by Madison Ruppert

from EndTheLie Website




Part I

January 05, 2012


As the days go by, the situation with Iran just gets increasingly complex and worrisome given the egregious saber rattling coming from both the West and Iran alike.

As I outlined in my article entitled “Positioning for war with Iran?”, it has become clear that the West is either arming surrounding neighbors as a deterrent, preparation for an unprovoked strike, or perhaps even to goad Iran into attacking Western interest first, thus justifying brutal retaliation.

My fledgling series about the global growth of NATO and the Western empire also covers aspects of this greater trend and how these issues constantly evolve and how so many seemingly disconnected events are in fact inseparably linked.


While these issues may seem disconnected for some, I think it is quite important to point out that in fact they couldn’t be more closely related in that they are both symptoms of the cancerous war profiteering industry that is not only robbing the American people blind in the name of freedom but also eliminating our civil liberties and slaughtering innocent people around the globe.

The situation surrounding Iran is just a microcosmic example of this greater trend to isolate and eliminate anyone who bucks the status quo and attempts to throw a wrench into the works of the global geopolitical-financial machine.

Recently, Iran closed their 10-day-long naval exercise in the Persian Gulf by testing multiple missiles, a move which clearly enraged the Western powers which believe that only they are allowed to wield any military power.

Three missiles were tested, including the shore-to-sea Qader missile, shorter range Nasr and surface-to-air Nour missile.

These tests come on the heels of a medium-range surface-to-air missile was successfully launched just days earlier.

The timing of these missile tests are very unlikely to be pure coincidence given the heated rhetoric coming from both sides, not to mention the presence of American vessels in the region.

Part of the large-scale exercises being conducted in the Gulf by the Iranian navy included “mock” exercises focusing on closing the Strait of Hormuz.

What exactly a mock exercise could be is not clear to me given that an exercise, by definition, is mocking a real event.

Despite the implications of such an exercise, Iran claimed to have no real intention to close the strait, a move which the American Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain spoke out against.

“No order was give[n] for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But we are prepared for various scenarios,” the chief of the Iranian navy, Habibollah Sayyari, said to Iranian state television.

The French government quickly spoke out against the testing and exercises, although France is hardly capable of claiming moral authority given their involvement in the Ivory Coast.

The French called the Iranian missile testing a “very bad signal sent to the international community,” since, once again, only Western nations who do what they’re told are allowed to defend themselves or develop weaponry of any kind.

Bernard Valero, the spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, said that the Iranian government should remind themselves of the,

“freedom of navigation in straits and the need to maintain a favorable climate in respect to this freedom.”

Of course Valero is taking the typical double standard approach which has become all too common because I am sure Valero would have no problem with restricting Iranian movement if they decided it was necessary,

“to maintain a favorable climate.”

I find it interesting that the Iranian commander Commodore Mahmoud Mousavi told Iranian state media that the newly tested Qader missile was “built by Iranian experts,” given that one of their most key ballistic missile experts was killed in a mysterious explosion back in November.

Mousavi also stated that the Qader missile is,

“ultra-modern… with an integrated, ultra-precise radar whose range and intelligent anti-detection system have been improved over previous generations.”

The emphasis on the anti-detection system is quite interesting given the build-up of anti-missile defense systems in the region, including the nonsensical American funding of Israeli systems.

That being said, the Qader is an anti-ship missile, leading me to speculate that it might be attempting to send a message to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet which has been operating in the region.

This is the same fleet that warned Iran against any attempt at closing the Strait of Hormuz recently.

The Nour missile is reportedly based on a Chinese design, something which would likely result in China getting a great deal of flak if it was ever used against Western interests.

Despite the growing international opposition to just about everything Iran does, the powers that be in Iran remain defiant and even boastful.

This is evidenced by the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that there has been “eye-catching successes” in the Iranian confrontation of Western powers in spite of sanctions.

Khamenei stated that the trend will not end and that,

“The enemy is repeatedly suffering defeats and setbacks, despite its all-out security and political measures against the Islamic Republic.”

Iran has also just commissioned their first wholly owned oil drilling rig in the Persian Gulf, according to a statement from the North Drilling Company’s managing director to the Tehran Times.

Since all of the rigs which have been installed over the past 29 years have been rented, this is a considerable step forward for Iran and involved an investment of $153 million.

This development is also interesting due to the fact that the oil field where the new Sahar-e 1 will be deployed is shared with nearby Qatar, a nation which is totally aligned with Western interests as evidenced by them admitting that they were running operations on the ground during the sham Libyan revolution.

There is also the matter of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran announcing that they successfully produced and tested their first domestically produced nuclear fuel rod made out of natural uranium.

Despite the fact that Iran repeatedly insists that their program is a purely peaceful one, individuals in the West have seen this latest development as a significant threat, despite all the indicators that Iran has no interest in preemptively striking Western interests or allies.

Olli Heinonen, former deputy director general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and head of the safeguards department claimed in the British Guardian that,

“this show of ostensibly civilian nuclear progress could end up further stoking international tensions.”

Heinonen’s analysis appears to be the typically politicized, highly biased information coming out of all UN agencies.

Even James Acton, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Bloomberg,

“This has some diplomatic significance and virtually no military significance.”

Furthermore, Iranian news agencies have stated that the fuel rod will be used in the core of Tehran’s research reactor in order to make isotopes for cancer treatments.

Recently Iran also stated that Iran would not tolerate another instance of an American carrier entering the Persian Gulf as the John C. Stennis did recently.

“Iran will not repeat its warning… the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf,” Iranian army chief Ataollah Salehi said according to IRNA, the Iranian state news agency.

While Salehi did not pinpoint which vessel he was talking about nor what actions they would take if any returned, it is clear he was talking about the John C. Stennis and associated vessels which entered the region during supposedly routine operations.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is complicated greatly by some new developments including the United States Navy announcing the development of new long-range drones, some of which will be assigned to the Fifth Fleet - the same fleet which has been countering Iranian threats to close the strait.

Others will be deployed to the Sixth Fleet out of the Mediterranean, specifically operating out of Sigonella, Sicily and the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific, specifically operating out of Guam.

There are also four of the currently unnamed Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) systems to be deployed to a “secret location in the Middle East.”

This is pertinent because one naval expert cited by Stars and Stripes claimed that BAMS could be used to track,

“Iranian threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf.”

No specifics on the missions these drones will carry out have been released, although the crafts are able to fly 24-hour-long missions every three days and can reportedly track hundreds of suspicious vessels at one time.

The relevance to the unfolding Iran imbroglio was highlighted by retired Navy Captain and senior follow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington D.C., Jan Van Tol, who said,

“This is obviously an important mission, especially in view of current tensions.”

The new drones will supposedly help prevent Iranian vessels packed with explosives from swarming American vessels, a threat which appears to have been pulled out of thin air just as most justifications for absurd military spending and intervention are.

The initial contract for just two drones is worth a shocking $1.6 billion and Northrup Grumman expects to manufacture 68 more, but the price is still being negotiated.

How can we continue to justify this massive expenditure when there is no real threat to our national security, nor is there any money to be spending in the first place?

Apparently our so-called leaders have no problem putting the American people on the hook for decades to come in order to keep the money flowing into their cronies’ coffers.

Raytheon also just announced that they have delivered the first upgraded Patriot missile radar to Kuwait, a nation which borders Iraq and Saudi Arabia, while also sharing the Persian Gulf and thus obviously quite close to Iran.

This dovetails with the Western moves to arm other nearby countries like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia which I covered in my previous article.

The upgrading of Kuwaiti systems is being done under a U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command contract and the phony justification that it is being done to protect against missiles, while once again I must point out that Iran have never shown any intention to strike first as they clearly realize it would be a death sentence for the entire country.

This delivery is just the first of six radar modernization deliveries to Kuwait to supposedly “counter evolving regional threats,” a statement which clearly is pointing to Iran.

The Patriot systems defend against both manned and unmanned aircraft, tactical ballistic missiles and cruise missiles all of which seems unjustified given that Iran really is not a threat.

There is also an upcoming missile defense exercise between the United States and Israel, which is billed as the largest ever exercise, which according to the Jerusalem Post is,

“expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.”

The timing of this drill, coming up in spring, is quite interesting indeed given the greater developments in the region, all of which seem to be tied together.

Back in September of 2011, the Jerusalem Post revealed that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and United States European Command (EUCOM) would be conducting the Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise followed by the massive Austere Challenge exercise this year.

Austere Challenge will include establishing American command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at the EUCOM headquarters in Germany, which the Jerusalem Post says has,

“the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces for the event of a future large-scale conflict in the Middle East.”

This looks even more likely in recent months and the timing of these two operations, along with these other developments covered in this article, must be either purposeful or ludicrously coincidental.

It appears that the United States and allied forces are attempting to do whatever it takes to provoke Iran and get them to do something which will justify an all-out, overt assault with the approval of the oft-invoked and laughably vague “international community.”

Once again, I must state that above all I just hope that I am completely wrong and that nothing will happen and these tensions will slowly fade and any and all threats from both sides will become a distant memory.

Unfortunately, that does not look like it is the case, at least at this stage.





Part II
January 10, 2012


The situation with Iran seems to be getting worse by the day with tensions rising due to the actions of both Western nations like the United States, Israel, and allied states in the region and sadly Iran as well.

As I recently outlined in part one above of “Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio”, this issue is a multifaceted and convoluted one with serious consequences, just as is the case with NATO.


It is quite unfortunate that this escalation is continuing - if not accelerating - as there is nothing good that could come from yet another bloody conflict.

Coming on the heels of a large-scale, 10-day-long naval exercise carried out by Iran in the Persian Gulf, which included several test missile launches, Iranian officials have announced yet another drill.

According to Russia’s RIA Novosti, the Iranian Fars news agency has reported that Iran is going to conduct a new “massive” naval exercise, which will unsurprisingly be held near the Strait of Hormuz.

Not only is the Strait of Hormuz an area through which an estimated 40 percent of the world’s oil supply flows, but also one which has been sparking heated rhetoric from Iran and the United States Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain.

The Iranian Defense Minister, Ahmad Vahidi, said that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would be conducting the “greatest naval war games” near the strait.

The drill is codenamed “The Great Prophet” and will likely coincide with, or at least be quite close to, the immense joint naval exercises to be carried out by the United States and Israel in the near future, which I covered in part one of this series.

Recently, the Associated Press reported on this “largest-ever joint drill” codenamed “Austere Challenge 12” while citing an unnamed senior military official who stated that the exercise would be held in the next few weeks.

The Associated Press makes sure to point to the Israeli military’s claim that the drill was planned a long time ago and thus not tied to recent events, although this buildup is far from something that has just occurred recently.

The announcement of “The Great Prophet” comes soon after the United States passed new sanctions which target Iranian oil experts and European Union Foreign Ministers are planning to meet and discuss banning Iranian oil imports in late January.

