by Tony Cartalucci

Contributing Writer

October 12, 2011
from ActivistPost Website

 

 

Federal Entrapment Snares Another Dupe and Brings Hundreds of Millions to The Brink of War

 

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.

 

Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.

 

(One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

This suggests that this option might benefit from being held in abeyance until such time as the Iranians made an appropriately provocative move, as they do from time to time. In that case, it would be less a determined policy to employ airstrikes and instead more of an opportunistic hope that Iran would provide the United States with the kind of provocation that would justify airstrikes.

 

However, that would mean that the use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran (even if it were Washington’s fervent preference), but merely an ancillary contingency to another option that would be the primary policy unless and until Iran provided the necessary pretext."

page 84-85 of "Which Path to Persia?" Brookings Institution, 2009.

 

Apparently, manufacturing such a "necessary pretext" to unilaterally bomb a nation of 70 million is now also a part of U.S. foreign policy toward Iran.

An oafish fabrication announced this week by Attorney General Eric Holder, consisted of an Iranian-American used-car salesman that "allegedly" attempted to hire an undercover U.S. DEA agent, posing as a Mexican Los Zetas gangster, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would add,

"nobody could make that up, right?"

Wrong.

The Fortune 500-funded U.S. policy think-tank, Brookings Institution, in 2009 made it quite clear that the U.S. would pursue its interests across the Middle East and would not tolerate a strong, assertive Iran standing in the way.

 

Brookings would acknowledge in their report, however, that Iran sought neither to confront the United States militarily, nor desired to provoke the West into attacking the Islamic Republic, and even declared that Iran's nuclear threat was more the deterrence it would present toward future U.S. acts of aggression rather than hyped claims of proliferation or unilateral first-strikes.

Many of the enumerated options explored in the Brookings report for destabilizing and overthrowing the Iranian government had already been in the process of being carried out even before the report was published in 2009.

 

This included funding, arming, and training U.S. State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization (#28 on the list), Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK.)

 

To date, covert support, weapons and funding have already made it into MEK's hands, and select members of the terrorist organization have even received specialized training on U.S. soil.

 

U.S. policy makers, after admitting MEK had the blood of U.S. soldiers and civilians on its hands and that it has "undeniably" conducted terrorist attacks, shockingly wants to remove it from the U.S. foreign terrorist organization list so that it can be worked with more closely in toppling the Iranian government.

Below, Brookings clearly authored this policy now being fully executed:

"Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations.

 

Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks - often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government.

 

For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001.

 

At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations."

page 117-118 of "Which Path to Persia?" Brookings Institution, 2009

While Attorney General Eric Holder feigns outrage over Iran's "alleged" role in an "alleged" bombing plot, and its violation of "international norms," it turns out that the U.S. has been in reality, carrying out just such a campaign of armed terror on Iranian soil for years.

 

Adding insult to injury, Eric Holder is currently under investigation for his role in running thousands of military-grade weapons over the U.S.-Mexican border, where they were used by mass-murdering drug gangs to terrorize people across Mexico and even to kill U.S. agents.

 

One might wonder how many "international norms" that has violated.

• That the current "alleged" plot pinned on Iran revolves around yet another undercover federal agency conducting a long-term sting operation defies belief.

   

• That we are expected to believe one of Iran's most elite military forces left such a sensitive, potentially war-starting operation to a used-car salesman and a drug gang reported in the papers daily for its involvement with U.S. government agencies (and who turns out to actually be undercover DEA agents) is so ridiculous it can only be "made up" as Secretary Clinton puts it.

More accurately, it is the result of an impotent U.S. intelligence community incapable of contriving anything more convincing in the face of an ever awakening American public, to bolster its morally destitute agenda.

 

The cartoonish nature of the plot and the arms' length even its proponents treat it with to maintain plausible deniability is indicative of a dangerously out of control ruling elite and an utterly incompetent, criminally insane government.

 

 

 

 

 

It might be noted that this is yet another example of a "terrorist plot" conjured up by federal agencies, hyped by politicians and the media, and leveraged to propel foreign and domestic policy the public and the world at large have already soundly rejected.

 

Two other notable examples include the Portland "Christmas Tree Bomber" used to terrorize the city into rejoining the FBI's Joint Terror Task Force, and the more recent "RC Plane Bomber" who was entrapped by FBI agents in order to keep the fraud that is the "War on Terror" alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Policy Toward Iran...

One-Way Ticket to War
by Tony Cartalucci

Contributing Writer

October 15, 2011

from ActivistPost Website

 

Policy Wonk Plays Dumb Over Role in Iranian Escalation    Note For those not familiar with the "Which Path to Persia?" report, more information can be found here, and part II here.

 

 

Kenneth Pollack helped literally co-author the blueprints for America's current policy toward Iran.

 

Titled, "Which Path to Persia?" and published in 2009 for the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, much of what was covered in the report had already gone operational before it hit the press.

 

This included,

• training, arming, and supporting terrorists within Iran

• sanctions

• U.S.-funded uprisings

• covert attempts to provoke Iran into war

While pundits in the media and politicians behind their podiums talk about "extending hands," "carrots and sticks," and other trite, and ultimately contrived policies the U.S. is supposedly pursuing in regards to Iran, there is in reality only Brookings' plan - and it leads only to war.

Recently, Pollack penned a column for the Daily Beast titled, "Iran’s Covert War Against the United States."

 

In it, Pollack, addressing a readership almost assuredly ignorant of his work on "Which Path to Persia?," claims that Iran appears to be irrationally wandering down a misguided path, waging what might be a "covert war" against America, highlighted by the contrived "Iran terror plot" targeting a Saudi ambassador.

