* 9/11
* Frimurare och illuminater
* Bilderbergare
* Nya Världsordningen
* Israel och Palestina
* Kriget i Irak
* USA
* Balibombningen
* Estonia
* Mordet på Anna Lindh
* Medicin och hälsa
* MindControl
* Chemtrail
* HAARP & Echelon
* EU

28.9.2006

Skrivet av: Ulf Sandmark
Partiledare EAP

Inom tre veckor kan världen stå i ett nytt världskrig utlöst av en amerikansk attack mot Iran. Det handlar inte om iranska kärnvapen. Bush/Cheney regimen vägrar att förhandla.

Det handlar om att synarkister bakom Bush/Cheney vill förstöra civilisationen. De vill eliminera nationalstaterna/välfärdssystemet och genomdriva sin globalisering. Brittiska regeringen, precis som den svenska, spelar ett annat spel. Man stöder globaliseringen precis som synarkisterna i USA. Man stöder regimförändringar i land efter land inklusive Iran, men man vill inte ta på sig skulden för kriget. Därför låter man USA gå in i kriget. De låter folkmordet ske, men vill låta USA få skulden.

Det är avgörande att alla hjälper till och stöder LaRouche och de amerikanska militärer som försöker väcka Kongressen med varningar om en attack mot Iran före amerikanska valet

White House Moves Ahead With Plans To Bomb Iran This is the warning issued by US military and intelligence critics of the Bush-Cheney perpetual war policy. High-level military experts in Washington, DC last week expressed tremendous alarm that Lyndon LaRouche's assessment of a Bush-Cheney strike on Iran in the near term, was confirmed by discussions and movements by the military.

LaRouche again stressed that Bush will make his move against Iran "without warning," without going to Congress, without going to the United Nations, and without consulting with US "allies." The most likely scenario, he said, is that Bush give an order for strikes against Iran from Offutt Air Base in Nebraska. Several indepth alerts were issued by critics of the Iraq war and imperial policy about what is going on regarding Iran:

* Writing for The Century Foundation, Retired Air Force Colonel Sam GARDINER warns that some in the Bush Administration are undeterred by concerns of active duty military leaders and are pushing forward for air strikes, not only against Iran's nuclear program, but also against the government itself, to "decapitate" the regime. Gardiner's report, about 25 pages, is called "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy.'"

* A lengthy article in the Sept. 21 issue of The Nation, called "War Signals," says that "The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major 'strike group' of ships ... to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's Western coast." The strike group includes the aircraft carrier Eisenhower, as well as a submarine escort. The Nation quotes Gardiner, and a number of other miltiary and intelligence officials, including 27-year CIA veteran analyst, Ray McGovern, who said, "This is very serious."

* In the American Conservative, former CIA official Phil GIRALDI also quotes a number of active military and policy sources as warning that the White House is pushing hard for war against Iran. Not surprisingly, the insane push for an Iran war comes precisely at the time that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made serious overtures for peace during his trip to the US and the United Nations.

LaRouche praised Ahmadinejad's conduct during the visit, adding that anyone who attacks him for this, is an enemy of peace and wants war. [sources: "Why Bush Will Nuke Iran", by Paul Craig Roberts, Sept.26, 2006, AntiWar.com; "U.S., Israel Ponder How to Slow IranianNuclear Weapons Development: Busting the Bomb", by David A.Fulghum and Douglas Barrie, aviationnow.com, 09/10/06; "NukingIran Is NOT Off the Table", by Jorge Hirsch, July 6, 2006,AntiWar.com] THE HOW, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, AND HOW OF THE PLANNEDU.S./ISRAELI NUCLEAR BOMBING OF IRAN. Paul Craig Roberts stateswith certainty that the "Bush administration will attack Iranwith tactical nuclear weapons".

Due to the administration'sfailures, Roberts argues, nuking Iran is the only way to ensureU.S./Israel hegemony in the Middle East. It has lost its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "coalition of the willing" hasdisassembled. Even, Roberts says, "the American puppet ruler of Pakistan", Pervez Musharraf, has come out publicly, while in theU.S., saying that his country was coerced by Assistant Secretaryof State Richard Armitage into joining the coalition. Armitagehas tried to deny his threat, but on Sept. 16, 2001, Dawn WireService had already printed: "Pakistan has the option to live inthe 21st century of the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officialsare putting their case." And, finally, why the U.S. must attack,Roberts claims, is because "Bush is incapable of recognizing hismistake. He can only escalate." Roberts asserts that the U.S. war doctrine now holds thattactical nuclear weapons entail rather little collateral damageyet alter the psychological climate and can scare the enemy intomeeting demands. And, Iran would not dare to retaliate.

