Will the U.S./Britain/Israel attack Iran/Syria?

[Dover]

Here's what Richard Moore says:



Friends,

We've been discussing this topic for some time, and I've posted
several very good analyses (Engdahl, Chossudovsky, etc.). I've also
been posting LOTS of news articles from a range of sources, of
varying credibility. All this material can be reviewed in the
archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/.

From the perspective of geopolitical strategy, there are good
arguments both for and against expecting an attack.

For example, there is a possibility of escalation to WW III (nuclear
exchange with China and Russia). This could indicate either (a) that
an Iran attack will not happen (to avoid WW III), or (b) that it will
go ahead (because WW III is the goal). It is also possible that the
US-Anglo imperialist Axis have determined that China and Russia would
stay out of the fracas, so the attack can therefore go ahead without
fear of out-of-control escalation.

From the analyses we've seen, we know that the Axis surely wants to
attack Iran (and Syria), if they think the negative outcomes would be
'acceptable'. They, along with Israel, have articulated a vision of a
'New Middle East', along with a 'Greater Israel'. The reasons for
this, in terms of controlling Middle East oil and Caspian oil routes,
are very clear. Besides the obvious economic gains, this tighter grip
on the Middle East would be very helpful to US-Anglo elites in their
longer range struggle against the Sino-Russian Alliance. Clearly the
fear of a Superpower China, aided by an oil & technology-rich Russia,
is at the root of all strategic US-Anglo planning -- which is why
intentionally provoking WW III now remains a distinct possibility:
perhaps the Axis believes 'every day makes China stronger, better
fight now than later'.

There is also the possibility that there is a split among US-Anglo
elites -- the 'realists' may be trying to restrain the neocons. But
we can't be sure about this, nor can we be sure whether the neocons
have the power to proceed despite any split, nor can we be sure the
realists don't also want an attack, either expecting or not expecting
WW III.

Because of these considerations, I do not think it is possible to
predict whether there will be an attack based on geopolitical
analysis alone. It depends on unknown power relationships at the top,
and on how those at the top view these various geopolitical options.
This is not information that is available to us. What is visible to
us are the many preparations for an attack on Iran. If we survey the
scope of these preparations, and their timing, I think we will find
that the evidence for an imminent attack is very strong. For another
perspective on this, you might want to listen to Alex Jones' take on
the prospects for war (he predicts war in October):
<http://prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Warning.htm>


* Demonization of Iran

Let's first consider the most obvious preparations. First among these
is the demonization campaign against Iran, which has been following a
formula parallel to the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. With Iraq it
was imaginary 'WMDs', with Iran it's an imaginary 'nuclear threat'.
In both cases the charges have been without substance, and even if
there were substance, there would be no motivation for Iran or Iraq
to initiate attacks, which they know would result in their own
destruction. Nonetheless the US has managed in both cases, by means
of media propaganda and diplomatic pressure, to push the EU and UN
into backing US moves, to one degree or another. In this way the US
creates the illusion of some modicum of 'legality' for an attack,
while at the same time building public acquiescence.

Adding to this demonization campaign, the Western media has
mistranslated statements by the Iranian President, making it appear
that he is calling for the 'destruction' of Israel. The tempo of the
campaign has recently picked up, with Iran, along with Syria, being
blamed for the activity of the Hezbollah freedom fighters. We might
note here that Hezbollah's weapons are ultimately of Russian origin,
and yet Russia gets none of the public blame.


* Demonization of Muslims: bringing Europeans 'on side'

It takes relatively little to steer the US public onto the warpath:
it's been done at least once a generation ever since 1776. It's a
national tradition. And in the US media, Iran has been continually
demonized ever since the CIA-arranged 'hostage crisis' some 25 years
ago. Europe however is quite another matter. While many Americans
still believe Saddam had WMDs, and was connected to Al Qaeda, most
Europeans are much more skeptical and savvy.They aren't as impressed
with the 'nuclear program' claims re/Iran. (In Europe the claim that
Iran has called for the 'destruction' of Israel plays more
successfully.) More than that, anti-US sentiment is rather high in
Europe, because of what's happened in Iraq, and more recently in
Lebanon. Many European are more worried about Washington and Israel's
WMDs than they are about any threat Iran might pose. Bringing
Europeans on side regarding an attack on Iran is a tricky business
indeed. Why European leaders cooperate with this effort, in support
of US-Anglo imperialism, is a separate issue, which we'll get back to.

The war-preparation program in Europe, and the UK, focuses on
stirring up anti-Muslim racism. The program is multi-faceted,
customized for different audiences, and designed to creep up on
people from many directions. I'll mention some of the high points.

The Danish cartoon episode was very successful. These were extremely
offensive cartoons to Muslims, equivalent in Christian terms to
portraying Jesus as a depraved axe-murderer. For the far right -- of
which there are many in Europe -- the cartoons worked at a direct
level, providing a hearty chuckle at the expense of 'dark-skinned
heathens'. Other Europeans were reached by the subsequent media
treatment, which downplayed the cartoons themselves, and spun the
issue around 'free speech'. Muslims were portrayed as being
'anti-free speech', and justifiably outraged Muslim protestors were
portrayed by selective TV-footage as 'wild mobs'. All this remains
in the European memory after the cartoons themselves have been
largely forgotten.

(The hypocrisy of this concern for 'free speech' was highlighted by a
grotesque irony: at the same time these 'free speech' editorials were
being published, we could read in the same papers of someone being
criminally prosecuted for publishing 'anti-semitic' remarks. Freedom
for the goose, but not for the gander.)