The sanctions are aimed at forcing Iran to drop their alleged secret nuclear weapons program, but since Iran denies these claims entirely, this can only mean that the West expects Iran to stop pursuing peaceful nuclear technology as well.

This leads one to wonder why it is only Western nations and those aligned with Western interests that are allowed to pursue civilian nuclear technology.

This is especially questionable given the non-existent moral authority the West can claim, especially when it comes to the usage of nuclear weaponry.

A great example of this is the situation with India and Australia, where the latter nation is furnishing natural uranium to the former which is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Unsurprisingly, the West stays silent since India is a key player in the United States and NATO’s move to dominate the Asia-Pacific region with a multilateral alliance between,

  • India

  • Australia

  • Japan

  • America

  • NATO

Despite the West’s constant pressure and new sanctions, Iran just announced that their Bushehr nuclear power plant is only weeks away from operating at full capacity.

The state-run IRNA stated that the plant will be able to create 1,000 megawatts of energy by February 1, while the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Feireidoun Abbasi, stated that they have already shown the new domestically produced centrifuges to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) representative.

The naval commander of the IRGC Ali Fadavi stated that exercises coming up in February would focus directly on the Strait of Hormuz.

It is hard to argue that the Iranian military is attempting to display dominance over the region, as Iranian officials recently threatened to close the strait if more sanctions are brought against the nation.

As I mentioned in my previous above writing, Iran has also made an ambiguous threat to the United States if another aircraft carrier were to sail through the strait.

Yet the Vancouver Sun states that the Bahrain-based United States Fifth Fleet “is far more powerful than Iran’s naval force,” while pointing out to the counter-threats made by the American military and an equally opaque threat from the British who stated that any attempt made at closing the strait would not only be illegal but unsuccessful.

One might assume that they are implying that the West would make sure it was unsuccessful, obviously employing force of some kind or another.

The upcoming “Great Prophet” exercise, which is actually Great Prophet-7, part of a series of exercises, is in fact not the only drill to be or being conducted by Iran.

Today a senior military commander reported that the IRGC has in fact already started military drills, codenamed “Martyrs of Unity.”

The Commander of IRGC Ground Forces Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour stated that phase one of the drills began today near Khaf city in the Khorasan province of Iran.

Pakpour added that the main phase will begin this coming Monday, according to Iran’s Press TV and China’s Xinhua.

Despite the Pentagon’s warnings in late December against interfering with maritime transportation through the Strait of Hormuz, the Deputy Commander of the IRGC, Brigadier General Hossein Salami stated that Tehran need not seek Washington’s permission to implement its defense strategies in the Persian Gulf.

A bit of a different impression was given by Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast who stated that the Persian Gulf is critical for the global energy supply and as such Iran is not intentionally creating tension.

“But if the atmosphere changes into a war spirit and the situation in the region changes, all the decisions (of Iranians) would be made on the basis of new condition,” Ramin Mehmanparast told China’s Xinhua.

This gets in to the ambiguous territory of the other threats issued by Iranian officials as well as those so-called warnings the United States has given.

When asked about the possible sanctions by EU member states, which will be debated on January 30, Mehmanparast said that the Iranian oil supply cannot be replaced in the global crude oil trade and thus the market cannot easily cut the nation with the fourth largest oil reserves in the world out of the equation.

This is quite accurate as it would not only hurt the Iranian people, it would also create stratospheric gas prices here in America.

The Vancouver Sun reports that the people of Iran are already being negatively impacted by the Western sanctions, writing,

“The sanctions are already hurting ordinary Iranians, faced with rising prices and a falling rial currency. They have been lining up at banks to convert their savings into dollars.”

This is precisely what so many individuals, myself included, in the alternative news community have been saying since these sanctions were first being pushed.

It is inevitable that the only people who are hurt by sanctions are those at the bottom of the food chain; the everyday people who do not have the ability to combat the crippled economic climate.

Of course this is never what is highlighted by the government and establishment media outlets when covering the successes of non-violent intervention via sanctions, but it is the ugly truth as we have seen in the past with Iraq.

The most concerning aspect of these latest developments is the possibility that both the joint American-Israeli exercises and the Iranian drills could occur simultaneously and some conflict could ensue.

Hopefully it is just more saber rattling on both sides, but the timing of these maneuvers couldn’t be worse in terms of the possible implications.

If the IRGC decides to temporarily close the Strait of Hormuz as part of one of their exercises, one can only imagine the brutal response that would follow at the hands of not only the United States Fifth Fleet but also the other forces that will be participating in the operations with Israel.







Part III

January 11, 2012


Before you proceed with the third part in this fast-moving series, I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with previous events by reading parts one and two (above reports).

The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf,

seen here pictured from the International Space Station (ISS)

on September 30, 2003

 (Photo credit: NASA)


In the past two days the situation with Iran became increasingly more volatile, all while the American establishment media wastes time distracting the people of the United States with the dog and pony show that is the Republican primaries.

Thankfully, there are plenty of people - outside the limelight of broadcast news - who are covering these dire developments in detail.

However, as I always point out, this is often done in bits and pieces without presenting the whole picture to give readers a true sense of what is going on in the world.

Creating a more complete understanding is exactly what I’m attempting to do in this series although I cannot possibly cover it all on my own, so if I miss something, please feel free to send me an email at to correct my error.

Despite the constant pressure being put on Iran from the West due to their alleged nuclear weapons program, which the Iranians repeatedly insist is purely peaceful, Iran has announced a new uranium enrichment site.

This site is strategically located underground and has been said to be protected from airstrikes as well as getting the somewhat dubious title of “bomb-proof.”

The Atlantic Wire claimed that this new, supposedly “bomb-proof facility” (which is highly doubtful given that nothing on Earth is truly completely bomb-proof, just as nothing is truly bullet-proof) can not only be used to create enriched uranium for nuclear power generation,

“but also as a potential fuel for nuclear weapons.”

This new facility is reportedly called Fordo, near the holy city of Qom and two conflicting reports have already emerged regarding the operational status of the site.

Kayhan daily, the manager of which is reportedly a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reported,

“Iran has begun uranium enrichment at the Fordo facility amid heightened foreign enemy threats.”

However, the Iranian nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi stated that Iran will “soon” begin to enrich uranium at the Fordo facility, completely contradicting the report published by Kayhan in a front-page article.

The Associated Press said,

“It was impossible to immediately reconcile the two reports.”

While Iran had begun enriching uranium at the Natanz facility in April of 2006, the centrifuges at Fordo are reportedly more efficient and the plant is better shielded form an aerial assault like that which was launched by Israel against Syria in 2007.

In the face of growing threats from the West as the European Union’s Foreign Ministers plan on meeting on January 30 to discuss possibly increasing sanctions against Iranian oil exports, the Iranian government has renewed its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian Khorasan daily cited a senior commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who said that the Iranian leadership has already made the decision to order the closure of the strait if Iranian oil exports are blocked.

The commander, Ali Ashraf Nouri, stated that the decision has been made by the top authorities in Iran, and it is not the first time Iran has threatened to do so.

However, as the Associated Press pointed out,

“this is the strongest statement yet that a closure of the strait is official policy.”

While I believe it is highly unlikely that the Strait will be closed by Iran, the United States seems to be taking it quite seriously.

Today the United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that a move to close the Strait of Hormuz would cross a “red line” adding,

“We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.”

On the CBS show “Face the Nation” chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey backed up Panetta’s statement in saying,

“we would take action and reopen the Strait,” obviously implying military intervention.

To make matters even worse, the British have deployed the HMS Daring, a Type 45 Destroyer which is obviously intended to send a not-so-subtle message to Iran due to their threats to close the strait, not to mention their large-scale naval exercises and announcement of even more drills focusing on the Strait of Hormuz to come in the near future.

Just like his American counterpart, the British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond has warned Iran not to block the strait.

The HMS Daring is reportedly equipped with new missile interception technology allowing it to intercept any Iranian missile along with what Haaretz calls,

“the world’s most sophisticated naval radar.”

Emphasizing the missile interception capability is likely being done because of the recent Iranian ballistic missile tests which occurred in the final stages of their recent 10-day-long naval exercise.

There is also the matter of the increasingly tight relationship between Russia and Iran, which recently became even closer than it was previously.

The Iranian Fars News Agency (FNA) reported that the Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Seyed Reza Sajjadi stated that during a meeting between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, Medvedev proposed replacing the US dollar with the ruble and rial in their trade.

It appears that this is already being implemented with Sajjadi stating that,

“we have acted on this basis and a part of our interactions is done in Ruble now.”

“There is a similar interest in the Russian side,” Sajjadi added, pointing out that the Russians oppose unilateral sanctions on Iran made outside the United Nations Security Council.

He emphasized their distaste with sanctions focused on the Iranian Central Bank (CBI) which is what the latest round of American sanctions targeted.

“The move (imposing sanction on the CBI) is unacceptable. Russians have clearly announced that they will not accept these sanctions and Iran’s nuclear issue is resolvable just through negotiations,” Sajjadi said.

Ahmadinejad has been similarly defiant, stating that the central bank would respond with “force” to new American sanctions, adding that the bank was strong enough to defeat “enemy plans.”

This is part of a larger move to separate Iran from the dollar as much as possible, including eliminating the dollar entirely from Iranian oil trade with China, India and Japan.

The latter two countries are quite surprising when one considers the increasingly close relationship between Japan, India and the United States in the West’s quest to extend hegemony over the entirety of the Asia-Pacific region.

One must wonder if the United States would speak out against Japan and India’s trade ties with Iran or if they will hypocritically remain silent because they are critical allies in the region.

I tend to believe that it would likely be the latter as the United States has a long history of hypocrisy when it comes to foreign policy (and domestic policy for that matter).

We must also consider the fact that Iran is reaching out to form new alliances across the globe, apparently focusing on Latin America and Africa.

Yesterday Ahmadinejad arrived in Venezuela and is now embarking on a tour of four nations during which he will reportedly be pushing for investment projects like a hydro-electric plant in Ecuador, according to Bloomberg.

Bloomberg characterizes this as “taking shots at the U.S. in its own backyard, defying attempts to isolate Iran over its nuclear activities” and the friends he is making are not on the friendliest of terms with the American government.

Of course this includes Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Raul Castro of Cuba and this will be his fifth trip to the region since 2005.

However, the moves towards Africa will likely make an even greater stir as the Iranian nuclear chief stated that Iran is prepared to assist “friendly” African nations that possess uranium reserves to establish facilities which can process natural uranium into material for nuclear programs.

Fereidoun Abbasi highlighted Iran’s ability to carry out the entire nuclear fuel cycle from extraction of uranium to fuel production and thus is willing and able to share the technology.

