The Iran Factor in US Elections

Joel Skousen’s analysis of the role war with Iran will play in the coming election is a good example of higher-level thought with respect to the reality of politics in the US. According to Insiders, the war with Iran is a done deal, just like the "Downing Street Memo" confirms the Iraq invasion was decided a year before it actually happened. The only thing left to decide is the timing and the provocation used as a pretext.

This piece is from Skousen’s excellent weekly newsletter, “World Affairs Brief,” is just $48 a year delivered every Friday by email. I highly recommend it. http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com

THE IRAN FACTOR IN US ELECTIONS
Right now, the main concern of Americans is painfully high gas prices and the fast declining economy, which I will address later in the brief. No incumbent president or party can stay in office with this kind of public dissatisfaction--bordering on rage. The public will succumb to the hollow but populist promises for change coming from Barack Obama, a closet Marxist. Polls continue to show Obama outpacing McCain by large margins, despite the disadvantages of race. But war with Iran can change all that--for the worse. Even though war would cause gas prices to skyrocket even further, there is nothing that drives Americans to act more blindly and without thinking than the specter of having our troops attacked by another country. That appears to be what our globalist leaders are planning. However, it will make a big difference whether they pull this off before or after the election. That's what we will analyze this week.

In an interview this week with Dennis Wholley, insider and former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter's handler) talked openly about the coming war with Iran. He stated that either the US will justify such a war by some terrorist attack inside the US that can be blamed on Iran or that Israel would initiate a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear program, inducing an Iran retaliation against American forces in Iraq--knowing (as the Iranians do) that Israel would never attack Iran without a green light from the US. Iran's retaliation against US troops would, in turn, be used to justify the US attack on Iran.

We now have two deep insiders talking openly about this Iran provocation strategy that I have long predicted--Dick Cheney and Brzezinski. Even more surprising was Brzezinski's openness about discussing how likely this would be to happen prior to the election --which would "change the dynamics of the election and galvanize the American people" into a unified cry for vengeance against Iran--a warmonger's dream.

Brzezinski denied that he was formally associated with Obama's campaign as a foreign policy advisor, giving the lame excuse that "I have to be my own person," implying that advisors have to align themselves with the campaign positions taken by the candidate. Actually, it's the other way around. But he did admit to advising Obama on occasion and being an Obama supporter. I wonder.

In reality, Brzezinski is NOT being his own person nor a passionate Obama supporter. He is, above all, a globalist who has been positioning himself deceptively in opposition to the globalist Bush-Cheney policies so that he and others of "Team B" can control the rising anti-war opposition-represented by Obama. He is concealing his deeper involvement with the Obama campaign for a variety of reasons. 1) He is well into his 80s and will not be able to serve in a formal government capacity, and 2) His marching orders may require the flexibility to switch support to McCain if a war with Iran should serve to dump Obama at the last moment. In any case, Brzezinski is worth watching because he is one of those globalists who appears to switch sides in advance of a change in direction.

The Iran war could change the dynamics of the election in various ways depending on timing. If it comes as an "October surprise" (apt code name for the operation by the dark side of government which subverted Jimmy Carter's reelection by fomenting the Iran hostage crisis and bribing the Iranians not to release the hostages until Reagan was elected) before the election, it will be timed to derail the otherwise certain election of Democrat Barack Obama and reinstall another Republican war president. If the provocation by Israel and the US attack comes after the election while Bush is a lame duck, the events will give Obama (the presumed winner) the excuse to support the war, subvert the anti-war movement and bring all Americans into the patriotic fervor of another war to "protect our troops." Obama would also welcome the opportunity to convince Americans that he can be a forceful commander-in-chief.

In the Wall Street Journal's Review and Outlook column entitled, "Israel on the Iran Brink" it outlined the establishment position. Here are some excerpts with [my critique in brackets]:

"Israel isn't famous for welcoming public scrutiny of its most sensitive military plans. But we doubt Jerusalem officials were dismayed to see news of their recent air force exercises splashed over the front pages of the Western press. Those exercises -- reportedly involving about 100 fighters, tactical bombers, refueling planes and rescue helicopters -- were conducted about 900 miles west of Israel's shores in the Mediterranean [towards Cyprus]. Iran's nuclear facilities at Bushehr, Isfahan and Natanz all fall roughly within the same radius, albeit in the opposite direction. The point was not lost on Tehran, which promptly warned of 'strong blows' in the event of a pre-emptive Israeli attack.