In France, the program took a tack that appealed to French cultural
pride. Muslim schoolgirls were proclaimed to be 'un French' because
they wore the headgear required by their religion. This manufactured
incident was then used to stir up controversy and suspicion between
the Muslim community and the 'real French'. Memories of the bloody
war in Algeria were helpful here, as was the conveniently-timed
(covertly incited?) rioting of Muslim youths against economic
conditions.

In the UK we see the anti-Muslim program at its most sophisticated.
MI-5 carefully selected 'boy next door' Muslim types as fall-guys in
its phony 'suicide bomber' subway operation. By this means, the Brits
are led to fear that every Muslim, no matter how innocent looking,
might be a hatching a terrorist plot. BBC took on the role of
deepening the campaign with documentaries, revealing 'extremist
schools' and explaining why impoverished Muslim youth are
'vulnerable' and 'susceptible to radicalization'. So as to appear
'fair minded' to the British public, the government launched programs
of 'reconciliation' and 'dialog' with the Muslim community, but the
real message continues to come through in the form of set-up raids on
alleged 'terrorist plots' in various 'ordinary Muslim neighborhoods'.

Meanwhile, scattered 'plots' and 'incidents' around the world
(Canada, Florida, etc.) -- each suspicious in its own right --
provide a 'background tableau' for the demonization program. All of
this together, however, is not sufficient to deliver popular European
support for an attack on Iran. But it lays the foundation, a bit like
a post-hypnotic suggestion, as regards what to expect from 'those
Muslims'. When a real outrage is staged -- a second 911 -- Europeans
have been prepared to accept that Muslims will be the perps, and they
are prepared for the blame to be laid on Muslims generally, rather
than limiting blame to isolated terrorist elements. And of course if
Iran is named as the incident 'mastermind' (an Iranian passport
conveniently found in the debris?), and if the second 911 occurs in
Europe, then the desired public support in Europe for war is likely
to be forthcoming -- on cue.


* Stepping up the pace

The pace of war-preparations has accelerated considerably with the
US-sponsored Israeli invasion of Lebanon, along with the media
co-feature, the infamous soft-drink suicide-bomber gang. (As usual
there was a police informer in the gang, most likely the one coming
up with the fanciful plots and egging on the dupes. Le Carre's
"Absolute Friends" entertainlngly explains how these kinds of things
are typically done.)

Blair proclaims that the soft-drink plot was "Britain's 911", but it
wasn't even close. To have a 'real' 911 you've got to have 'shock and
awe' -- more people really killed than you ever believed possible
(for White folks that is). The real '911: The Sequel' is yet to be
released. Just hope it's not coming to a theater near you. In the
meantime you might re-rent "A Long Kiss Goodnight", which was
amazingly prophetic of 911, complete with CIA planning, a Muslim fall
guy, and a mass-murder incident. As the CIA project leader in the
film said, and I quote from memory, "We can't fake this kind of
incident, killing thousands of innocent civilians, we've got to do it
for real." In order to be sure of enough 'shock and awe', the 911
Sequel, as with other thriller sequences (one Alien, many Aliens),
must be even bigger and more dramatic than the Twin-Towers-Pentagon
production. The soft-drink plot, however, serves very well to prepare
everyone for the coming big event.

Some analysts have suggested that the destruction of Lebanon was
preparation for an Iran attack in a military sense -- providing a
buffer of protection for Israel when the shit hits the fan. I don't
see much sense in this view, even if Israel had been more effective
in disabling existing Hezbollah units. Hezbollah's arsenal, though
frightening to Israeli civilians, is kid stuff compared to what Syria
and Iran have on hand -- not to mention what Russia has on hand in
the case of escalation. I see the Lebanese adventure as being
important to war preparations, but for other reasons.

The adventure provided a way to bring Syria into the demonization
spotlight. and to further highlight Iran -- by blaming them for
Lebanese suffering (hutzpah extraordinaire!) This prepares the public
mind to accept a simultaneous attack on Iran and Syria, when the time
comes. The adventure also broke the ice as regards blitzkrieg warfare
against civilians, tested the waters as to how the global public
would react to such carnage, and provided a testing ground for
damage-control propaganda.

The Lebanon adventure was a test-run, of relatively little strategic
significance in its own right -- but it was very significant as an
indicator of timing, particularly when staged simultaneously with the
soft-drink incident. Blair seized on the confluence of these events
by describing an "Arc of Terrorism" (ie, the Muslim world), and he
and Bush now use the phrase "Muslim fascists".

The attack on Iran is being carefully orchestrated, and judging from
the tempo of the music, we seem to be nearing the Finale. If the
'realists' intended to interrupt this performance, I think they would
have intervened before now.


* The two-faced role of European elites - a bit of background

European elites have been engaged in a treasonous conspiracy against
the people of Europe ever since the adoption of the Maastricht
Treaty. While that treaty was sold as being 'the necessary first
step' in creating the European Union, it's actual purpose was to
ensure that Europe follow the US and UK down the path of
neoliberalism and globalization -- the path toward denationalization
and an elite-controlled world government. The 'fiscally conservative'
(ie, neoliberal) treaty was drafted not by Foreign Ministers, but by
Finance Ministers -- the bankers 'inside men' in governments -- and
that pretty much tells the story of where real power lies in Europe.

