, according to THE ECONOMIST
(January 9, 1988), will be around 2018 A.D. and called the
"Phoenix."
======
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF IRAN?
Part 2
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 27, 2006
In 1981,
Ronald Reagan became President, but unfortunately ignored the threat from
Iran early in his administration. According to longtime
CIA Middle East operative Robert Baer in SEE
NO EVIL (2002), Baer looked at "an intelligence report from March
1982---a full thirteen months before the embassy bombing---stating that Iran
was in touch with a network capable of destroying the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
A subsequent report even specified a date the operation should be carried
out." The attack was carried out by the Islamic Jihad Organization,
which Baer described as "merely a front for the Iranians." Baer
further reasoned that "the conclusion was unavoidable: The Islamic
Republic of Iran had declared a secret war against the United States, and the
United States had chosen to ignore it."
The U.S.
government during the Reagan years also knew that the Iranian-sponsored
Islamist network was already here in the U.S. in the mid-1980s.
In TARGET AMERICA: TERRORISM IN THE
U.S. TODAY (1993) by Yossef Bodansky
(director of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and
Unconventional Warfare), one learns that this network "had markedly
expanded and become better organized. The Islamist infrastructure already
included all the components of a mature terrorist support system. These
included safe houses in major cities, weapons, ammunition, money, systems to
provide medical and legal aid, false identity papers, and intelligence for
the operative. The network was also large and spanned the United States."
Bodansky also revealed that "the training of
suicide pilots started in Busher air base in Iran
in the early 1980s....The first installation was
established in Wakilabad near Mashhad....According
to a former trainee in Wakilabad, one of the
exercises included having an Islamic jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a
transport aircraft. Then, trained air crews from among the terrorists would
crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective."
Two years
after Bodansky wrote this, additional information
was developed. According to Associated
Press writer John Solomon's "Warnings Before 1995 Oklahoma
Bombing" (June 20, 2002), "'Iranian sources confirmed Tehran's
desire and determination to strike inside the U.S. against objects
symbolizing the American government in the near future,' said a February 27,
1995, terror warning by the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional
Warfare. The warnings became increasingly specific as to the possible
location, type of attack, and likely dates. 'These strikes are most likely to
occur either in the immediate future or in the new Iranian year---starting 21
March 1995,' the congressional task force predicted."
Then Jim Crogan in "An
Oklahoma Mystery: New hints of links between Timothy McVeigh and Middle
Eastern terrorists" (L.A.
WEEKLY, July 24-30, 2002) stated that Bodansky
wrote "that after the bombing, it was determined that Oklahoma City had
been 'on the list of potential targets.'...An undated intelligence report by Bodansky discusses alleged terrorist training inside the
U.S. that included some 'Lilly Whites.'...Bodansky
states the training was ordered by Iran and conducted by Hamas
operatives....The second training occurred in 1993. It was specifically for
Lilly Whites. They also used code names and were given state-of-the-art
car-bomb training. Bodansky's sources also report
that at least two of the 1993 participants came from Oklahoma City."
In Yossef Bodansky's BIN LADEN (1999), one then learns that
"in the early months of 1996, Tehran started laying the foundation for
the next phase in the terrorist jihad, establishment of the HizbAllah International, with (Osama) bin Laden in a
senior position. The significance of this organization for the prevailing
terrorist threat was demonstrated in its first strikes: the bombing of the
U.S. barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the downing
of TWA 800; and the assassination of a U.S. intelligence officer in
Cairo."
Given the
revelations above, how could the U.S. possibly have all this information
unless American intelligence agencies have been monitoring the Iranians in
the U.S. and elsewhere for a long time? Secondly, why would the U.S. want to
oust a contained, secularist Saddam Hussein from Iraq, and have elections
there resulting in Islamic law being imposed by a Shiite majority religiously
aligned with Iran, which is closer to having nuclear weapons (WMD) than Saddam ever was? And most recently, why
would the Bush administration so vigorously defend its approval of the sale
of a company managing at least 6 major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World of the
United Arab Emirates (UAE), which supported Osama
bin Laden and the Taliban before 9/11 and since 9/11 has still served as a
base for Al Qaeda?