Given that the West is pushing incredibly hard for Iran to shut down any and all nuclear programs, it is unlikely to make anyone happy to know that Iran will be expanding their reach into Africa and providing allied nations with the means to produce nuclear fuel.

With the increasingly rapid buildup in the region and the move to arm Western allies that surround Iran, along with the American-Israeli drills which very well might coincide with the upcoming Iranian drills, it all seems like this situation is making an unfortunate turn.

Again, all we can hope is that those in power aren’t insane enough to engage in a conflict they know full well could - and likely would - spark World War III.






Part IV

January 12, 2012


Last night James Corbett and I discussed the situation with Iran and the Persian Gulf which is progressing at a blinding pace on his show, Corbett Report Radio.

The USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)


Today a significant step forward (or backward, depending on your point of view) with a NATO Parliamentary Assembly member made some heated statements regarding Iran, Kuwait, and the region in general.

The first jab at Iran in the piece published by Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) comes in the opening sentence in calling the Persian Gulf “the Arabian Gulf.”

The Deputy Chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Defense and Security Committee Francesco Buzzi addressed the Iranian threats to close the critical Strait of Hormuz, which Corbett rightly characterized as a flashpoint, while telling Tehran,

“to observe international treaties and laws and to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and borders of its Gulf neighbors, ‘mainly the friendly State of Kuwait.’”

The following choice of words should be noted:

“The veteran NATO MP voiced total solidarity with the State of Kuwait versus the Iranian move.”

This shows they are already creating the alliances and regional infrastructure required to wage war with Iran.

Furthermore, it clearly shows which side Kuwait is on while highlihgting the fact that these individuals believe Iranian aggression is not only inevitable but already occurring.

Buzzi also pushed for a more aggressive political and diplomatic approach on the part of the European Union, in which the Italian government would take a more active role.

This shows just how divorced from reality these NATO bureaucrats are. With Italy’s immense domestic woes weighing heavily upon the Italian people, Buzzi actually thinks the government should be focusing on the non-threat that is Iran.

Buzzi is also apparently an advocate of European economic sanctions against Iran, which will likely be discussed in the meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers at the end of the month.

This - of course - is Iran’s red line which they said would force them to close the Strait of Hormuz.

As I said on Corbett Report Radio, I find this prospect quite unrealistic, due to the fact that the Iranian government is well aware of the fact that they would be leaving themselves open to a massive attack from the United States.

When they first threatened to close the strait the United States Fifth Fleet, based out of nearby Bahrain, countered with threats of their own.

I do not believe the Iranian leadership is foolish enough to believe that the United States military would not make good on their threats, especially when it comes to a resource like oil.

Another Italian, Pieradrea Vanni, president of the Kuwaiti-Italian Friendship Society, expressed a similar sentiment to that of Buzzi in calling,

“on the Italian government to support an EU initiative for a decisive action against Iran, which he said is seeking to destabilize the Gulf region.”

I would counter Vanni’s claim that it is Iran destabilizing the region by asking him why the United States is moving even more naval forces into the region, making a concerted and public push to arm neighboring states and holding the largest joint Israeli-American drill in history at a time like this.

Is it really Iran that is seeking to destabilize the region which is so critical to their infrastructure, or perhaps could it be that it is the United States, NATO and the West in general that is destabilizing the region in order to firm up their grip on the Gulf and exploit the unmatched oil resources?

An event which just served to reinforce the assertion that the United States is in fact the nation destabilizing the Gulf was the announcement of additional warship movement in the region.

Of course the United States is not alone, indeed as I previously mentioned, the British are moving their most advanced warship into the region as well, far from what this tense situation needs.

Unsurprisingly, like in the previous instances of American naval vessels entering the region, United States officials deny this has anything to do with tensions over the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said,

“Her deployment in that area is routine, long-planned - there’s nothing unusual about that.”

According to RT, the USS Carl Vinson has yet to go through the Strait of Hormuz and has a capacity of up to 80 planes and helicopters and is accompanied by a cruiser and destroyer.

The Pentagon says that the ships are “not in the Gulf,” but instead in the Area of Responsibility of the United States Fifth Fleet.

Other than the Persian Gulf, this includes the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea and some of the Indian Ocean.

The United States is now claiming that the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier is not expected to return to the Gulf after it recently passed through the Strait of Hormuz - a move which infuriated Iran.

However, the American Navy has indeed stated that the USS Carl Vinson will be joined by the USS Abraham Lincoln, yet another aircraft carrier which is currently in transit from the Indian Ocean.

The United States is also stepping up the sanctions war against Iran, with Japan agreeing to adopt harsh sanctions against importing Iranian oil today.

“We plan to start reducing this 10 per cent share [of Iranian oil imports that make up the Japanese energy market] as soon as possible in a planned manner,” Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azume said.

One interesting piece in this international jigsaw puzzle I discussed with Corbett last night is the duality of India’s approach to Iran.

As I have been outlining in my series, “U.S. and NATO are on the march worldwide,” India is becoming increasingly close with the United States in the Western bid to control the Asia-Pacific region.

While India is growing closer to the United States and NATO by the day, they still have a considerably tight relationship with Iran.

According to RT, Reuters reports via sources in the Indian cabinet that their government is not looking “to waver” from the American approach to Iran.

India currently pours a whopping $12 billion per year into Iranian oil and is the largest purchaser of Iran’s oil after China.

However, India has chosen to deal with Iranian oil outside of the United States dollar, a move which the US has oddly left unaddressed.

Oddly enough, it is not just India that is now dealing with Iran outside of the dollar, indeed Russia, China and surprisingly even Japan have decided to make the same move, according to Iranian Fars News Agency.

It’s quite interesting that Japan would get on board with the Western oil sanctions against Iran seeing as they have opted to deal with the supposedly dangerous nation outside of the dollar completely.

There is also the matter of the Fujairah pipeline, the construction of which has been accelerated and is now slated for testing in May.

This pipeline is set to be able to move 1.4 million barrels per day of oil, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz bottleneck.

Interestingly, RT points to a possible spark which could ignite the flames of World War III as being the killing of an American citizen convicted of espionage in Iran.

They link this to the infamous assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 which many argue sparked World War I.

They also posit that the Strait of Hormuz might be the spark; something which I think is more likely, especially given the upcoming massive Israeli-American drills which might coincide with Iranian military exercises in the region as well.

They rightly point out,

“Right now it is a war of words,”

...and I do not think that Iran will take the first step unless they are forced to do so or backed into a corner and truly feel threatened.

I believe that it is not Israel that should be speaking of an “existential threat,” instead it should be Iran which is becoming increasingly encircled, isolated and threatened by a massive navy and powerful group of allied nations.







Part V

January 14, 2012


Events continue to progress at blinding speed and only seem to be getting increasingly dangerous.

While the United States has been building up a considerable military presence in the Persian Gulf region for years, in recent weeks and months this effort seems to have accelerated.

The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Cape St. George (CG 71)

is guided out of port by a tugboat.

(Photo credit: U.S. Navy photo by

Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Adam Randolph)


The Pentagon is now shifting a great deal of military assets into the vicinity of the Persian Gulf under the guise of a contingency plan, while continuing to deny that it means a buildup to war.

These deployments are, in fact, nothing new and have been in the works some time now.

Marine Corps General James Mattis - head of United States Central Command - gained the White House’s approval for the deployment of troops to the region last year in response to the talks between the U.S. and Iraqi governments regarding extended American troop presence broke down.

As Stars and Stripes aptly points out,

“the extent of the Pentagon moves is only now becoming clear,” and the timing of this can hardly be dismissed as pure coincidence.

Stars and Stripes cites unnamed United States officials who claim,

“the deployments are not meant to suggest a buildup to war, but rather are intended as a quick reaction and contingency force in case a military crisis erupts in the standoff with Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.”

The glaring problem here is that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. This is so clear that even the United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had to admit as much on national television just days ago.

With Iran not actually developing nuclear weapons and with the United States continually insisting that they abandon an imaginary nuclear weapons program, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the West will not relent until Iran abandons all nuclear technology and research, be it civilian or military.

There has already been a small force of American troops present in Kuwait, along with weapons deals with the small Gulf nation, which I have mentioned in a previous part of this series.

However, this small amount of troops is now going to be augmented by a much larger group which includes 15,000 new troops.

These new units in Kuwait - which is located dangerously close to Iran - include two infantry brigades from the United States Army along with a helicopter unit. In addition, these troops include the United States Army’s 1st Calvary Division’s 1st Brigade which boasts tanks, artillery and over 4,500 troops.

The 1st Brigade has been dubbed a “mobile response force” for the region according to Colonel Scott L. Efflandt, commander of the brigade.

There is also a National Guard brigade form Minnesota which has been present in Kuwait since August and in December a combat aviation brigade arrived as well. Apparently there is yet another unit which will be heading to Kuwait in the near future but details on the unit’s size, composition and mission have not been provided by officials.

Whereas Kuwait has primarily been used as a staging area for troops and equipment to be moved into Iraq in the past, it is now clearly becoming yet another American military outpost and launching point in the region.

Just days ago it was reported that in addition to all of these buildups, a marine expeditionary unit along with a group of landing warships were being deployed to the Persian Gulf.

This is to include the Makin Island groups accompanied by the USS New Orleans and the Pearl Harbor amphibious transport dock ships. The personnel on these ships, which will include sailors, marines and airmen, will be backed up by a general support battalion along with attack helicopters.

This is being explained as a move to replace Navy troops who have been patrolling the area for the last 10 months, but the presence of amphibious transport dock ships is quite interesting indeed.

This might indicate that a plan involving movements of land-based forces is in the works or is already being implemented in order to augment the naval presence, air superiority via aircraft carriers, and overwhelming regional alliances.

The Pentagon has also made the highly questionable decision of ordering two aircraft carriers - along with their sizable and powerful strike groups and associated troops - to remain in the region, a move which will likely upset Iran.

Previously Iran has made ambiguous threats to the United States regarding the presence of carriers in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and the latest decision to keep them in the general region is not going to reassure the Iranian government as to the United States’ noble intentions.

As I reported in part four above of this series, the American aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson joined the USS John C. Stennis (which previously sailed through the strait eliciting protest from Iran) in the region in order to sustain the naval presence and threat.

There are also reports of another aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, moving to the region, again something which will not serve to comfort the Iranian government in this time of record-level saber rattling.

Indeed the official website for the Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet announced that the USS Abraham Lincoln along with guided missile cruiser Cape St. George left Thailand and are now,

“en route to support coalition efforts in the 5th Fleet AOR.”

The AOR, or Area of Responsibility, for the Fifth Fleet includes the Persian Gulf region as the Fifth Fleet is based out of nearby Bahrain.

The USS John C. Stennis is slated to return home to the United States in the near future but according to Stars and Stripes, officials have stated that the Stennis will be replaced by the USS Enterprise so two carriers are still present in the region.