The problem for European elites was that postwar Europeans -- having
lived under the Nazi regime -- had a fiercer passion for democracy
and social justice than did their US and UK counterparts. European
newspapers, for example, represent a far wider spectrum of opinion
(communist, socialist, etc.) than can be found in the popular US & UK
media. While Reagan and Thatcher were able to easily lead their sheep
by the nose into neoliberal national decline, the project in Europe
has been considerably more difficult and time consuming. The Brussels
super-government has needed to cultivate a 'progressive Green' image
-- quite the opposite of its true colors -- in order to seduce the
people of Europe into transferring more and more sovereignty to
Brussels. Meanwhile, with less publicity, that same sovereignty was
being signed over to the globalists in the form of 'free trade'
treaties.

This tension between elite designs and European public sentiment
continues to be strong. We saw a dramatic exhibition of this tension
when elites tried to stuff a new (power centralizing) constitution
down the throats of Europeans. The outcome -- defeat of the
constitution -- was very encouraging, showing that Brussels had
underestimated the common sense and dedication to democracy of the
European people.

The treasonous mindset of European elites was starkly revealed by
official responses to the constitutional defeat. Officials totally
ignored the expressed sentiments of the people -- which were against
neoliberalism and greater centralization -- and talked only about how
the constitution might better be sold next time. Some even said it
had been a mistake to put the constitution to a popular vote, and
wished that a different strategy had been followed, via national
parliaments. These are the musings of conspirators, not of democratic
representatives.

This background glimpse has been necessary in order to provide a
perspective from which to evaluate the role of European elites in the
preparation for an attack on Iran. We need to understand why the
public pronouncements of European leaders are often quite the
opposite of their actual sentiments and objectives. We need to dig
deeper than those pronouncements if we are to assess how these elites
might view a war with Iran.

The fact that Europe has backed away from participating in the
invasion and occupation of Iraq does not tell us much in this regard.
It may appear that European leaders are champions of peace, but they
really have no choice -- it would be political suicide for them to
openly support such blatant imperialism. And if they can't support
it, they might as well make some political points by pretending to be
against it. Just as a progressive-Green image must be maintained as
long as possible, so must a peace-loving image. We saw some of the
elite's true colors as they participated (first covertly and later
overtly) in the destabilization and destruction of Yugoslavia. In
that case an intensive propaganda campaign succeeded in bringing
Europeans on side. Now we are seeing another such intensive
propaganda campaign -- in the run-up to an Iran invasion. This
campaign has required the collaboration of European elites and their
political stooges.


* Europe and the Clash of Civilizations

I believe that the best way to understand the real attitude of
European elites is to examine that question in the context of
Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". (Needless to say, Huntington
is merely an articulator of elite designs, not a prime mover.) In
Huntington's vision for global order there is one super power (the
US), and nine regional powers, each in charge of its own
'civilization' / culture. None of the regional powers is permitted to
be anything like a match to the one super power, and we see this
reiterated in the neocons' agenda for global domination, published by
their Project For a New American Century. The PNAC agenda can be seen
as part of the implementation plan for Huntington's vision. The
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq represent the opening moves in
pursuing that plan.

Nations which remain as obstacles to the vision include Iran, Syria,
Venezuela and other Latin rebels, Russia, and China. The neocons have
been trying to pick all these off piecemeal. WW III will occur when
the neocons turn their guns on Russia and China, or when Russia and
China decide to confront the agenda. This could happen early if the
neocons decide to go for a quick first-strike win, of if China and
Russia decide that continued appeasement is fatally undermining their
strategic position. Iran, as mentioned at the beginning, might turn
out to be the escalation flash point for either reason.

Another primary characteristic of Huntington's vision is its emphasis
on 'irreconcilable' cultural differences. In Huntington's fantasies
White European civilization is 'naturally democratic and
humanitarian', while other cultures, to one degree or another, are
incapable of such a high level of civilization. It's all a rehash of
the British Empire's racist "White Man's Burden", and now as then as
then it is a thin mask for barbaric imperialism. Blair's 'arc of
terrorism', Bush's 'Muslim fascists', the systematic Muslim
demonization program in Europe, and the increasing cooperation of
NATO with the Pentagon (eg, Yugoslavia) -- all of these serve to help
turn Huntington's fantasies into reality, to help realize his scheme
for global management.

As European leaders implicitly collaborate in this scheme, for
example by assisting in the Muslim demonization program, I suggest
this indicates they have bought into their assigned role within
Huntington's vision. With Germany as regional power, and enjoying
good relations with the lone superpower, European elites would fare
relatively well in the new world order. They've long grown accustomed
to playing second fiddle to Uncle Sam, to accepting US-Anglo
domination of energy distribution, and relying on the Pentagon to
keep the world safe for their commerce and investments. If the new
order promises to maintain this second-tier status for European
elites, and if they aren't up to challenging the US for the top-dog
position, then it makes sense for them to go along and cut the best
deal they can. The fact that most Europeans would find this agenda
repugnant forces their leaders to keep their objectives to
themselves, while justifying their various collaborations on other
grounds.