Military analysts from Aviation Weekly, in "Busting theBomb", 09/10/06, come to the conclusion that Iran, with the helpof North Korea, has buried its critical nuclear facilities up to200 feet under alternating layers of earth and cement, out of thereach of conventional weapons. An Israeli missile specialist anda retired Israeli air force general, quoted, but unnamed, bothstate emphatically that conventional weapons can not penetratethat far. Lee Willett, head of the military capabilities programat the London-based Royal United Services Institute says,regarding Iran's claims that its nuclear program is for civilpurposes only, that "It appears weapons-oriented. Otherwise, whybury so much of it underground?"

Assuming Iran's intentions to make weapons, the articledevelops the rationale for a U.S./Israeli nuclear strike verysoon. How soon? Before weapons-grade material is produced and anuclear device is manufactured, since Iran, they say, already hascredible delivery systems in place. An unnamed, retired Israeli Air Force pilot and general warns that only research anddevelopment can be delayed. "Once they do have a [weapon], you no longer have the delay option. What can be done now can't be done a few years from now." An unnamed former Israeli diplomat: "Noone will join an [allied] coalition if Iran has a nuclearweapon.... We are approaching quite fast the point where we haveto postpone [Iran's nuclear development]...so the U.S. has tohave the backing of the majority of [the internationalcommunity]. Completing these steps now is important.

Even thoughEgypt and Saudi Arabia will publicly condemn any attack, they arepraying that the U.S. will do it." And, "[n]ot every nuclear-related site need be struck tohobble any nascent nuclear weapons program. The goal would be toselect a few choke points", maybe 4 of 40 facilities, or aminimum of 15 of as many as 70 Iranian nuclear sites. "As the system expands or changes over time, additional small-scaleattacks could further delay the [Iranian nuclear] effort,whenever it approaches a critical stage of development." Willet suggests that this procedure can continue until time,negotiations, sanctions, regime change, or just the aging of thepopulation would bring about the desired result. He opines,"Iran is potentially a short-term problem, if you look at thedemographic issues.

" Jorge Hirsch posits "The Real Reason for Nuking Iran" in his July 6, 2006, AntiWar.com article.
It is a problem for thechickenhawks that the use of nuclear weapons is just unthinkableto most people today, "confirming the nuclear hawks' worstnightmare: nuclear weapons are becoming unusable, and as aconsequence, they are not "credible" as a "deterrent"...."Indeed, a 2006 low-yield nuclear strike on...any Iranianunderground facility that causes relatively little "collateraldamage" will achieve the key objective: to make a U.S. "nucleardeterrent" against relatively minor nuisances {credible}.

" WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 26--GEN. WILLIAM ODOM CALLED FOR TALKSWITH IRAN, and urged Congress to use its power to impeach inorder to stop the next Cheney war with Iran, reported LYMorganizers who attended a special forum on the Iraq war heldtoday by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif), to which she invited otheranti-Iraq-war members of Congress. Gen. William Odom (Ret.), former head of the NationalSecurity Agency (NSA), said that there {is} a danger of thisadministration going to war against Iran. It is coming down theroad, Odom warned, and Congress must do something to stop it. Odom said that the Iraq war is the biggest military defeat forthe U.S. in its history, and a war against Iran will make Iraqpale in comparison. He said that the U.S. should be talking to Iran directly, and that the Iranian regime ``hates Al Qaeda'' andthe U.S. should be working with Iran against terrorism. When a member of Congress asked him what could be done aboutthe Administration plans, Odom asked back, doesn't the Congresshave the ability to impeach?

Later, Odom said this is the worstCongress he has even seen, because it hasn't challenged the Bush-Cheney regime. [source: Huffington Post online, September 23, 2006] GARY HART SAYS NEW "OCTOBER SURPRISE" IN IRAN INCLUDESREGIME CHANGE. Adding to the list of those who are warning of animminent attack on Iran, former Presidential candidate Gary Hartpenned an article for the Huffington Post last Friday, bluntlyentitled "The October Surprise." Actually, he says, it shouldcome as {no} surprise, considering that we "have anadministration that, if anything, is out to remake our nationalcharacter into something it has never been.