This is being done while claiming that it is just going to give,

“commanders major naval and air assets in case Iran carriers out its recent threats to close the Strait of Hormuz,” according to Stars and Stripes.

However, those who are aware of American military history, especially in the past few decades, know that these buildups inevitably occur before a conflict breaks out which is oft billed as an unplanned, unexpected event.

Obviously this is far from reality, and the case with Iran is no different.

As a recent Russia Today article outlined in detail, this buildup has been going on since 2003 - if not earlier - and the plans for war have been drawn up long ago.

It is only that in recent months the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released what Russia called a “politicized” report which claimed that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, giving newfound impetus to the long-term campaign against Iran.

However, since the evidence of this program is hardly as concrete as they make it out to be (as highlighted by Panetta’s own statements) there needs to be another reason to justify a full-on offense against Iran.

An incident with the Strait of Hormuz would be the perfect excuse for the United States, given that they have previously issued warnings to Iran over closing the strait.

Iran continues to threaten closure and the upcoming Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exercises in the region are unlikely to ease tensions.

If Iran even conducts a mock closing of the Strait of Hormuz, this might in fact be enough of a justification for a Western strike which would likely involve the United States, Britain, Israel and the regional Western allies.

The massive joint Israeli-American drills in the region, which very well might coincide with the new Iranian exercises, could also provide a situation where a conflict could spark up.

There is also the very real possibility of a Gulf of Tonkin-style false flag incident being manufactured to give the justification for an attack.

The possibility of such an event was reinforced by a recent article in the Jerusalem Post which read,

“Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and ‘help’ the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.”

Of course there is the very real possibility that such “help” would be a purely contrived false flag attack, which the United States would create if Iran refused to actually take that first step.

As one reader pointed out via email, it seems likely that this might occur as an attack on an aging United States Coast Guards (USCG) vessel.

This would be preferable because the USCG is often treated as a semi-civilian humanitarian organization, not a purely military force like the United States Navy.

However, I think that most Americans know that any attack on any American - or perhaps even allied - interests in the region would be more than enough justification for a strike on Iran.

If it was a USCG vessel over a Navy one, it would only be icing on the cake and serve to help put the favor of the international community on the side of the United States in this conflict.

This would be completely ignorant of the fact that the United States has been behind the military buildup in the region and as I have repeatedly posited, this very well might be intended to goad Iran into doing something to justify an American assault.

Stars and Stripes points out that United States Navy officials have stated that while Iran might be able to temporarily close the Strait of Hormuz using anti-ship missiles and other weapons - something which Iran said would be as easy as drinking water - American commanders claim that they would be able to quickly reverse such a closure if needed.

The establishment media is continuously stating - without much in the way of evidence or explanation - that the United States Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain on its own could dominate the entire Iranian navy.

On the other hand, individuals only heard in the alternative media have repeatedly pointed out that this very well might not be the case and indeed Iran might have an advantage in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf.

In a recent RT article, this possibility was highlighted, something which completely conflicts with the unsourced, blanket statements repeatedly made by such establishment media powerhouses as Reuters.

There is also the diplomatic aspect to this conflict which became even more significant with the Obama administration placing sanctions on three corporations which provide gasoline to Iran.

While Iran exports so much oil that they claim the top 3 position in world oil exports, their domestic refinement facilities are not sufficient to meet demand so they are forced to import the majority of their refined gasoline.

These sanctions will be imposed on,

  • China-based Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp.

  • Singaporean Kuo Oil Pte Ltd.

  • United Arab Emirates-based FAL Oil Co.

This will result in the barring of all American export licenses along with most financing for these corporations, including Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp., which is the largest seller of gasoline to Iran.

This will likely hurt Iran a great deal and raise the price of their gasoline imports while also having some serious consequences for China.

This move elicited a quite negative response from China, including an unusually heated editorial on the issue published in China’s Global Times which can be read here.

It is quite clear that the Chinese are not going to sit by silently while the United States hurts their economy by cutting off their business with Iran.

Honestly, I find their reaction to be totally reasonable. After all, what right does the United States have to tell other nations who they can and cannot trade with? This seems especially ludicrous when the nation they’re trading with does not in fact have nuclear weapons and is not in the process of developing them.

As the editorial quite aptly pointed out, the United States cannot afford to get into a trade war with China right now and these increasing sanctions and global domineering are pushing China towards exhausting that option.

Another matter of significant concern for analysts like me is the statement from Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin.

“Iran is our neighbor,” he said. “And if Iran is involved in any military action, it’s a direct threat to our security.”

This is arguably the strongest pro-Iranian statement coming from a Russian government official since the tensions have risen to these record levels, although they have been making similarly significant remarks about the international pressures on Syria.

A somewhat similar statement was made by Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov in saying that the international community would interpret new sanctions and/or a military strike on Iran as an attempt at regime change.

“Additional sanctions against Iran, as well as a probable military attack on Iran, will be doubtlessly taken in the international community as those pursuing the goal of power change in Tehran,” Gatilov said according to ITAR-TASS News Agency (note the article has some less-than flawless translation as it is primarily a Russian-language publication).

Nikolai Patrushev, head of the Kremlin Security Council, who has also been making some of the most notable statements about Syria, has stated that Russia is concerned that Israel is pushing the United States into military conflict with Iran.

Patrushev, who is reportedly a close friend of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, also highlighted the total lack of evidence supporting the claims made by Western countries regarding the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

“Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years,” he said.

Indeed those of us who have been following this issue closely for years are beginning to get weary of the alarmist rhetoric which never seems to materialize in the dramatic fashion pundits and government officials are always talking about.

Another important piece in this puzzle is the report coming from Foreign Policy, a publication of the Slate Group, which is a division of the Washington Post Company.

I find the providence of this report quite interesting given that it goes over reports which allegedly,

“detail CIA field reports saying that Israel’s recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel’s ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.”

Jundallah, a Sunni terrorist organization based out of Pakistan, is allegedly responsible for the assassination of Iranian governmental figures and also for the murder of Iranian women and children.

It’s interesting that such a thing could be going on while Israel,

“apparently didn’t give a damn what we [the CIA/United States] thought,” one anonymous intelligence officer said.

This is especially ridiculous when one considers that one of the main charges leveled against Iran is that they support terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, the West supports terrorist organizations at the same time and turns a blind eye to Israeli false flag operations.

Indeed Mark Perry wrote Foreign Policy,

“the existence of the Israeli false-flag operation was confirmed to me by four retired intelligence officers who have served in the CIA or have monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government.”

“There is no denying that there is a covert, bloody, and ongoing campaign aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program,” Perry wrote.

The covert war against Iran, which Israel is heavily involved in, is something which I have been covering for some time now, and with every mysterious incident that occurs, like the assassination of Roshan, it just becomes that much clearer.

This latest revelation also lends support to the notion that a false flag attack on Western interests might be conducted in order to justify an attack on Iran or very possibly an attack on Iran could be used to push Iran into acting first.

Either way, it seems that as every day goes by the pieces just slide closer into place and a disturbing picture is beginning to form.







Part VI
January 18, 2012


Latest developments in this worrisome war of words

which very well might be leading to a real war.


Some troubling statements were published recently by the Iranian Fars News Agency (FNA) coming directly from Iran’s military.

Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army’s Self-Sufficiency Jihad Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri stated that one of the United States’ largest concerns should be Iranian subsurface naval vehicles,

“since Iranian submarines are noiseless and can easily evade detection as they are equipped with the sonar-evading technology” and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, according to FNA.

This statement was made even more pointed by adding that,

“When the submarine sits on the seabed it can easily target and hit an aircraft carrier traversing in the nearby regions.”

This is clearly a statement which is directed towards the United States given that the US has not only been moving aircraft carriers through the region in spite of Iran’s concerns but even more importantly have actually been dispatching more aircraft carriers like the USS Abraham Lincoln to the region, as I outlined in the previous above installment of this series.

Similarly, Iranian Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi called for the US to avoid sending back military vessels to the Persian Gulf earlier this month.

This came after the massive Iranian naval drills pushed Washington into moving an aircraft carrier out of the region, according to FNA.

Of course, the United States would insist that this was purely routine transport and has nothing to do with Iran whatsoever, as they repeatedly assert regarding the military movements in the region.

Salehi stated that the United States moved the carrier out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz into the Sea of Oman before the Iranian naval drills began.

“We advise, warn and recommend them [the US Navy] not to return this carrier to its previous location in the Persian Gulf,” Salehi said.

It is unclear what would happen if this warning is not taken seriously, and I seriously doubt that Iran would move to attack the United States unless provoked to do so as they are well aware of the fact that it would mean a massive assault on Iran, Iranian forces and Iranian interests.

It is noteworthy to point out that Salehi didn’t mention which aircraft carrier he was actually talking about, although one can safely assume that he was referring to one of the United States Navy’s largest vessels, the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier.

“We are not in the habit of repeating the warning and we warn only once,” Salehi said.

USS John C. Stennis


It appears that one of the United States’ greatest concerns is the possibility that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western aggressive movements due to the massive amount of oil (estimated in the range of 40% of the world’s supply) that moves through the strait.

This capability was affirmed by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said.

This is a threat Iran has repeatedly made and the United States’ Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain said they would not let such a thing happen.

Despite the rhetoric from the Western establishment media and the claims made which repeatedly say that the US Fifth Fleet on its own is more powerful than the entirety of the Iranian navy, Dempsey made it clear that in fact they do have a strategic advantage in the region.

In late November, Iran expanded their submarine fleet with an additional three Ghadir-class submarines (making a total of 17 according to Iran), something which likely made the United States even more concerned about their military dominance in the region.

Amiri said that the United States has focused on Iran’s “astonish surface capabilities” and thus has ignored the power of their subsurface vehicles.

Business Insider erroneously claims that Amiri said he will move his subs onto the floor of the Persian Gulf and “fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously,” when in fact what he was saying is that they have such a capability.

Like so much of the Western media, Business Insider seems to confuse a statement of capability or a threat with a guarantee of action.

Iran is merely asserting their dominance over the Persian Gulf in order to deter further incursions in the region on the part of the West and to underline their threat to close the vital Strait of Hormuz.

I don’t find this to be nearly as threatening as Business Insider and others are making it out to be.


Why wouldn’t any nation make it clear that they can defend themselves? This is not an act of aggression in any way and taking Amiri’s quote to mean that he “plans to… ‘fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously,’” instead of what he was really saying which is that they have the capability is disingenuous and misleading.

The Naval Commander of the Iranian Army, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said at the time that all parts of the submarines had not only been designed but also manufactured by Iranian experts.

This military and nuclear self-sufficiency has become something that Iran brings up often, likely to point out that the West’s sanctions aren’t nearly as damaging as some may think.

Highlighting the domestic design and production of the submarines, along with the nuclear fuel rod, is something we should take note of as such statements will likely increase as the West continues to push for sanctions and European Union ministers are set to discuss further sanctions at the end of this month.