* War with Iran: the expected scenario

The ground has been carefully prepared for Western publics (each by a
culturally-customized propaganda campaign) to accept a second 911 as
genuine terrorism, to blame it on Muslims, to expect immediate
retaliation against the alleged perps, and not to be surprised if
those perps turn out to be Iran and Syria. The soft-drink plot has
all the earmarks of a prelude to a finale, ensuring that everyone
will have their suspicions tuned to the right frequencies when the
finale begins, as the curtain opens on '911 the Sequel' -- most
likely somewhere in Western Europe. The Madrid train bombing
demonstrated that US-Anglo intelligence operatives, including their
Al Qaeda assets, are capable of operating effectively on European
soil. There is no need for European leaders to compromise their own
intelligence services by direct collaboration in a false-flag
incident.

When news of the outrage incident lights up televisions around the
world, it will be accompanied by reassurances that the perps have
already been identified and retaliatory strikes have been launched.
By 'coincidence', the nuclear submarines will be exactly on station,
the cruise missiles will be programmed exactly right, and the
vulnerable warships will be either (a) sitting ducks for propaganda
purposes, just like the Battleship Arizona at Pearl Harbor, or (b)
out of range of Iranian missiles, just like the out-of-port aircraft
carriers when the Japanese attacked. One good way to look for clues
as to the exact timing of 911-2 would be to keep track of ship and
troop movements in the Middle Eastern region. 911-2 will not be
staged until all ducks, large and small, are carefully lined up.

The war strategy, quite clearly, will be for a lightning first strike
using a mixture of conventional and nuclear weapons, and presumably
accompanied by a sophisticated satellite-based communications-jamming
technology. The goal will be to neutralize Iran and Syria's missiles,
either by hitting them before they can be launched or else by jamming
their guidance systems. Iran and Syria will learn they are under
attack at the same time they learn about the false-flag incident that
they are being accused of perpetrating. They'll be as surprised as
the rest of us, as regards the exact timing. Indeed, the stealth
bombers will probably be in the air, heading for their targets,
before the outrage incident even occurs. Timing is everything in a
first-strike operation.

I doubt if a first-strike can be entirely successful, barring a
simultaneous air-burst of thermonuclear weapons that wipes out the
entire populations of Iran and Syria in a split second. I don't think
the propaganda preparations have been effective enough to permit that
option, although it is a real possibility. More likely there will be
significant retaliation from Iran and Syria, providing good
propaganda footage of wrecked shipping and destroyed targets in
Israel, and leading to a global energy crisis and an economic
collapse. WW III is an alternative outcome, and again I must say
there are too many unknowns to venture a guess on that one.


* Why economic collapse benefits elites

For one thing, it would be hard to avoid a collapse for much longer
even without a war in the gulf, so it makes sense to create the
crisis under controlled conditions, rather than let it come on its
own accord. The whole global economy is hopelessly over-inflated,
over-leveraged, and entirely unsustainable -- a bubble waiting to
burst. The US, with its astronomically increasing debt, and alarming
budget deficits, may be the sickest of the sick, but it's not alone
in its economic hospital ward. We are quite obviously in a global
pre-depression scenario, as many respected analysts have pointed out.
In addition, the onset of peak-oil awareness adds a momentous new
dimension to the meaning of 'collapse'. We are talking about a
collapse from which full recovery will never be possible, if we
measure that by our current styles of energy consumption.

For elites, depressions are a time of ownership consolidation. On
paper they may lose billions, but if they hold on to their stock
their percentage ownership of infrastructure and resources remains
unchanged. As purchasing power generally plummets, everything becomes
a buyers market, and those with liquid assets (ie, wealthy elites)
can buy up real estate, stock, corporate assets, etc., at
bargain-basement prices. When recovery eventually occurs, even if not
a full recovery, those lost billions come mostly back, and the
percentage of overall ownership has been greatly increased, more
highly concentrated in elite hands. Such was the story of the Great
Depression of the 1930s.

Peak oil adds another dimension to this scenario, the Clash of
Civilizations project adds another, and Patriot-Act fascism adds yet
another. An energy crisis and an economic collapse provide a perfect
opportunity for US-Anglo elites to make progress in each of these
dimensions, particularly if the collapse is 'caused' by a 'terrorist
act'. People will blame the 'terrorists' when the lights go out, the
petrol pumps are empty, and the jobs disappear. They will accept
astronomical increases in energy prices, relocation to refugee center
/ labor camps, and Gestapo-like 'security measures'. No questions
will be asked when 'mopping up' operations are carried out against
Venezuela, Cuba, and similars. People will 'regrettably understand'
as mass starvation occurs in many parts of the world, contributing to
the elite agenda of global population reduction. By letting things
get as bad as they possibly can, elites will be able to architect
their new world order from the ground up, and people will be grateful
for any improvement in their situation, willing to accept whatever
comes with it.
________________________________________

[mogster]

1. I do believe this is their intent

Good post, btw! :-)

[billyskank]

2. I am quite sure that some permutation of the above will indeed attack Iran

Also, something I've been thinking. Over here, I keep hearing commentators and politicians saying that Muslims think this is a war on Islam. The accepted wisdom is that it isn't; it just seems like it to them.

I'm not so sure. British politicians and pundits might think so, but I have a terrible feeling that Bush and certain people around him really DO think it IS nothing other than a war on Islam. I am very worried.

[Submariner]

3. I think that opportunity may have passed

I feel that dumbshit Bush conspired during the May meeting with Israel's equivalent to dumbshit Bush to have Israel go in and massacre Lebanon.