" The steps, he says,will be these: "Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned atstrategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps thePersian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, andcommando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps arealready being taken." The list of official targets is about "twodozen," but that will be only the beginning, because "the authorsof war in Iran have `regime change' on their minds," which wouldrequire hitting about 400 targets, with reference to the Gardinerreport. One of the reasons for the timing, he says, is because "theU.S. is poised to adopt a Congressional regime change of its ownin November.

" [Source: CQ Transcript] RICE SAYS GIVE SOLANA A LITTLE MORE TIME, BUT NOT MUCH. Inan interview with the {New York Times} editorial board, Secretaryof State Condoleezza Rice was asked if ``a deadline has nowpassed'' on Iran; and answered: ``What we are doing is to give alittle bit more scope to Javier Solana to see if he can find aformula by which the Iranians can agree to suspension, allowing,therefore, negotiations to begin. I frankly don't know if it willwork. Apparently, there is going to be a meeting. I hope it willwork because obviously, the best outcome here would be that thediscussions with Solana allow the Iranians to suspend, and thenwe can have comprehensive negotiations on their program andanything else that they'd like to bring up. ``You know, they have, several times, said that they -- orpeople have said, `Why don't you talk to the Iranians?' Well,here is a mechanism by which that could be done, because just asin the six-party [Korea] talks, there have been discussionswithin the context of the six-party talks. I would suspect, orexpect that if we ever get to negotiations with the Iranians,there would be similar opportunities there.

"So there's a lot at stake here. And it seems to us not tobe too much of a stretch if our European colleagues, andparticularly, Javier Solana, want to press this a little bitlonger. Now I don't think you can press it very much longerbecause at some point, and we're getting close to that point, thecredibility of a UN Security Council resolution becomes anissue.'' [Source: Washington Times online 9-26-06] WHITE HOUSE MOVES TO WRECK EU-IRAN NEGOTIATIONS DURINGCRUCIAL ``WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY'' FOR AGREEMENT. Even as CondiRice was pronouncing that the Bush Administration would giveIran's Ali Larijani and EU official Javier Solana ``only a littlemore time'' for their negotiations, the White House was moving tosabotage those negotiations and leave the way open towards war.In an article that appeared on the {Washington Times}' website Tuesday afternoon, author Bill Gertz wrote that an EU-Iranagreement was "imminent,'' but bluntly announced that it hadbeen leaked to him by White House officials seeking to stop theagreement. ``Officials opposed to the deal, who spoke oncondition of anonymity,'' disclosed to him, wrote Gertz, thedetails of an agreement "that could be completed tomorrow in Europe.''

Under the agreement, Iran would suspend its uraniumenrichment temporarily, allowing further negotiations to proceed, Gertz was told; but the "U.S. officials'' opposed any suspensionby Iran other than permanent, publicly announced renunciation ofthe nuclear fuel cycle. They did not want any agreement, hewrote, which ``would drag the United States into furthernegotiations with Iran.'' Gertz made clear that these officialswere acting, through the leak to him, because otherwise, ``Iranis close to an agreement that would include a suspension ... thatcould be completed this week.'' Lyndon LaRouche's comment was that what the White House wasgiving out was ``bullshit. Nuclear weapons have nothing to dowith it. They want World War III. They want to destroy Iran, period.

The want to destroy civilization, consciously." [source: LewRockwell.com, by Karen Kwiatkowski, "Are We Mice orMen?", September 25, 2006] THE INVASION OF IRAN "IS NOT ONLY PLANNED, BUT IS INDEEDUNDERWAY", ACCORDING TO LT. COL. KAREN KWAITKOWSKI (USAF, ret.)formerly of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. "Thechickenhawks are at it again. They may tragically succeed intheir quest, this time Operation Target Iran. Perhaps it wasalways Iran. Will we ever really know?...

"Evidence, plans and papers showing that the invasion ofIran, using Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, Turkey, Kurdistan,Iraqis and American soldiers and Marines...is indeed underway. Illegally underway." Kwiatkowski's article in LewRockwell.com, recalls aconversation with a Navy officer at the Pentagon in January 2003,where he related his assignment had been since the previousspring, "logistics to the Gulf. Boatloads of supplies moving intothe theater to support the Iraq invasion. Materials moving nearlya year in advance.