 

Pollack, a former analyst for the CIA, seems to humor the recent allegations against Iran as plausible despite his own cautionary words regarding jumping to conclusions and despite the growing factual basis that exists to entirely dismiss the plot.

 

Additionally, Pollack's feigned astonishment over why Iran has been taking a tougher stance against the U.S. recently is a case study in duplicity, as he was one of the chief architects of the various provocations Washington has used to provoke Iran into such a stance.

 

Pollack's disingenuous editorial does however lend us some insight into the current mindset of the "Which Path to Persia?" co-authors, and ultimately into the mindset of those for whom the report was prepared for and who are eager for war.
 

"Which Path to Persia?"

Brookings Institution 2009

 

To understand American policy toward Iran, one must understand who the authors are of such policy and what their motivations are.

 

The Brookings Institution itself was created by and for the corporate-financier elite. It is a policy think-tank that represents the collective interests of the big oil corporations, banks, and military contractors that fund it. Quite obviously then, policy toward Iran, or any nation for that matter, from within the halls of the Brookings Institution will revolve around expanding the global financial, social, political, and military hegemony of its corporate sponsors.

Iran is a nation of 70 million, has a developed infrastructure, as well as a tremendous wealth in natural resources, including oil and natural gas.

 

A Western-dominated banking system lording over 70 million people, telecommunications companies supplying services to this vast population, and the immense consumerist troughs that could be laid out before these people alone serves as a compelling incentive to attempt to domineer Iran.

 

War against such a nation would be a trillion dollar endeavor, utterly bankrupting the American people, but enriching the military-industrial complex beyond imagination.

Of course, construction firms such as war-profiteering Halliburton and Bechtel would make fortunes rebuilding amidst the destruction of such a vast nation - as untold of billions have already been made by these same corporations in Iraq, a nation with but a fraction of the land area and population of Iran. Iran's oil fields flowing once again into the tankers, pipelines, and coffers of Anglo-American oil companies also serves as an attractive incentive, as do the geopolitical implications.

China would be essentially dependent entirely on oil controlled by the Wall Street-London "international order," as would all nations.

 

The development of the modern nation-state is dependent on energy. By controlling access to energy, one controls the development of nations. While many analysts suggest the continental United States contains enough energy to meet America's needs for the foreseeable future, tapping into this supply and abandoning holdings overseas would catapult the developing world into direct competition with America on almost every front.

 

It would also allow nation-states worldwide to defend themselves against what has essentially been a free reign of financial piracy perpetrated by the,

• International Monetary Fund

• World Bank

• other Western contrived "international institutions" used to manipulate and exploit the planet
   

Just some of Brookings Institution's corporate & institutional financial sponsors.

For the full list (below images) please see Brookings' 2010 annual report, page 19.

It should be noted that many of the managing directors, chairmen, and CEOs

of these corporations also populate Brookings' Board of Directors producing a conflict of interests

of monstrous proportions. Boycotting these corporations is an absolute necessity

for anyone seriously interested in stopping the global corporate-financier elite's agenda.

 

 

With this in mind, it is quite clear why the corporate-financier interests that fund Brookings have thrown their support behind executing the recommendations made in "Which Path to Persia?" and continue marching the United States ever closer to war with Iran.

 

The report itself, most likely never intended to reach the American public on a large scale, and using language and length inaccessible to the average "bread and circus" crowds, fully acknowledges that Iran's leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The report also notes that Iran would use its nuclear weapons only as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities.

 

Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists."

 

The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of the report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter U.S. influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran's national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests.

 

The report also acknowledges on multiple occasions that Iran is not looking to provoke the West, and that the West, or Israel would have to proactively work to provoke Iran into war instead.

In one breathtaking quote, the Brookings report states in regards to initiating a large scale airstrike against Iran:

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.

 

Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.

 

(One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)"

This quote alone, not to mention the entire content of this report, compiled by some of America's most prolific policy makers and funded by America's largest corporations and banks, demonstratively executed over the past several years, makes everything that follows regarding the sanctions, covert military operations, U.S.-funded uprisings, U.S.-funded terrorism via the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and now these most recent, entirely contrived allegations regarding a supposed "bombing plot," all unjustified acts of war on America's behalf.

 

The reckless self-serving nature of this gambit puts in danger the lives of hundreds of millions of people as these craven megalomaniacs edge us ever closer to war with Iran.

Pollack, in his Daily Beast op-ed, seems to almost relish the converging paths bringing us closer to war. While he fills his editorial with disclaimers regarding the believability of the recent Iranian plot allegations, his infinite duplicity is exhibited by omitting the role he has played in developing policy designed to purposefully provoke a war with Iran it had actively sought to avoid.

 

Should readers know this, they would not only dismiss him as a meddling, treasonous, warmonger, but dismiss the latest allegations against Iran as yet another contrived attempt to stoke the fires of war.

Readers need to take a good look at Brookings' sponsors. These are the people conspiring to send your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers off to war. These are the people that intend to bleed you dry financially as you pay them to wage a war you neither want nor will benefit from.

 

These are the ones that will ultimately profit while both America and Iran suffers immeasurably.

These corporations need to be put out of business, and instead of wringing our hands and hoping for salvation from our clearly compromised, corporate-fascist government, we can begin today by boycotting these corporations and putting our money instead into local businesses, entrepreneurship, and solutions that benefit we the people.

 

Even just beginning to boycott them, cutting back in our daily life and working toward the eventual goal of complete local self-sufficiency will scale down both the reach and ambitions of these corporations. It will also spur change within, as sagging profits motivate individuals within these corporations to abandon those advocating exploitative, parasitic agendas and business models.

We can speak up to expose the fraud, speak out to stop the war, but it is essential, above all, to begin changing the balance of power that has allowed for our nation to be led to the edge of such a precipice in the first place.