Bush and his neocon idiot cabal were hoping against hope that Syria and/or Iran would come to the defense of Hezzbollah and Lebanon, so the chimpster would have an excuse to unleash a huge air strike against Iran. I think Iran realized this and kept their activities under the radar.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Yes/certainly. n/t

[Dover]

5. I have wondered why so many Washington insiders ended up in

Colorado for one reason or another over the last 6 - 8 weeks or so. Wish I could get an accurate head count. As tinfoily as it sounds, if indeed the U.S. plans to attack Iran/Syria, I can imagine the D.C. insiders would also plan their escape route here at home from potential retaliation. Particularly if they plan to use some of their designer nukes. If that were the case, Colorado would be one destination.

First kenneth Lay dies there.
Then there is the Aspen Ideas Festival (which is just two years old) at which Clinton, Powell, Greenspan, Rove and many others gathered. Soon thereafter I read Bush stopped over in Colorado. Coincidence? Also odd that Powell got mysteriously ill and had to leave for the hospital....the same one Kenneth Lay died in.

[aquart]

6. With what, sweetie?

The Israelis have a defensive army. They can't mount or sustain a real invasion. My cousin is in New York, watching the news, to see if his reserve unit is called up. If it is, he'll go, out of shape and out of training, he will go. Against 100 million pissed-off Muslims, you say? What was the last population count of those two nations?

The US armed forces are crippled. We can't protect Iraq and you dreamers see us marching into Iran? HOW?

And Britain won't be with us, they've requested Blair's resignation.

I know you think Israel is the big bad boogeynation.....but it's a postage stamp and it ain't taking over two huge, fully-populated countries. That would leave its own narrow borders naked.

But, but......Lebanon, you whine. Pasture pastry. The government of Lebanon is a weak puppet. It just isn't sure whose puppet it is. It exists on sufferance. It didn't lift a finger against Hezbullah setting up shop and arming itself. I note that Hezbullah is not riding roughshod in Iran, or Syria which have functioning governments and armies. Lebanon is a 97-pound weakling, anyone can take it. Syria? Iran? How many military-age macho males? And their armies, which may not have our fancy gizmos (but I bet they have better body armor) are not exhausted from repeated tours of duty.

George and Deadeye Dick may have fantasies of global domination, but they don't have the draft and they don't have the army. (Not to mention being so deep in debt we can't afford to buy the bombs and bullets.)

[The_Warmth]

8. They don't have the draft, yet.

[rman]

10. Right, like they care about debt.

As of yet the US military has the largest budget of any nation.

And like they actually want to "protect" Iraq.

And like they can't wage war without "taking over" a country.

Israel's "defensive army" did manage to cripple Lebanon economically. For all intents and purposes, it is an attack, a war of agression.

[aquart]

15. Okay. Israel and America invade Iran on Tuesday.

What happens on Wednesday? Aside from Israel not existing anymore because no one was left home to defend it. What else happens?

What happens the following Wednesday? If you attack a sovereign nation, it is a declaration of war. Troops are mobilized against you. (Notice the unsovereignness of Lebanon where, I understand, Hezbullah pays cash for bombed houses? Source of that income? I'm guessing, not the Lebanese government.) We haven't been able to hold Iraq with 150,000. We can't muster any more than that. Israel is already reaching for reserve units because its standing army is only proportionally large for a teeny tiny nation(except in DU fantasies)and is needed to protect its narrow, porous borders. So Iran's army, with thousands rushing to join up and slaughter the infidels (as we did when our nation was attacked at Pearl Harbor), fresh and unexhausted meets our four tours and counting troops. Is that even a contest?

I repeat. With what? As for air power, we've diverted our airmen to land patrol, no kidding. As well as the air support crews, people with technically specialized jobs are doing grunt duty to relieve our exhausted soldiers.

And no, we don't own the bombs and bullets. We used the ones we had and we have to buy more, many many many more if we invade a nation of, say, thirty to fifty million people who will hate us on every inch of that blood-drenched land. We do not have the money and if we simply print it, the world economy will likely collapse.

Which isn't to say idiot delusional George won't order it up like a side of fries. I'm just saying we have no way to do it. George, Dick, and Rummy have wrecked our military. WRECKED it. Wasn't upping the age of enlistment to 42 a clue to you? Wasn't recalling crippled fifty-year-olds some indication? Did you read the articles on officer attrition? How about the fun stuff I hear our soldiers are posting on You Tube? Troops that returned to San Diego this past month are turning around and GOING BACK TO IRAQ. What does that say about our readiness to fight a war on a THIRD front?

We're tapped out. This ain't John Wayne's America anymore.

[Emit]

11. Don't we already own the bombs and bullets? n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Great post. It may be difficult to predict specifics...

...but not the generality of their plan. They clearly intend to attack Iran. I think another 9-11 event on US soil is very likely and that they'll attempt to tie it directly to Iran. This will provide the needed justification for the kind of massive lethal assault they would like to wage. We don't have the troops, but we do have the nukes and they most likely WILL use them.

[malaise]

9. Great read -thanks n/t

[leveymg]

12. K&R. The sum of all fears, indeed. Deserves a longer response later.

For now, suffice it to say, why would anyone -- particularly the elite -- prefer to live inside the film, "Brazil" to their current situation?

[Lerkfish]

13. Is the pope catholic?

yes, and yes.

[AlamoDemoc]

14. excellent read K&R

[Dover]

16. Want to post this. Richard Moore got a BIG response to the OP article

Here is his response to one respondent, and good news about getting his message spread further:



Dear friends,

A few days ago, I posted an article, "Why I think
there WILL be an attack on Iran". I was very
pleased with that article, because I was able to
pull together several threads of recent history
in a way that was relevant to today's unfolding
events. In preparing that article I felt I was
'in the zone', and I expected people would
respond to it.