Wouldn't
computer access to port security information be useful to Al Qaeda or
Iranian-supported terrorists? Remember that 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from
the UAE, and according to Niles Lathem's
article, "Qaeda Claim: We 'Infiltrated' UAE Gov't" (NEW
YORK POST, February 25, 2006): "Al Qaeda warned the government of
the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it 'infiltrated' key
government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S.
military. The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the
release of an unknown number of 'mujahedeen detainees,' who it said had been
arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
The explosive
document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port...." Also recall that CIA agents allegedly
met with Osama bin Laden at a Dubai hospital in July 2001 (see Alexandra
Richards's "CIA Agent Allegedly Met bin Laden in July," LE FIGARO,
October 31, 2001; and see Anthony Simpson's "CIA agent alleged to have
met bin Laden in July," THE
GUARDIAN, November 1, 2001). And while you are recalling this, you might
also want to remember that a UAE sheik gave at
least $1 million to the (George H.W.) Bush Library Foundation. Last year, Dubai
International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8
billion fund of the Carlyle Group, for which former President Bush has been a
consultant and marketer, and the current President Bush has received fees as
director of a subsidiary.
What will
probably happen with the Dubai Ports World takeover is that another 45-day
review will give the Bush administration time to "educate" (arm
twist) enough Congressional Democrats and Republicans not to demand certain
guarantees (e.g., Can Americans be guaranteed no employee of Dubai Ports
World will be threatened by Al Qaeda into providing security information from
computers?) regarding national security because of the takeover. This is
despite an Associated Press
article, "Paper: Coast Guard Has
Port Co. Intel Gaps," by Liz Sidoti on
February 27, 2006, that begins: "Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence,
the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to
determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support
terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday. The surprise disclosure
came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over
significant operations at six leading U.S. ports."
What might
precipitate a conflict between Iran and the U.S.? Next month (March 2006),
Iran will bring online the "Bourse" exchange for oil sales around
the world, which could accept Euros, etc., instead of dollars (currently
nations must use dollars to buy oil). In November 2000 (when George W. Bush
was elected president), Iraq stopped accepting dollars for oil and under the
U.N. oil-for-food program switched to the Euro. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, we had Iraq switch back to accepting
the dollar. According to economic expert Jim Puplava,
the Iranian action this March will be the first serious challenge to
Anglo-American dominance of the commodities market globally.
This will challenge the status of the dollar
as nations' reserve currency, which will lessen the value of the dollar for
Americans, thereby impacting our economy (e.g., greater budget deficits,
because we cannot just print dollars to pay our debt without lessening the
value of the dollar). Watch for some type of reaction to this by the U.S.
government, including attempts to destabilize the government of Iran. And if that fails, watch for some type
of "incident" that will precipitate U.S. (or Israeli) military
action against Iran (remember the 2 British agents dressed as Arabs who
recently caused "incidents" until caught by Iraqi police). Perhaps
the only reason such action has not already occurred is because China has a
tremendous economic stake in Iranian oil, etc. And China has purchased a great
deal of American debt. What if they threaten to no longer do this if the U.S.
attacks Iran? And remember here that China has also contributed tens of
thousands of dollars to the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M.
And what
might Iran do if attacked? Yossef Bodansky revealed that Iranians were responsible for
downing TWA 800. What if Iranian agents in the U.S. downed several
American airliners? Do you remember the effect upon our economy as a result
of 9/11? And what if Iranian agents here used helicopters to attack athletic
stadiums filled with tens of thousands of people? What if they also derailed
trains here carrying passengers or dangerous chemicals? What if they set fires to forests, apartment complexes, etc., at
night? What if they blew up gas lines in cities? What if they poisoned
foods in grocery stores and fast-food restaurants? If they did these things,
and more, the human and economic impact would be many times greater than the
impact of 9/11.
And
concerning what Iran might do to Israel if attacked, Yossi
Melman (HAARETZ
correspondent) in "Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response
to U.S. attack" (February 25, 2006), reported: "If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic
republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility. Dr. Abasi, an
advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an
American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear
reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and
the Zakhariya area. Haifa is also home to a large
concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries. Zakhariya,
located in the Jerusalem hills, is---according to foreign reports---home to
Israel's Jericho missile base."
Syria is also
targeted by the U.S., and the justification given will be that is where Iraq
sent its WMD (which we have known, and I have
reported, all along). But just as the U.S. did not like it when Iraq switched
from the dollar to the Euro, the U.S. did not like it when early this month
(February 2006), Syria also switched from the dollar to the Euro for
international currency exchange transactions. This likewise could play a role
in whether the U.S. takes action against Syria.
|