While United States Secretary of Defense emphasized that the United States military is fully prepared to address any threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, he claimed that they were not taking any “special steps” to bolster American forces in the region at this point.

This assertion is likely laughable to anyone who has been reading this series, as I have shown a steady effort to bolster the presence of American forces in the region along with the military capabilities of allied nations surrounding Iran.

The most glaring fact which completely contradicts Panetta’s claim is the deployment of 15,000 American troops to Kuwait.

How this does not constitute any “special steps” is beyond me, and likely is beyond anyone who is remotely capable of independent critical thought.

“We are not [taking] any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation,” Panetta said.

“Why? Because frankly we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now,” he added.

However, this does not explain the movement of the USS Abraham Lincoln, nor the arming of neighboring states, or the massive troop movements.

It appears to me that Leon Panetta is just attempting to be boastful and nonchalant, while the statement from Dempsey reflects the fact that the United States is indeed well aware of the superior strategic positioning of Iran in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

Reuters cites unnamed analysts who say that the Iranian navy,

“does not have the size for a sustained physical blockade of the strait, but does have mine-laying and missile capability.”

This obviously leaves out the submarine variable in this complex equation, along with the dual missile/torpedo firing capability.

It also seems to be ignoring the recent successful Iranian missile tests, including the test of a shore-to-sea anti-ship missile which is likely designed to be able to take out American vessels in the region if a conflict were to occur.

The Reuters article marginalizes Dempsey’s affirmation that Iran could indeed close the strait and instead highlights his expression of,

“confidence earlier this month that the U.S. military could reopen the strait if Iran blocked it.”

To be fair, the do cite,

“speculation that additional U.S. forces might be needed to do so, and U.S. media have been closely watching the movements of U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups.”

Unsurprisingly they fail to point out the troop movements and naval movements which are already occurring in order to prepare for such an operation.

“We have continually maintained a strong presence in the region to make very clear that we are going to do everything possible to secure the peace in that part of the world,” Panetta said.

However, to the independent observer it seems quite clear that what the United States is doing in the region is not promoting peace in any way but is instead designed to push Iran into striking first in order to justify an all-out Western assault against the nation.

With so many undeclared conflicts (or wars depending on how you define the term) going on at once, the United States and the West in general cannot afford another public relations problem.

Having Iran strike first would get much of the international community behind the West and thus give them free license to utterly destroy Iran with impunity.

Yesterday FNA also reported that Ramin Mehman-Parast, the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman, said that a recent letter from the United States regarding the Strait of Hormuz does not signal any new development in American-Iranian ties.

“No new development has happened with regard to Iran-US ties,” Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran yesterday.

Iran confirmed that they had received a letter from the US and the Iranian Foreign Ministry stated,

“A reply will be sent if Tehran finds it necessary.”


“The US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice had handed a letter to Iran’s Ambassador to the UN Mohammad Khazayee; the Swiss Ambassador to Tehran [Livia Leu Agosti] also conveyed the same thing; and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani delivered the same message to Iranian officials,” Mehman-Parast said.

In response to the American warnings to Iran regarding closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami said that Iran,

“never asks for anyone’s permission to carry out what it desires.”

“Iran does not ask permission to implement its own defensive strategies,” Salami told FNA in late December.

It remains to be seen if Iran will reply to the American letter at all, and if they do, what tone the response will take.

Iran has made no effort to tone down the heated rhetoric or to counter Western saber rattling with anything other than saber rattling of their own.

It is hard to blame them when they have such a large conglomeration of nations itching to pull the trigger on them, especially when the group is being lead by the United States - hardly a nation known for overwhelming peacefulness.

Today Russia said that a military strike on Iran would be what AFP called,

“a ‘catastrophe’ with the severest consequences which risked inflaming existing tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.”

“As for the chances of this catastrophe happening you would have to ask those constantly mentioning it as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said.

Here Sergey Lavrov is clearly hinting at the United States and Israel which repeatedly say that a military option has not been taken off the table.

Although, it is worth mentioning that Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister did say today that Israel considered a military option to be “very far away.” Then again, Israel is not a nation known for being straightforward and public with their plans so I think Barak’s statement is worth very little, if anything at all.

Lavrov emphasized that such a military operation on Iran would create a refugee crisis in the region along with inflaming sectarian tensions which already run quite deep.

“I have no doubt in the fact that it [would] only add fuel to the fire of the still-simmering Sunni-Shiite conflict. And I do not know where the subsequent chain reaction will end,” Lavrov said.

I believe this assertion is quite accurate as we’ve seen a great deal of sectarian violence in Syria, especially in cities like Homs, along with constant violence along sectarian lines in Iraq.

“Additional unilateral sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with a desire to ensure the regime’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation,” Lavrov added.

Again, I find Lavrov’s assessment to be entirely accurate as it has become quite clear that the West is just using the nuclear issue as an excuse to pressure and/or attack Iran.

This is highlighted by Leon Panetta openly admitting that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon on national television in the United States, while still insisting that we must be concerned.

It has become obvious to even the casual observer that the United States cares not about the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program and instead is just using it as a way to steer the opinion of the international community against Iran.

“It is seriously aimed at suffocating the Iranian economy and the well-being of its people, probably in the hop of inciting discontent,” Lavrov said.

Indeed these moves seem focused upon cutting off Iran’s economic ties (which directly affects the well-being of the Iranian people) while reducing their self-sufficiency.

As I have previously mentioned, while Iran has a massive oil reserve, they do not have the refining capability to keep up with domestic demand.

This leads them to have to look outside their borders for sources of refined gasoline and the United States has been attempting to cut off these supply lines in every way possible.

Furthermore, the pressure on their nuclear program is designed to reduce their ability to domestically produce energy and become self-sufficient.

Lavrov also said that Russia has evidence that Iran not only was ready to cooperate more closely with representatives of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but also were preparing for “serious talks” with the West.

Interestingly, Lavrov hinted that the United States and Europe were intentionally imposing new sanctions in order to kill a new round of nuclear talks.

This seems quite plausible given that the West appears to have no interest whatsoever in letting Iran pursue a nuclear capability be it peaceful or military.

“Iran is now waiting for an [IAEA] delegation so that it can discuss serious issues. So the sanctions that can now be adopted by the European Union can hardly improve the atmosphere or make the talks productive,” Lavrov said.


“All possible sanctions that could impact Iran’s behavior in the nuclear sphere or its cooperation with the IAEA have been exhausted,” he added.

Lavrov is emphasizing the point that I have been attempting to drive home with a vengeance: the West has no interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program or working towards peace in the region.

It is becoming increasingly clear that all the United States and the West in general wants is regime change and/or war.

It is also being reported that European Union diplomats have set a July date for a full embargo on Iranian oil imports, something which Iran has repeatedly said would lead them to close the Strait of Hormuz.

It remains to be seen if Iran will follow through with this threat, and if they do how the United States and the West will react or retaliate.

If the rhetoric is any indicator, I think the United States very well might take some sort of action against Iran for closing the strait.

This is due to the fact that it appears that the United States believes that such an action constitutes an act of war or at least an aggressive enough maneuver to justify an attack.

Of course, the United States has been incredibly ambiguous with the threats issued in response to the Iranian statements, so it is unclear what would happen at this point.

To speculate a bit, I think the United States might make aggressive maneuvers in the region in an attempt to goad Iran into striking first.

This would give the West the green light to go all-out on Iran and “wipe them off the map,” as the constantly cited (and incorrectly translated) statement from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad goes.

At this point I just hope that the saber rattling will fail to lead to any real conflict and this will all become a distant memory.


However, the nature of the rhetoric and the persistence of both sides of this war of words does not paint a pretty picture of what the future holds.


Note: Please do the world a favor and share this article along with the rest of the series with your friends, family and internet contacts. Only through raising awareness, countering the Western propaganda, and spreading the truth can we fight against what could very well bring about World War III and instead bring about a new era of peace in the region and the world at large.

So long as the establishment media can keep the blinders on Americans and Europeans and keep them thinking that Iran is a threat to the rest of the world, they will be able to push the public to support war. Once we can eradicate the constantly promulgated falsehoods and instead perpetuate truth and justice, we will be able to see a real dialogue for peace.






Part VII

January 23, 2012

With the European Union passing new sanctions on Iranian oil exports and freezing the assets of the Iranian central bank and the suspicious murder of yet another Iranian military figure, the grim situation in Iran does not seem to be letting up.

Ramin Mehmanparast, the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry called the EU’s new sanctions “psychological warfare” aimed at trying to halt Iran’s nuclear program, an assessment which I think is hardly inaccurate.

Russia has already come out against the new EU sanctions, saying in a statement,

“Under pressure of this sort, Iran will not make any concessions or any corrections to its policies.”

Seeing as Iran is doing nothing more than pursuing the same civilian nuclear technology as every other Western nation, I do not think this statement is out of line in any way.

However, as the weeks and months have passed, it has become clear that the United States and the West in general will not be satisfied with the fact that Iran is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, something which United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had to admit himself.

The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65)

underway in the Atlantic Ocean

(Photo credit: US Navy)

It appears that they will not give up until Iran has given up all hopes of a domestic nuclear program for energy or research purposes, something which is hardly fair or justified.

The European Union’s sanctions are arguably the harshest that have been passed thus far. They include an immediate halt to any and all new contracts for Iranian crude oil and other petroleum products.

However, existing contracts are allowed to run until July, meaning that Iran will not feel the full force of these sanctions for some time.

The 27 nation European Union also froze all assets belonging to the Iranian central bank, something which will likely end up hurting the average Iranian citizen more than anyone else, just like the rest of the sanctions.

Currently it seems that the Iranian currency is being hurt most by the sanctions, with the value dropping to record lows compared to the US dollar.

Seeing how roughly 80% of Iranian oil revenue is derived from their exports, these latest sanctions coming from the EU could severely damage the Iranian economy and skyrocket the cost of living for average Iranians due to the devalued currency.

Whereas a year ago the Iranian rial was trading roughly 10,500 to the US dollar, it is now trading around 21,000 to the dollar.

Obviously this is a massive devaluation and in just the short period from Friday to Monday, the rial dropped around 14% in value.

We must keep in mind who these sanctions are hurting: working Iranians and others who do not have access to foreign currencies or the assets to absorb such an immense devaluation of their currency.

For those unfortunate Iranians that are just scraping by and do not have some kind of foreign investments to protect their assets, these sanctions could very well be a matter of life and death.

With the European sanctions on Iranian oil exports, Iran will likely be forced to turn East and sell at a discount to those operating outside of the Western markets.

However, the United States has been pressuring Asian nations to move away from Iran as well, something which has the potential to be quite devastating if the US manages to get Japan, South Korea and India to cut off Iranian crude.