"This is, of course, one of the chief benefits of boutiquewars, wars of choice, wars directed by the powerful on the weak.These engagements must wait -- not for the materiel already movedby executive order -- but for an uninvolved, ill-informed, andunreasoning democratic public to be brought around." (Source:Abbas Bakhtiar, 23.09.06) IRANIAN AUTHOR DR. ABBAS BAKHTIAR HAS JOINED THOSE RAISINGTHE ALARM, WITH TWO MAJOR PIECES ON THE DANGER OF AN AMERICANATTACK ON IRAN. The first, "U.S. vs Iran -- Is An AttackInevitable?" appeared in {Scoop Independent News}, Aug. 28. Andthe second, an 80-page article, is entitled "U.S. vs Iran: HybridWar." The first goes through the policy background of theneocons' strategy for the region. The second article, amply documented, says the U.S. couldopt for a color revolution, an outright coup a la 1953, or forcedregime change, to put in a more acceptable government in Tehran.

Then he explores in great detail the military option, withvarious alternatives known to us. Regarding Iran's response, heprovides more information than has been generally available,starting with details on Iran's air force, its missile strength,etc. He reviews many of Iran's recent military maneuvers, showingthat they are all geared to a full mobilization in case ofattack. In conducting what Bakhtiar calls "hybrid war," Iran willuse its regular and irregular forces, for both a conventional warand asymmetric warfare. He reports that Iran has a regular armyof 350,000, for conventional warfare, plus 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), plus 100,000 Basij forces(volunteers). The army also has 350,000 reserves, and the Basijhave a reserve strength of up to 300,000.

According to one report cited, the Basij have 1.2 million men and women, plus 2million inactive militia members. Finally, there are the45-60,000 in the Interior Ministry serving as police and borderguards. Bakhtiar cites a Saudi National Security Assessment Project,to the effect that Iran has assets in the Iraqi government, inthe Prime Minister's office, other ministries, and thegovernorships with Shi'ite majorities. In a land version ofasymmetric war, he writes, Iran could mobilize fighting forcesinto Iraq, causing damage to the U.S.-U.K. forces, and disruptingtheir supply lines. Asymmetric war in the Persian Gulf wouldinvolve blocking the Straits of Hormuz. Bakhtiar notes that the IRGC has a separate navy with 20,000 men, with tethered mines,small, fast attack ships, and anti-ship missile systems.

"To clear the shores of these missiles, the U.S. has to invade thesouthern part of Iran. To clear the [30] islands, it has tooccupy them. To do these things, U.S. has to first clear theentire Persian Gulf of over 1,500 small IRGC vessels, requiring alarge assemblage of naval forces in the area; which incidentallywill have to pass through the Straits of Hormuz." In the event ofa blockade, the Chinese could use their own tankers for oil,creating a possible conflict with the U.S. If the Iranianobjectives include stopping the flow of oil, which Bakhtiarbelieves is the case, they could hit oil tankers and also oilwells and other facilities, using their missiles. Qatar, Bahrain,and Kuwait could thus be targetted, as hosting U.S. bases.

The article includes massive details on all the weaponryIran has. Iran, after the revolution, established its own armsproduction capabilities in the Defense Industry Organization andthe Aerospace Industries Organization, employing 35,000 and10,000 respectively. Bakhtiar sums up the Iranian strategy of hybrid warfare,saying they have been preparing for this since 1980. He says theyhave very carefully observed the U.S. experience in Afghanistanand Iraq. "Iran's recent military maneuvers have shown that thecountry, if attacked, intends to unleash one of the largestirregular armies ever seen.... If there is going to be anyfighting now, it is the IRGC that is going to be at the front in Afghanistan and Iraqi cities and towns. The conventional armywill be used in defensive position to protect the mainland." If,as he believes, Iran would respond to an air attack by sendingthe IRGC into both neighboring countries to fight the U.S.,

"The only option for the U.S. then is to try to invade Iran. But bythen its 190,000 troops will be busy fighting an asymmetric warwith the IRGC (+ Basij) forces and their allies in Iraq andAfghanistan." The other option is of course nuclear weapons. Iran could deploy chemical and biological weapons, he writes. If Iran attacked Israel, Israel would attack Syria. Syria, which has adefense pact with Iran, would be drawn in anyway. The article is an extremely useful presentation, in detail,of what the asymmetric warfare, which Lyn has forecast as the result of any neocon attack on Iran, would look like. End of report on plans for an attack against Iran