I was right. Several people forwarded the article
to other lists, and it eventually found its way
(thanks to Butler Crittenden) to the desk of
Bonnie Faulkner, producer of Guns & Roses, a
well-respected KPFA show that finds wider
distribution on the Pacifica network. She wants
to do a series of shows, based on that article an
on my book, and I'm very much looking forward to
that. This could be my 'big break' as regards
getting what I have to say 'out there'. As
Goldilocks said, KPFA is not too big, not too
small, but just right. If it were any bigger (eg
NPR) it would be too corporate to care; if it
were any smaller, I've already done that.

There was another kind of response to the article
as well, as the title of this posting suggests.
There were people who didn't just consume it as
information, but said, "Whoa, what am I supposed
to do with this?" Stephanie expressed this
eloquently, and so I've selected her message to
respond to. I was so pleased to receive her
message because it inspired me to pull some very
positive ideas together, and again I think I'm
'in the zone'. Perhaps its the stars or the
season, but I do believe there are energies that
help us realize our potential, and that they have
their own rhythms. In any case, I think this
posting conveys the main points of my book in a
more effective and accessible way.

best regards,
rkm

--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephanie McDowall" <[e-mail]>
To: recipients
Subject: Your comment if you have time pls. *
Why I think there WILL be an attack on Iran *
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:16:25 -0700

Do you ever wonder what the point is in knowing
all this when it appears we can't do a damn thing
about what is happening?

I found the following interesting because there
are points here re China/Russia and the Middle
East we never see in our mainstream media.
Still, when I consider all this stuff, when I
consider how Harper disregards the view of the
majorityS.especially when he is dropping so
drastically at the pollsSand I see how firm he is
in his positionS..it makes me wonder if it
wouldn't be better to be blissfully unaware.

Being informed or uninformedS..it seems the
consequences that will result from the behaviour
of the U.S., Britain and Israel is going to
impact each of us in the same way no matter what
our awareness level is. All this info enrages
me and I wonder why I put myself through this
when we are all so powerless to change matters.
If I was young I would be behind bars by now.

I now have more sympathy towards those in France
during the Revolution when they lopped off so
many heads Sthe heads of thousands of innocents
as well. Is this what it is going to take?
Is this kind of uprising anywhere in the world
even possible when you consider the technology
being used to watch & listen in to people here
and around the world. Here in Nanaimo, as each
of us drive through traffic lights there are the
little cameras recording our cars. I am
overwhelmed. What is worse is I am feeling
blood thirsty and I don't like this about myself.
I would welcome your views as simplistic as they
areS..if you have time

Steph

----------

Hi Stephanie,

Yes I do have time. Thank you for sharing your concerns.

To begin with I would say this: I think it's
important to seek the truth, particularly about
things important to our lives. I think seeking
truth -- expanding awareness -- is an absolute
good, part of our spiritual development. The
Sufis refer metaphorically to the "Land of Truth"
as being a higher place than the "Land of
Happiness". The strategy of the ostrich is a
mortal sin against our spirits. While 'failure to
take sides' is the ultimate sin in Dante's dark
vision, more enlightened philosophies reserve
that place for heedlessness...not paying
attention.

Next, I would examine this discomfort you are
feeling, arising out of the tension between
'knowing' and 'not being able to fix'. For many
people, that tension drives them directly into
the ostrich strategy: "Leave me alone, I don't
wanna know". But why is it that we don't usually
feel this same discomfort when we see a disaster
documentary about how we could be struck down at
any time by a stray meteorite? We watch with
fascination, albeit with a shiver of vicarious
horror. Perhaps this difference arises from the
fact that we believe, somewhere down deep, that
we have a responsibility as humans for the
welfare of humanity -- whereas we know we can't
be responsible for nature's quirks.

If we feel responsible for something, then we
naturally feel uncomfortable if we don't know
what we should be doing in order to exercise that
responsibility. So I ask this question: Do you
accept on a conscious level that you do have a
responsibility for humanity's well being? There's
a big difference between accepting that
responsibility at a conscious level, and merely
being bothered by a vague suspicion that you
might be responsible.

Many people leave our story here, saying "I'm
responsible for my family, and I can't deal with
the rest of the world." I can only respect such
an attitude, having children of my own, but I
must also note that it results in a variant of
ostrich behavior.

To those who do accept responsibility for
humanity, I suggest that the responsibility
deserves to be taken seriously. Clearly, if you
are responsible for a situation, the first thing
you need to do is inform yourself fully about the
situation. Any ostrich behavior here would be an
obvious shirking of responsibility. If you are a
doctor planning an operation, you must be sure
you have a full and accurate diagnosis before
proceeding. If your task is to defend a child
from a monster, then you must face the monster
with eyes wide open and mind fully engaged.

My own conclusion is that we must accept the
reality of our human predicament: THE WHOLE
SYSTEM IS BEYOND OUR CONTROL and WE ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR FIXING THINGS. Anything less is
part ostrich, or part shirking. Why?...because
part of 'informing ourselves about the situation'
is understanding that our political system will
not and cannot fix things for us -- it is instead
a major part of the problem. Once we understand
that, we cannot avoid this question: If we aren't
going to fix things, who is?