With these latest sanctions, Iran has renewed their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, something which led the United States to make some remarkably pointed statements about what they would do if Iran decides to close off the strait.

Many analysts, myself included, believe the chances of Iran actually following through with their threats to close the strait are quite slim.

This is because it is likely the case that Iran is well aware of the fact that the West is getting “an itchy trigger finger” as it were, and thus any remotely aggressive move would be exploited and used to justify an attack on Iran.

The United States’ Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, stated that international navies will work together to keep the Strait of Hormuz open amidst renewed Iranian threats to close the channel through which an estimated 20-40% of the world’s oil passes (estimates are chronically unreliable and the same publications will routinely publish the 20% number and the 40% number without reconciling the massive difference).

“I have not looked at the exact military contingency plannings that there are and how long that would take,” Daalder said on BBC Radio 4′s “Today” program, according to Bloomberg.

“But of this I am certain: the international waterways that go through the Strait of Hormuz are to be sailed by international navies including ours, the British and the French and any other navy that needs to go through the Gulf; and second, we will make sure that happens under every circumstance,” he added.

It is important to note here that the British have already deployed their most advanced warship to the region and the United States appears to be increasing their presence there with the USS Abraham Lincoln moving into the 5th Fleet’s area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Persian Gulf region.

Furthermore, the United Kingdom’s defense ministry said in an e-mailed statement that American, British, and French warships sailed as a group through the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the statement, this was done not in an attempt to provoke the Iranians as I suspect it was intended to do, but instead,

“to underline the unwavering commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law.”

“I am convinced that the Straits of Hormuz need to remain open and that we need to maintain this as an international passageway and we will do what needs to be done to ensure that is the case,” Daalder said to the BBC.

While this statement is somewhat cryptic, what is clear is that a military strike is not only on the table but a viable and quite possibly imminent option.

In my analysis of this situation, which has now stretched into a seven part series, with more to come and many other materials outside of this series to be read, it has become clear to me that the West wants to attack Iran but will not do so without having some justification which would not be politically and diplomatically unpopular.

This justification could be real, or could very well be contrived through the use of a false flag attack in the blueprint of the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident which brought the United States into Vietnam.

Indeed I believe that the chances of a false flag attack are growing with the presence of the USS Enterprise in the region.

The USS Enterprise would be the perfect target for a false flag attack, because like the World Trade Centers which were plagued by asbestos, the Enterprise would cost a great deal to decommission.

The USS Enterprise, or CVN-65, was launched all the way back in 1960 and originally ordered in 1957 and is scheduled to be decommissioned next year.

The Enterprise has actually been in operation since 1962 and boasts a whopping 8 Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors, meaning that all of this would have to be disposed of in the costly manner in which nuclear waste is supposed to be dealt with.

The Enterprise, or “Big E,” is an incredibly symbolic vessel due to the fact that she is the longest naval vessel on the planet, and is the second oldest commissioned vessel in the US Navy.

The Big E has also been in operation for the longest of any aircraft carrier at 51 consecutive years.

Originally, she was slated to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015, but the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 changed this to 2013.

If a false flag attack was carried out on the USS Enterprise and then blamed on Iran to justify an attack, it would be hitting two birds with one stone.

  • Firstly, it would save the military a great deal of money dealing with the process of decommissioning the vessel and handling the eight nuclear reactors.

  • Secondly, it would give the West the justification they have sought to attack Iran while keeping the international community on their side.

It would also make it harder for Russia and China to come to Iran’s aid in a politically popular manner as it would just appear that they are helping the aggressor.

The sad fact is that we know our military and intelligence establishment is capable of such an operation as evidenced by the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other false flag attack plans like
Operation Northwoods.

Hopefully our so-called leaders are not psychopathic enough to carry out such an operation but given the historical precedent and the current situation in the region, it is hardly possible to rule it out entirely.






January 26, 2012

It gives me no pleasure to report that the situation with Iran is only getting more heated and the push for war continues to get stronger.

An Israeli investigative journalist and highly connected analyst for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Ronen Bergman, recently wrote a piece for the New York Times magazine which states that indeed Israel will strike Iran in 2012.


Bergman bases his analysis and conclusions on meetings with,

“many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and intelligence.”

He says that the United States may choose to intervene, something which I think is quite likely, but he does say that,

“from the Israeli perspective, there is not much hope for that.”

I am not quite sure why they would think that the United States would take a back seat in this conflict given the unmatched power the Israel lobby has in Washington coupled with the growing American presence in region of the Persian Gulf, which I have been detailing in this series.

However, the British Guardian rightly points out that Bergman’s words are more significant than those coming from most analysts and pundits given his close ties to political, military and intelligence figures in Israel.

The Guardian writes that since he spends,

“a significant amount of time with the politicians, spies and generals who are going to make the ultimate decision… his assessment carries more weigh[t] tha[n] your average Israel-Iran analyst.”


Note: I had to modify the above text (and other excerpts), as for some reason the Guardian’s article had an egregious amount of errors which one would think might be caught by the editor of a large news outlet but apparently not.



It’s always humorous to me when a one-man-operation like End the Lie churns out higher quality content than a large-scale enterprise like which recorded £1 million in profits in 2006 and is owned by the Scott Trust.

Bergman says that the Israelis are already preparing for the strike, something which I think is quite obvious and mirrored in the actions of the United States’ military as well.

Bergman writes,

“The Israeli Air Force is where most of the preparations are taking place. It maintains planes with the long-range capacity required to deliver ordnance to targets in Iran, as well as unmanned aircraft capable of carrying bombs to those targets and remaining airborne for up to 48 hours. Israel believes that these platforms have the capacity to cause enough damage to set the Iranian nuclear project back by three to five years.”

Other estimates are much more conservative, but I honestly think that the Israeli estimate isn’t too wildly off the mark, although the author of the Guardian piece characterizes it as “very confident.”

This is mostly due to estimates from the likes of United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who estimated one to two years in a best case scenario and Rafi Eitan, a Mossad veteran, who told Bergman it would set them back “not even three months.”

The two factors at play here are Iran’s physical capability to continue the nuclear program after taking a massive hit along with Iran’s drive to become self-sufficient and a scientific leader in the region.

It seems that Iran has been able to survive and continue their efforts in the face of tough sanctions, something which the country’s Supreme Leader Khamenei boasted about not too long ago.

There were also reports of roughly 1,300 students switching their major over to the field of nuclear sciences due to the most recent assassination and the many others that have occurred as of late.

It seems to me that the Western world’s hyperfocus on Iran has only served to embolden their efforts, as they feel they’re being unfairly targeted and thus should fight back by doing exactly what the West is trying to stop them from doing.

However, I must emphasize that this does not mean that I believe Iran will use a nuclear weapon against Israel or any other target, as I think it is quite clear that they are not, in fact, pursuing any nuclear weapons program at all.

Indeed Leon Panetta himself said as much on national television, yet the talking heads in the establishment media and the bought-and-paid-for politicians in Washington continue to spread disinformation about their nuclear ambitions.

I think that continued strikes and sanctions will in fact serve to embolden the Iranians and drive them to work even harder on their nuclear program.

A direct strike on their facilities would likely have a similar effect but the larger question is if they actually have the money and material capability to continue at this rate after an attack.

While they have indeed announced that they have created an underground enrichment facility which would be much harder to take out from the air, this is only one facility and I doubt that they have enough facilities which are sufficiently protected from air strikes to sustain their program after an Israeli assault.

If Israel managed to strike all above-ground facilities and take them out completely, perhaps even damaging their underground facilities with the use of so-called “bunker buster” bombs, I seriously doubt that they would be able to recover in the “not even three months” cited by Eitan.

Honestly, I think Eitan’s statement very likely represents the ever-present Israeli fearmongering about Iran which is intended to make us believe that Iran is some bloodthirsty nation itching to pull the trigger and nuke Israel and/or the West.

I think this assertion is laughable in its inaccuracy given that Iran is more peaceful than both Israel and the United States and they likely are well aware of the fact that any strike would be seen as justification for an attack on their nation.

I seriously doubt that the Iranian leadership is clueless enough to think that the West wouldn’t take any attack as an opportunity to utterly destroy Iran.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, spent a great deal of time with Bergman which allows us to get a peek into how the Israeli leadership views Iran.

“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv.


A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”

“And if a nuclear Iran covets and occupies some gulf state, who will liberate it?” Barak asked. “The bottom line is that we must deal with the problem now.”

This is a prime example of the Israeli approach: propagandize, instill fear, posit hypothetical situations with no basis in reality, then once you have your subject completely fearful and looking for a solution, you offer the solution which is inevitably a strike on Iran.

The problem here is that all of what Barak said is completely divorced from reality.

Since when was Iran threatening to occupy a gulf state? In reality, it is the United States and the West in general which poses a greater threat of occupying a gulf state.

Furthermore, if anyone is guilty of occupation, it is Israel, which has illegally occupied Palestinian land for decades and committed egregious war crimes in the process.

  • Has Iran done such a thing?

  • Is Iran flouting international law on a daily basis by illegally occupying territory captured during a war?

However, not all individuals are easily duped by this type of psychological operation which is exemplified by Barak.

Take, for instance, Bruce Riedel, a former Middle East specialist for the CIA.

In a recent piece published in the Lebanese Daily Star, Riedel argued that even if Iran had a nuclear bomb (which it doesn’t) it would still not be an existential threat to Israel.

The Guardian thinks that Riedel’s view is representative of the majority opinion of the CIA and White House, even though there are no indications that this is the case.

Bergman goes on to examine this supposed divergence between the approaches of the United States and Israel (something which I think is wholly superficial) and wonders what notice, if any, Israel would give Washington of an attack on Iran.

Israel has previously said that they will not necessarily warn the United States of an upcoming attack on Iran, but I do not think that Israel would actually carry out a large-scale attack without telling the United States.

First of all, these two nations are the closest of allies, secondly the United States would likely be aware of an Israeli air campaign the second it began due to the presence of carrier strike groups in the region which have advanced radar capabilities.

However, a piece recently published in Mondoweiss claimed that Israel would give the United States 12 hours of warning before an attack on Iran because Netanyahu supposedly doesn’t trust Obama.


This seems a bit off to me given that 12 hours is enough time to mobilize the troops in the region to some extent.

On the other hand, Matthew Kroenig, who was formerly an advisor at the Pentagon, now serving at the infamous Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), thinks that Israel’s warning will be,

“an hour or two [before the attack], just enough to maintain good relations between the countries but not quite enough to allow Washington to prevent the attack.”

This is borderline absurd to me, given that the United States has no ostensible interest in preventing an attack on Iran.

Figures in the United States’ military establishment have been pushing for an attack on Iran for years, leading many analysts to believe that an attack was imminent even though it never materialized.

What’s more, the increasing American military presence in the region surrounding Iran, which you can read about in painstaking detail in the previous installments of this series (a list of which can be found at the bottom of this article), indicates that the United States is indeed preparing for an assault on Iran.