"The more important question is whether the meaning of Israel's exercise registered in Western capitals. It's been six years since Iran's secret nuclear programs were publicly exposed, and Israel has more or less bided its time as the Bush Administration and Europe have pursued [token] diplomacy to induce Tehran to cease enriching uranium. It hasn't worked. Iran has rejected repeated offers of technical and economic assistance, most recently this month. Despite four years of pleading, the Administration has failed to win anything but weak U.N. sanctions.

"Russia [always playing both sides in its habitual commitment to Hegelian conflict creation] plans to sell advanced antiaircraft missiles to Iran and finish work on a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, though spent fuel from that reactor could eventually be diverted and reprocessed into weapons-usable plutonium. Chinese companies still invest in Iran while the U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly downplayed Iran's nuclear threat.

"As for the U.S., December's publication of a [purposely] misleading National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran had halted nuclear weaponization signaled America's own lack of seriousness toward Iranian ambitions [Not at all. This was a ploy to set up Iran for quick condemnation once the war begins by not having to prove it had a nuclear program. After the NIE all the US has to say is "oops--I guess they didn't shut down their nuclear weapons program after all"--with no actual proof they ever had one to begin with].

"Barack Obama is leading in the Presidential polls and portrays as a virtue his promise to negotiate with Iran 'without precondition' -- i.e., without insisting that Tehran stop enriching uranium [a precondition that insists on total capitulation of the other's position before talks destroys any need for those talks]. All the while Iran continues to enrich [very minor quantities], installing thousands of additional centrifuges of increasingly more sophisticated design while it buries key facilities underground.

"No wonder Israel is concluding that it will have to act on its own to prevent a nuclear Iran [It's more complex than that given that the US and Israel used their links to Pakistani nuclear smuggler Abdul Khan to give nuclear plans to Iran and others. Iran was being set up for a fall]. Earlier this month, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former army chief of staff, warned that 'if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack.' Other officials distanced themselves from those remarks, but September's one-shot raid on Syria's nuclear reactor ought to be proof of Israel's determination.

"An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites would of course look nothing like the Syrian operation. The distances are greater; the targets are hardened, defended and dispersed; hundreds of sorties and several days would be required. Iran would retaliate, with the help of Hezbollah and Hamas, possibly sparking a regional conflict as large as the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Mr. El Baradei predicted this weekend that such an attack would turn the Middle East into a 'ball of fire,' yet his own apologies for Iran and the West's diplomatic failures are responsible for bringing the region to this pass [hardly! This is a conflict the globalists want and are fomenting]. They have convinced the mullahs that the powers responsible for maintaining world order lack the will to stop Iran."

In reality, Russia is the one whispering in Iran's ear that the West doesn't have the will. In addition, the Russians are giving the Iranians the same false promises of military support they gave Saddam--making them overconfident. Russia intends to betray the Iranians just like they did Iraq for two purposes: 1) they get a front row seat bristling with electronic surveillance during the attacks on Iran to record all the intel they can about Israeli and American military tactics and their deployment of new weapons systems and countermeasures. 2) they allow the US to continue building their reputation as the "bully of the world" which will someday be used by Russia and China to excuse their own pre-emptive strike against America and its allies.

Yossi Melman, of the Left-wing Haaretz newspaper says "Israel is a long way from attacking Iran." Melman is projecting the Israeli establishment line of denial to keep Iran guessing. After referring to the public statements by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, Melman says these statements, "can be interpreted as 'preparing the ground' for the possibility that Israel will attack Iran. It is also correct that all the bodies dealing with the 'Iran case,' including the Mossad, Military Intelligence, Operations Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Israel Air Force and the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, are planning for the worst-case scenario." He excuses this as "their professional duty," and then adds that "one cannot conclude, as many have following a report in The New York Times (June 19) that an Israeli attack is certainly around the corner."

I disagree. It is going to happen--only the timing is being decided, as well as the provocation. Melman protests too loudly in his attempt to dissuade the Israeli public when he says, "Not only has such a decision not been made in any relevant forum in Israel - the question has not even been discussed." Nobody believes that. He also claims the "decision to attack Iran to foil its nuclear program is from Israel's point of view a last resort, and the chances of it happening depend on many variables." Again untrue. The decision has been made-the only variables are how to start the war and its timing.

Melman comments on US/Israeli cooperation in any future attack. "The most important variable is Israel's coordination with the United States. As has happened on a number of historic occasions - the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the two Lebanon wars and, most recently, the strike against Syria's nuclear reactor, Israel will not strike Iran without first coordinating its actions with the U.S. This could be a tacit understanding, a flashing yellow light, or a direct request for a green light. Such support is conditioned first and foremost on the question of who will occupy the White House come November." No, it does not. Both of the candidates are controlled, and we will have war either way.