Israel Sinks Its Hooks into the White House

Recession: With or Without War?

My recent glimmer of optimism about possibly avoiding war with Iran was snuffed in a recent article by Gary North. First he summarizes "the good news" -- "there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy [and food]."

Then he repeats his earlier warning that if Israel attacks Iran, the economic news will rapidly get worse. (The head of OPEC recently warned global oil prices would be "unlimited" in case of a war.)

North says all signs point to an upcoming Israeli air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear production facilities. Decision-makers in the US and Western Europe have not made it clear that they will impose significant negative sanctions on Israel after an attack on Iran; therefore, they have given Israel an "implied green light" concerning an attack. Since the Israelis perceive Iranian nuclear weapons as a threat to their survival, they are likely to attack.

Absence such sanctions, the only thing stopping Israel is the perception that the aftermath of their attack would be the negative fallout of the collapse of the Western economy that buys Israeli goods. He suggests you include this very real possibility in your financial planning. So do I.

The Huffington Post ran a guide to understanding the two bipartisan resolutions that Congress will probably vote on this week. These are tantamount to declaring war on Iran, threatening naval and air blockade if Iran doesn't adhere to American wishes. These resolutions "are based on factual errors, exaggerations, half-truths, and even outright lies." Even though the effort may seem insignificant, you should still contact your Representative and Senators to register your opposition to these resolutions.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank has lost all credibility around the world. The IMF will soon begin an audit of the US financial system, releasing a report by 2010. Soon the criminal, deceptive financial practices that have flourished in the 27 years since Richard Nixon repudiated the last vestiges of the gold standard will be laid bare for all to see.

I see more dire financial forecasts than I can possibly list. If you still believe the spinmeisters from the Fed and Treasury and the talking heads in the financial press that we're about to turn the corner financially, you need to read more. Richard Daughty ("The Mogambo Guru") says "Banks are Suffering from their Own Stupidity." And so will we. The Boston Globe reports that 401(k)s and IRA are eroding in value due to soaring energy prices and the meltdown in financial stocks.

The Inflation Fuse Has Been Lit, says analyst Larry Edelson. The famed Aden Sisters point out the the boom in gold, silver and commodities foretold massive global inflation, and that it should be with us for some time to come.

If you haven't yet bought any gold or silver and moved out of stocks and bonds, do it now. Even in the traditional summer slump, gold is up almost $100 from its recent low. I'd advise staying away from any of the gold or silver ETFs, though. I've seen persuasive evidence that they are likely being used not only to suppress the price of the metals through short-selling, but also may not have the actual reserves they claim to have. Take delivery. Jim Sinclair even suggests you take physical delivery of the stock shares you plan to hold. The likely breakdown in the financial system could tie up your shares for years, IF you are even able to get them.

Unlike previous inflations, global competition for wages on anything that is transportable, has capped most wages. Layoffs and slack demand may even be driving wages down. Rising prices for food, fuel and other necessities, coupled with steady or falling wages and unemployment, can only make the recession deeper.

Historically, all empires end. The US empire is no exception. The indications are everywhere. In Jeff Foxworthy's style, here's a handy list of 36 signs the US empire is crumbling.

On a lighter note, be sure to take a few moments to savor these spectacular photos of Antarctic icebergs. God's world is beautiful. We shouldn't mess it up.

Act Now to Stop the War Against Iran

If you limit your news sources to the Lame Stream Media, you probably don’t realize how hard the NeoCons and Israel Lobby are pushing war with Iran. Former CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern makes a strong case that the US and Israel are gearing up to attack Iran before Cheney-Bush leave power in January. Read it here and see what you think. Pat Buchanan points out that the American people are not even being included in the debate.

Also, read today’s previous post, an article by Joel Skousen on “The Iran Factor in US Elections.” He quotes Insiders saying the Iran war is a done deal, with only the timing and provocation still to be decided. With the ostensibly (but not really) anti-war Obama leading McCain in the polls, the NeoCons need this war to keep the Republicans in power.

The Senate Intelligence Committee in early June concluded in an under-reported study that Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld et al. continually made their case for the Iraq war with intelligence that was “unsubstantiated, contradicted or even non-existent” leading the American people that the Iraq threat “was much greater than existed.” The same people, using the same techniques, are being used to scare Americans into attacking Iran. You’ve got to read McGovern’s article to see how near we are to war.

The difference this time is that no one is claiming that a war with Iran will be a “cakewalk,” and no one believes we will be greeted as liberators. As McGovern says: “Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared. The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.”

A number of scenarios about the consequences of a war with Iran, such as this and this from the Christian Science Monitor, ought to make even the most ardent hawk re-think this insane idea. Some even think an Iranian attack might trigger the “Sampson Option” for Bush, making the Middle East a trigger for World War III.

In an article about the current covert operations designed to destabilize Iran, Seymour Hersh quotes Defense Secretary Gates that if the Bush Administration stages a preemptive strike on Iran, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.”

Please watch the video of Ron Paul’s warning about the proposed Iranian attack in Congress on June 26. He summarizes the war-like actions toward Iran that the US would take if Rep. Gary Ackerman’s (D-NY) House Joint Resolution 362 is passed and enacted by the Congress after the July 4th recess. The resulting naval blockade will likely trigger a war. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) introduced a similar Resolution 580 in the Senate.

These resolutions are a top priority of AIPAC and are eerily reminiscent of the plan enacted by FDR in 1940 that provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, triggering our entry into World War II.

If you want higher oil prices, more inflation, more recession, more unemployment, more loss of world reputation, more police state measures at home, more military deaths and maimings, then you’ll like this war.

If you are against this new war, you must call your Congressman and Senator and register your opposition. And if you think that surely this can’t be happening because the Democrats control Congress, and they were given a majority in 2006 because they would stop the war, then you are sadly mistaken. Notice both authors are Democrats. And Ron Paul recently revealed how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2006 spiked a provision from a spending bill that would require a vote by Congress before the President could attack Iran. She did it at the behest of Israeli leadership and AIPAC.

You can see if your Congressional Rep is a cosponsor here, and if your Senator is, here. Notice the long list of Democrat co-sponsors. Not very anti-war, are they? That shows why the Israeli lobby is probably the most powerful in Washington. Unfortunately, Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, John Sullivan, Mary Fallin and Frank Lucas are cosponsors. To their credit (at the time of this posting) not listed as co-sponsors are: Tom Cole, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn.

Please call your Congressman and Senator and register your opposition this week. You can also easily send and email by going to this site.

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.