In writing for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg rightly points out that the same individuals giving intelligence to Bergman had convinced Goldberg that an attack on Iran would come last summer.

Goldberg blames his miscalculation on the success of the Stuxnet attack, although honestly I think this is more of an attempt to keep whatever scrap of reputation he has left untarnished.

This makes me wonder, why would Israeli military and intelligence figures be trying to convince individuals in the media that a strike on Iran is imminent?

I believe that this very well might be in an attempt to pressure individuals in America to preemptively strike Iran or prepare for such a strike in order to make the Israeli job easier.

My impression is reflected in the Guardian piece in the passage which reads,

“Clearly, [Israel] has a motive in conveying the impression that an attack might be imminent, to stir up urgency in the West to confront Iran.”

In my analysis of the events surrounding Iran, I have found that this is very likely the case and the constant “leaks” regarding plans to attack Iran are meant to push the United States into taking action first.

The military buildup in the region very well might be proof that this approach being taken by Israel is working.

There is also the issue of a third carrier strike group (the Abraham Lincoln) making its way into the Persian Gulf region, a group which would include the aging USS Enterprise.


The country's second aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln

and its battle group entered the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz last Sunday (January 22)

accompanied by UK and French warships.



In the previous installment of this series, I discussed the possibility that the “Big E” could be used as a target for a false flag attack which would give the West free license to assault Iran.

I find this to be likely because it would not only give the West the justification they so desperately have been seeking which has been proving difficult to achieve through pure propaganda, but it would also save the United States a great deal of money in decommissioning the vessel.

While I went over this in some detail before, I believe it is worth exploring more closely in an article devoted entirely to the subject, something which I plan to do in the near future.





Part IX
January 28, 2012

Recently it has become clear that preparation for war with Iran is well underway and no effort is being made to conceal these efforts.

Of course, there are the token superficial statements made by Western officials which surely only fool the most uninformed of individuals and it is likely the case that all of my readers see past these meaningless platitudes with ease.

Please remember to scroll to the bottom of this piece in order to find the list of previous installments of this series which I highly recommend you read in order to familiarize yourself with this astoundingly complex situation.

While the news of the Pentagon’s rush-ordered “mothershipto be used as a forward launching point for commando squads (likely in the Persian Gulf region) is quite important news indeed, today brought some even more starting developments.

Today it was reported that the Pentagon now believes their 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bomb, which is actually called the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) is in fact insufficient.

Even though a shocking $330 million has already been spent by the Department of Defense (DOD) on just 20 MOPs, the DOD now says we need to sink another $82 million into the bombs in order to make them effective against Iranian underground nuclear facilities.

Currently MOPs can penetrate up to 200 feet underground, but the Fordow facility in Iran is estimated to be at least 200 feet underground with unknown levels of reinforcement.

A satellite image of the Fordow nuclear facility near Qom, Iran

(Photo credit: GeoEye)


Officials claim that this is part of “stepped-up contingency planning for a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear program,” while others seem to be trying to convince the people of the world that this isn’t targeting Iran.

Take, for instance, George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, who said,

“The development of this weapon is not intended to send a signal to any one particular country. It’s a capability we believe we need in our arsenal and will continue to invest in it.”

While one might be able to accept this if one observes this latest expenditure as an isolated case, but in reality it is part of a much larger scale effort.

When one views this in conjunction with the troop buildup in Kuwait, the “mothership,” the deployment of additional carrier strike groups to the region surrounding Iran, the military buildup in neighboring nations and so much more that I have been covering in detail throughout this series, it becomes clear that this indeed is intended to send a signal to one particular country.

Of course, that country is Iran, and this is likely painfully obvious to anyone who has been keeping up with this series.

Even with the tens of millions in additional spending to upgrade the current MOP technology, the American ability to take out an underground Iranian nuclear facility is not promising to some.

One unnamed official cited by the Wall Street Journal said that some of the warmongers in the Pentagon actually think that the only viable option for the military will be a tactical nuclear weapon.

They claim that anything else will not destroy the facility and conventional bombs will not be sufficient in the West’s quest to cripple Iran’s facilities, especially the one at Fordow near the Shiite Muslim holy city, Qom.

“Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off,” the anonymous official stated.

The same individual guessed that the MOP might be more effective against the main Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz,

“But even that is guesswork,” he said.

I find it painfully ironic that the West would even consider using a nuclear weapon against a country for nothing other than pursuing the same peaceful nuclear technology that every other developed nation does.

Since Iran is not, in fact, developing a nuclear weapon - a fact confirmed by United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta himself - it seems ludicrous for a nuclear weapon to be used to stop their civilian nuclear program.

Even if they were actually developing a nuclear weapon, the irony would remain and yet somehow talking heads in the Western media are able to reconcile this nonsense.

It remains to be seen what the actual justification will be for a strike on Iran, as there is no concrete evidence which can support the claims of the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Those who are pushing for war desperately need some kind of justification and it seems like a false flag attack on the USS Enterprise or the soon-to-be-retrofitted USS Ponce (below image) is a real possibility which must be considered in our examination of this issue.

The United States amphibious assault ship USS Ponce

sails through the Suez Canal in March 2011.

If retrofitted as “the mothership,” the vessel could accommodate

smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs



The oil sanctions on Iran are also a matter which must be discussed, as there seems to be a rift in the international community over this issue.

Turkey seems to be dismissing pressure from the United States and Europe regarding sanctions on Iranian crude oil while South Korea and Japan remain hesitant to jump on the bandwagon.

This is quite interesting because Turkey is one of the West’s prominent partners in the global growth of NATO, especially when it comes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system which is currently a major concern for Russia.

Interestingly, the Voice of Russia notes,

“China, India and Turkey have warned that they won’t support a ban on Iranian oil imports and will try and prevent the US from blocking Iranian oil supplies. Japan and South Korea are planning to follow suit.”

The fact that India is opposing the move, along with Turkey, I find to be highly unusual.


Keep in mind that India, like Turkey, is a huge player in the Western move towards the Asia-Pacific region and the greater Middle East.

In the quest for NATO domination around the globe India is an invaluable partner for the West due to the sheer landmass of the country along with the relatively powerful military.

India is at the heart of the multilateral relations that are so critical to the Western effort to extend hegemony over the Asia-Pacific region and thus I think it is likely the case that the United States will not be quick to criticize India.

If they do, it will probably be nothing more than a tongue-lashing with no real bite to it because the West is already sitting by silently knowing about the Indian nuclear program and the trade of natural uranium between Australia and India.

There is also the matter of the planned pipeline to be built between Iran and Pakistan to transport gasoline, which Pakistan announced they would be going forward with despite the current international climate which is marked by uncertainty and tumultuousness.

In the face of threats of international sanctions, the Pakistan Foreign Ministry announced recently that they would still be taking part in the project, adding that sanctions should be limited to the Iranian nuclear program and Pakistan should not be negatively affected just for participation in a gas project.

If the West stays silent while a nation like India opposes the sanctions imposed on Iranian oil exports, it will be that much clearer that they do not actually care about sanctions but instead are just trying to push Iran into taking offensive action.

This is reinforced by the fact that the West has only continued to press on in the face of Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz if additional sanctions were put in place, a threat which they have clearly not followed through with after the passage of new sanctions by the European Union.

The United States, along with Britain and France (a now classic Western neo-imperialist alliance as seen in Libya), are also goading Iran with the presence of warships in the region and by sailing vessels through the Strait of Hormuz right after Iran demanded that such movements cease.

It seems quite obvious to me that the West is not interested in a peaceful resolution to this conflict, as if they were they wouldn’t be actively sabotaging the six party talks Iran has professed a willingness to engage in after an all-too-long hiatus.

Iran has even said that they do not have a problem with using Turkey as a venue after Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selchuk Unal told reporters earlier this month that they are prepared to hold talks there.

However, the continued Western aggression and clear lack of interest in a diplomatic solution are making these negotiations near impossible as analyst Stanislav Tarasov points out to the Voice of Russia,

“The problem is that the moment Turkey completed its mediatory mission to obtain Iran’s consent to a meeting with six-party representatives in Istanbul, the West started ’torpedoing’ the talks.”

Iran is also moving closer to passing a bill which would ban any Iranian oil sales to the European Union in response to the EU’s sanctions, according to the Associated Press.

The EU’s current sanctions allow existing contracts to run until July 1 but if this bill passes the Iranian parliament it would immediately cease all exports of oil to the EU.

“As long as the EU doesn’t lift the oil embargo, we won’t give them a drop of oil,” Iranian state television quoted Nasser Soudani, deputy chairman of the energy committee, as saying.

Iranian legislators have argued that since the EU makes up roughly 18% of Iran’s total oil sales, the EU would actually be hurt by getting cut off from Iranian oil much more than Iran itself would.

The director of the National Iranian Oil Company, Ahmad Qalebani, said that the top leadership in Iran has to approve the immediate cut off of oil exports before anything is done, while adding,

“We want those [European] companies [that still want to receive Iranian oil] to enter transparent talks with us for a long-term contracts or stop purchasing oil from Iran now.”

Nouriel Roubini, the professor of economics and international business at New York University who many say predicted the 2008 economic crisis, has said that conflict with Iran could force the world into a global recession.

Given that he,

“sees tough times ahead for the global economy and is warning that without major policy changes things can still get much worse,”

...I hardly think that risking further problems by entering into a conflict with Iran is in any way an intelligent move.

As if all of what the United States and other Western nations are already doing wasn’t putting enough pressure on Iran already, the Western-backed Syrian National Council recently accused Iran of,

“participation… in killing Syrians who are demanding freedom and urges it to stop taking part in quelling the Syrian revolution.”

This allegation is based on claims made by the Free Syrian Army, an armed insurgent group in Syria which can be accurately characterized as a terrorist organization.

Yesterday the Free Syrian Army claimed that they captured five Iranian military officers in the embattled Syrian city of Homs.

They claimed in a statement that the captured Iranian officers,

“were working under the orders of the intelligence services of the Syrian air force”,

...and in addition were not in possession of valid papers allowing them to work or reside in Syria.

If these officers were actually working under the Syrian air force’s intelligence unit, it hardly seems logical that they would not bother to issue the Iranians with paperwork, even if it was fake, in order to make them seem legitimate.

Furthermore, the Free Syrian Army released a video accompanying their statement which showed men who were carrying what they claimed were Iranian passports, although again it hardly makes sense that they would bring their real passports with them on such a sensitive mission in coordination with Syrian intelligence.

Either both Iranian and Syrian intelligence agencies are painfully clueless and laughably ineffective, or there is something not quite right about the claims made by the Free Syrian Army.

I honestly think it is more likely that the Free Syrian Army is manufacturing this in order to put more pressure on Iran while trying to get increased support for intervention from the international community, opposed to Iranian military officers sneaking into Syria with their own passports and no valid paperwork in order to assist in the crackdown.