If the system is beyond our control, and if it is
our job to fix things, then I accept that we find
ourselves in a scary place. But as with the
monster, our only responsible course is to face
that scary place and not turn away. It is only in
that scary place that we can find what we need to
know, everywhere else is below the sand with the
ostriches and shirkers.

One thing we can see clearly in this scary place
is that the political system itself needs to be
changed, and the way our societies operate
generally needs to be changed. The fact that 'the
system is beyond our control' is in fact THE VERY
PROBLEM that we need to address. 'The system is
beyond our control' is not a reason for despair,
but is rather an identification of where our
attention needs to be directed. Our despair can
be reserved for what the system is doing to us
while we let it, and for our tardiness in
addressing the problem.

What we need to do is to bring the system under
our control, or more accurately, to create a
system that we can control and operate for the
well being of ourselves, ie, humanity. That is to
say: the way we can fix things is by creating a
democratic society, a self-governing society.
Anything less leaves us entrapped in someone
else's Matrix, controlled by some ruling elite.

This is what we need to know, what we discover by
facing the place of scary truths: WE NEED TO
LEARN HOW TO GOVERN OURSELVES.

Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's. The political system is Caesar's thing,
his tar baby. If we quit wasting our time,
getting tangled up and immobilized by his tar
baby, we free up incredible amounts of energy for
rendering unto ourselves that which is rightfully
ours -- our societies. Giving up false hope in
electoral politics is an act of liberation, not a
resignation to hopelessness. It is discarding our
chains, our first step in learning how to govern
ourselves. As Morpheus said to Neo, "Outside the
Matrix there are no rules; everything is
possible." The political system, along with the
media, are tentacles of the imprisoning Matrix.

Before we can govern ourselves, we need to learn
how to work together. Democracy is an inclusive
project; if anyone's voice is left out, it isn't
democracy.

Jesus said that the meek shall inherit the Earth.
Who are the meek? We are the meek -- all of us
ordinary people. We are all natural allies, all
billions of us around the world, and no monster
can stand against us if we work together. How can
we start working together? We can only start
where we are, with those who are around us, in
our communities. Not just some of us, not just
the progressives, not just the activists, but all
of us. We cannot work together until we realize
we are allies, and we cannot be effective while
we are divided. The illusion that some people in
our communities are 'the enemy', 'the other' --
that too is the Matrix, part of its
divide-and-conquer mechanism.

Jesus said to love your enemy. That sounds
intriguing, but what does it mean? How do we go
about it? If I may be so bold, I suggest he was
not talking about hugging an attacker, but rather
about turning our enemies into friends through
love. Love begins with understanding, and
understanding begins with dialog. To 'love our
enemies', and turn them into allies, we need to
begin by joining them in dialog, those whom we
assume are 'beyond the pale', those who don't
already agree with us.

Fortunately there are well-known processes, ways
of helping us listen to one another, that are
very effective in achieving the kind of dialog we
need. These are modern versions of the same kind
of processes that Native Americans used, and were
most likely used by all indigenous societies,
each of which, according to our best
understanding, was self-governing and
egalitarian. In such societies, when important
decisions needed to be made, an elder of the
tribe would play a neutral facilitating role,
making sure that everyone's voice is heard, and
everyone's ideas considered. Today's processes
also employ a neutral facilitator in the same
kind of role.

The outcomes that can be achieved by this kind of
dialog are truly amazing. When people are able to
hear what each other's heart-felt concerns are,
they naturally begin to look for solutions that
take all of those concerns into account. Ideas
which at first seem opposed to one another are
later seen to be synergistic parts of a creative
new solution. Ironically, the greater the
original disagreement in the group, the greater
the energy (and ideas) that eventually become
available to enable breakthrough solutions to be
found.

These kinds of things really happen, and the
participants are usually surprised and delighted
by what they are able to accomplish. Beyond that,
they are often surprised by the feeling of
empowerment they experience, collectively as a
group, by working together in this way. They are
glimpsing for a brief time what it would be like
to participate in a democratic society, and they
are realizing that they -- ordinary people --
have the ability to work harmoniously together,
and that collectively they have the competence to
work sensibly and productively. In two of the
examples I cite in my book, the participants
spontaneously used the phrase "We the people" to
describe their sense of empowerment, and their
sense of engagement. They could feel intuitively
that this kind of working together represents a
microcosm of what self-governance could be like,
and they found this realization to be uplifting
and energizing. .

For those of us who accept responsibility for
humanity's well being, who have faced the scary
truths, and who are seeking a way to help create
democratic societies, these dialog processes seem
to be just what we're looking for. If we take all
that energy we've been putting into political
campaigns, protest movements, public education
campaigns, letters to the editor, or whatever,
and put that energy into arranging opportunities
for this kind of dialog in our communities, we
would be facilitating the emergence of self
governance in our societies.

We would be helping our community learn how to
dialog with itself, in a way that includes the
various concerns and viewpoints in the community,
and that generates ideas and proposals that are
likely to make sense to the community generally.
At the same time, as more and more people are
able to experience this kind of dialog
personally, more and more people would be
'getting it', as regards a general spirit of
democratic empowerment, a sense of We the People,
of community solidarity, of being 'allies', and
of everyone's voice being heard and ideas valued.
Over time we could expect a convergence toward
community priorities, and agendas, that everyone
has helped define. We would be evolving toward an
empowered community, a community that has learned
how to govern itself.