Then again, it is impossible to entirely rule out that these five military officers and the entire Syrian air force’s intelligence services are so incredibly imbecilic that they would actually carry out a covert operation this poorly planned.

Another important factor to consider in this situation is the team of senior inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a body of the United Nations, who are bound for Tehran for a new series of inspections.

The IAEA says that this is the first time Iran will have engaged with them in any significant way since 2008 and the visit is slated to last 3 days and is expected to involve the inspectors demanding access to sites, officials and documents which are supposedly relevant to their inquiry.

However, Iran is likely to question the legitimacy of their demands quite heavily, especially when considering the IAEA’s previous findings in their November, 2011 report.

I also think it is very unlikely that Iran will be willing to back off their nuclear program entirely, which seems to be exactly what the West wants.

This is hardly something that can be held against them given that they have every right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology just like every other sovereign nation does.

Although, it is worth noting that Iran does not seem to be taking an aggressive approach to the IAEA’s visit, saying that they are willing to discuss “any issues” which the IAEA wants, including the concerns that their program could have military applications.

I believe that the outcome of this visit is not likely going to be a positive one given that the West has made it abundantly clear that they will not cease until Iran completely ceases all nuclear research and brings their entire nuclear program to a screeching halt.

Even then, it is arguable that the West will find some contrived reason to demonize Iran and propagandize for yet another war, although it would be much more difficult if they weren’t even pursuing civilian nuclear technology.

However, there is the very real possibility that the IAEA’s visit could go well and it could help to shatter the many myths surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.


Obviously this is what I hope will happen but the politicized nature of the IAEA makes me doubt that it will indeed come out this way.

According to Reuters, Western diplomats are already saying that,

“Iran may offer limited concessions and transparency in an attempt to ease intensifying international pressure on the country, a major oil producer, but that this is unlikely to amount to the full cooperation that is required.”

This is the far too common self-fulfilling prophecy that has plagued the dialogue between the West and Iran.


Both parties come into a situation expecting a certain outcome and often force that outcome to occur, which I think is unfortunately what might happen with this latest IAEA inspection.







Part X

January 30, 2012


As unfortunate as it is, I have no choice but to continue this series covering the grim situation unfolding in the Middle East which very possibly could be the spark that lights the greater world ablaze.

This was highlighted in the Chinese Global Times today in the article “China faces tough call in Iran showdown” in which they make it clear that the Western-Iranian showdown could indeed become a Western-Chinese confrontation, and I would argue that this might grow into a Western showdown with both China and Russia as well.

They do not seem to believe that the United States will jump into a new war, highlighting the fact that,

“The cash-strapped West has many concerns about starting another war at this time.”

Yet they do say that there is the real possibility of the United States opting to,

“make risky moves at some key time in order to prevent China from acquiring oil from Iran.”

I do not think the possibility of the US going after China simply for continuing to buy Iranian oil is very likely, given that it could easily spark off a greater trade war which would hurt the already crippled American economy in ways which are nearly impossible to project.

If China struck back by blocking all exports to the United States, the price of goods in America which were cheap before could become wildly expensive, thus throwing the floundering economy into a tailspin.

However, the Global Times article also brings up a matter which I find to be a much more realistic possibility for a showdown between the West and China:

China, “opposing external forces to change a country’s regime [specifically Iran in this case], particularly with threats of war.”

Indeed that is exactly what the West is trying to do, as evidenced by their insistence on going after Iran even after the United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had to admit that Iran is not, in fact, pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

It has become quite obvious to me - and likely to all of my readers as well - that the West will not stop until there is a radical change, either with Iran abandoning their peaceful nuclear program entirely or with a regime change.

The Global Times writes,

“China cannot stay aloof from the affair” because of China’s heavy reliance on Iranian oil.

Seeing as China has a massive domestic demand, I doubt that they can risk losing 10 percent of their oil imports and thus will not consider ceasing to buy Iranian oil just because the West says they should.

The Global Times article also suggests that China should speed up the process of erecting a temporary alliance with nations in South and East Asia in order to continue purchasing oil from Iran in the face of Western sanctions.

They write “Such an alliance is possible,” and indeed I think that is quite true given the strong reluctance of many countries to sanction Iran along with the United States and European Union.

Interestingly, as I pointed out in the last installment of this series, some of the countries opposing the Western sanctions on Iranian oil are in fact the West’s strongest allies in the region, including Japan and India.

To find out more about this complex relationship evolving in the region, which includes multilateral ties between the United States, Japan, and India, I highly recommend you read “U.S. and NATO are on the march worldwide” series.

It will be interesting if the United States takes the wildly hypocritical position of supporting Japan and India while condemning China for continuing to import oil from Iran.

The Global Times warns,

“China should be well prepared for the situation to escalate. When its rights are unfairly stepped upon, due countermeasures should be in place.”

I sincerely hope this is not the case, as this could be the beginnings of this conflict turning into a truly global conflict.

It appears that the United States is already preparing for the worst, very possibly because they know that the likelihood of a confrontation is only getting greater as the days go by.

This is highlighted by the third carrier group being deployed to the Persian Gulf region by the United States.

According to Naval Today and Interfax, this carrier group is to include a guided missile cruiser along with three guided missile destroyers, on top of a massive aircraft carrier.

While the United States already has a pronounced naval presence in the Persian Gulf with the USS Abraham Lincoln entering the body via the critical Strait of Hormuz back on January 22 along with two destroyers belonging to the US Navy, a guided missile cruiser, along with a British and French warship, the third deployment is highly unusual.

Unsurprisingly, they billed this as routine, but three carrier strike groups in one location is far from standard operating procedure.

Currently the USS Carl Vinson is located east of the Strait of Hormuz, the small area which Iran has threatened to close, thus cutting off a great deal of the world’s oil supply - a move which the United States seems unwilling to tolerate.

To say what will happen at such an early stage would be pure speculation, and likely premature at that. However, we must take note of the buildup in the region which I have been heavily documenting throughout this series.

The recent move to refurbish and deploy the USS Ponce as a floating commando mothership, likely to be used in the Persian Gulf, is also highly noteworthy as it shows there are clear plans to escalate this conflict beyond what we are currently seeing.

There is also the matter of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and their official visit to Iran, a visit which could greatly impact how this situation unfolds in the near future.

The IAEA’s visit, which began yesterday, is already highly charged with Iran announcing that they will be postponing the parliamentary debate on the possibility of blocking all crude oil sales to the European Union while still announcing, “Soon we will cut exporting oil to some countries.”

The Iranian oil minister, Rostam Qasemi, made this strong statement, as reported by the Iranian state news agency, IRNA, while not getting specific about which countries he was hinting at by saying “some.”

I believe it is likely the case that Qasemi was hinting at the European Union given the recent embargo which would halt all importation of Iranian crude oil starting July 1, however, the fact that they suspended the parliamentary debate on the bill which would do just that is a bit confusing.

Inside of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis)

(Photo credit: ISNA)


As I previously reported, it was being said that the bill was going to be brought up for debate quite soon, yet Emad Hosseini, the spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s Energy Committee gave a very different impression to the Mehr news agency.

“No such draft bill has yet been drawn up and nothing has been submitted to the parliament. What exists is a notion by the deputies which is being seriously pursued to bring it to a conclusive end,” Hosseni said.

Iran seems to be staying strong in the face of the sanctions, something which is to be expected given that earlier this month the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that Iran has had “eye-catching successes in spite of the sanctions.

However, this was long before the European Union put a new round of sanctions in place, although it is likely the case that the full impact of those sanctions will not be felt until July 1 or after.

That is, unless Iran decides to immediately halt all exports, completely crushing the small window that the struggling economies of European nations have to find different suppliers and adapt to the change, which might hurt Iran to some extent but it would also deal a strong blow to the EU as well.

Some in Iran seem to be quite confident in their current position and what the future might hold, I might argue that in some cases, unrealistically so.

For instance, Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdasta, the commander of the Iranian army’s ground forces, stated that the United States and allied nations are,

“fearful of the Iranian forces and nation.”

Of course this might be idle boasting, but considered in conjunction with the statements surrounding the capabilities of Iranian submarines and how the West is supposedly gravely underestimating them, it makes Iran seem a tad antagonistic in this situation.

Then again, I can understand why they would take such an approach in an attempt to dissuade the West from attacking them and likely dealing a crippling strike to their nation’s infrastructure and economy.

They have a right to be worried given the saber rattling coming from the United States and Israel, highlighted by Panetta nonsensically contradicting himself on the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

I should point out, however, that he did not completely contradict himself, indeed he chose highly ambiguous language in order to do just that while still allowing for sensationalistic and alarmist headlines like “Panetta: Iran is one year away from producing nuclear weapon” coming out of Israel’s Haaretz.

When one actually reads the whole quote from his appearance on the CBS program “60 Minutes” it becomes quite clear that he is once again revealing the fact that Iran is not actually pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Panetta stated that,

“the consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon.”

Of course the key aspect of this statement is “if they decided to do it,” which clearly indicates that they have not actually decided to do it and thus are not developing a nuclear weapon, contrary to the impression you might get from the talking heads in the establishment media or the clueless politicians in the Republican primary field.

As the statement from Panetta highlights, they are not developing a nuclear bomb and thus are not in violation of anything at all, meaning that the West has no right to continue to exert pressure on them for pursuing the same exact technology as other developed nations.

The continued propaganda assault on Iran in the Western media is almost farcical to the point of hilarity, if it was not the case that so many are taking it seriously despite the irrefutable statements of Panetta.

It seems that many people are so convinced that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is developing one that they refuse to listen to facts and ultimately will never be convinced that they could ever be incorrect.

This is why I am worried that the IAEA’s visit will not bring about anything positive, since the IAEA, part of the globalist, anti-sovereignty, and unaccountable United Nations, has been pressured by the West to produce what Russia called a politicized report back in November.

At the time the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that,

“The authors [of the IAEA report] juggle the facts to create the impression that Iran’s nuclear program has a military component,” something which they say can “hardly be called professional and unbiased,” adding that this report might be leading towards “a dangerous confrontation.”

If the IAEA takes a similar unprofessional approach to their inspections during this visit, I expect things to only go from bad to worse.

The Iranians seem well aware of this, as highlighted by Iran’s parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, saying that the IAEA needs to conduct a “logical, professional and technical” job during their visit, or suffer the consequences.

He said if the IAEA turns into another tool for the West to put pressure on Iran (something which I would argue is already going on),

“Iran will have no choice but to consider a new framework in its ties with the agency.”

However, Larijani wouldn’t get more specific than that, leaving a lot of questions unanswered, just like cutting the oil exports to “some” countries does.

As always I must emphasize that I hope above all that I am completely wrong and none of this will boil over into a violent confrontation.