Notice that it is not necessary for everyone to
follow the difficult path we have trod here --
taking on our shoulders responsibility for
humanity, facing scary truths, etc. Simply by
participating in these processes, in this kind of
dialog, people can learn the easy way what we
have learned the hard way. By actually
experiencing democratic empowerment, people will
know in their bones that the current political
system must be superceded by self governance.
They won't need to do the political science
homework that we've been engaged in here. While
we have been experiencing 'accepting
responsibility' as a burden on our shoulders,
they along with us will experience
'responsibility' as being a natural part of the
exciting and energizing business of governing our
own affairs.

Democracy is a 'way of relating', a 'way of
working together'. It is a way that can operate
among the members of a family, or among the
people of a community, and it is a way that can
operate among communities, or among societies, on
any scale up to the global. The communities of a
region, for example, can dialog with one another
via delegations, take one anothers concerns into
account, and seek creative solutions for regional
problems and projects. Regional delegations can
dialog together about province-wide issues, and
so on.

In learning how to relate in this 'way', by
participating in this kind of dialog, we would be
participating in the transformation of our
cultures, expanding our cultural repertoire to
include this new 'way' of interacting with one
another. That is to say, the emergence of a
democratic society happens by means of a cultural
transformation, a cultural shift, rather than by
means of a political movement or organized
campaign. The new culture naturally propagates as
more people experience the new kind of dialog.
Wherever the new culture has taken hold, our
'normal, natural way' of dealing with any social
problem would be for the affected parties to
gather themselves together, and employ our
newfound 'way' of working together. Self
governance becomes possible for a society only
after such a cultural transformation has occurred
in the society.

Above I suggested that we ' difficult path'
people, those who feel already a responsibility
to help create democratic societies, might devote
our energies toward arranging 'dialog
experiences' in our communities, and that this
could facilitate the emergence of empowered,
self-governing communities. That suggestion arose
out of a focus on political transformation. I'd
now like to reframe that suggestion, from the
perspective of cultural transformation. From this
broader perspective our task, as initiators, is
to help spread a new cultural paradigm. A
community focus may still be our best strategy,
but from this broader perspective, we might find
other useful strategies as well. For example, in
the 1960s, new pop-music genres (Dylan, Beatles)
and new kinds of gatherings (rockfests, be-ins)
were very important in spreading certain cultural
changes.

From a cultural-change perspective, there is good
reason to be optimistic about the 'propagation
power' of this new kind of dialog. Trials have
shown, as discussed above, that these dialog
experiences tend to generate a great deal of
enthusiasm among the participants, along with a
sense of empowerment and engagement. For that
reason we could expect many 'dialog graduates' to
be motivated and energized to 'share the
experience', to 'spread the message' in whatever
way makes sense to them. THE PROCESS OF
EMPOWERED DIALOG SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATES THE
ENERGY REQUIRED TO FUEL ITS OWN PROPAGATION IN
THE SOCIETY. Exactly what forms that propagation
might take is an open question, to be answered by
the diverse talents and creativity of those who
go through the experience.

In the context of 'we are responsible for fixing
things', I suggest that we have reached a very
optimistic place. We need to do what we can to
help spark a cultural transformation, a
transformation that brings its own
self-propagating energy to the party. It is a
transformation that can teach us how to govern
ourselves, and enable us to create democratic
societies, and deal with the problems that face
our species. In terms of activist strategy, this
can be seen as a high leverage opportunity, with
strong long term potential. Why would we not
pursue this path, with both enthusiasm and hope?
Is it really true that there is 'not a damned
thing we can do about it'?.

---

Finally, I'd like to add a comment or two about
my previous article, predicting war with Iran,
economic collapse, fascist oppression, etc.
Based on that article, we might think "it's too
late" -- we have lost our window of opportunity
for social change. In this regard, I would say
that I have been predicting war with China for
about ten years. I think I've got it right, in
terms of long term power relationships, but I've
always underestimated how long it takes for these
kind of tectonic forces to work themselves out.
The 'finishing end' may be at hand or it may not.
War with Iran might be a world changing event, or
it might be similar to the Iraq invasion, in that
its main effect for us white folks is on the
content of TV news, a petrol price increase that
is annoying but not life-threatening, and
inconveniences at the airport.

Another thing I'd like to say about that article
is that it had a particular purpose. I was
addressing the widespread attitude, "People will
wake up when something terrible happens." What
I've been trying to say for the past ten years is
that "Things are already terrible, what are you
waiting for?" I wrote about the implications of
globalization, as regards de-nationalization,
when most people hadn't heard of globalization. I
was anticipating the neocon movement already when
Daddy Bush first used the phrase 'new world
order' at the end of Gulf War I. I published a
series of articles on the 'Police-state
conspiracy' a decade before 911.

I wanted my recent article to be dark, because I
continue to hope that people will wake up based
on the direness of their predicament. But I am
afraid that particular hope is in vain. People
will keep their head in the sand right up until
the point where their ass gets blown up by a
grenade. When someone is 'waiting for people to
wake up', they are sheep waiting for the flock to
lead them. I persevere in that particular
activity -- informing of the danger -- only
because of my faith in the ultimate value of
truth.

Our fundamental situation, as 'ordinary people',
has not changed in 6,000 years and it will not
change until we change it. The time for us to
wake up has been there this whole time and it
will be there until we do wake up. Whether we
happen to be in a period of peace or of war is of
little concern, in the bigger scope of things.
Any reason not to begin our response now is
either a rationalization or a sign of ignorance
or heedlessness, either ostrich behavior or
shirking.

rkm

--