It is becoming painfully apparent that military conflict with Iran is on the cards. The drums of war are beating loudly and Government officials primarily from Israel, the US or the UK remind us that the country is a major exporter of terror and is making strides towards obtaining a nuclear weapon, on a daily basis.
With each day that passes sections of the mainstream media compound these unchallenged snippets and sound bites which swell into a crescendo of background noise that can easily indoctrinate the casual listener, drown out the voices of peace and shift public opinion dramatically.
A conflict with Iran has long been desired by those who seek to dominate the Middle East and control the region’s natural resources and sadly it looks increasingly likely that the strike will follow later this year. When it does occur, and whether the US or Israel initiates, it’s inevitable that here in the UK our Government will lend its political or even military support despite the mass loss of life and public anger that recent bloody conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan generated.
Right minded individuals do not wish to send their sons and daughters to die in conflicts in far away lands or pay for expensive military campaigns and therefore the drip-drip of subtle and not so subtle propaganda is required in order to create public support for action. The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan and the power of the Internet in its uncensored form has made it increasingly difficult for the powers that be to convince us that ‘kinetic actions’ or ‘humanitarian missions’ (aka wars) are in our best interests – and the warmongers know this.
With that in mind I think that the following quotes, taken from a 2009 report by a highly influential US think tank are worthy of examination. The report entitled ‘Which Path to Persia? (options for a New American Strategy toward Iran) from the Brookings Institution demonstrates that the US is well aware that an all-out attack on Iran would not be popular. It discusses underhand methods that could be adopted to change this scenario, to essentially trick the general public, and it certainly makes me look at the current wave of anti-Iran propaganda we are witnessing from a different perspective.
“…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.) ”
pages 84-85.
The same report would go on to say:
“In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”
Please follow this link to read the report in full for yourself
No, this comment is not representative of the Whitehouse but think tanks like the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission are extremely powerful in shaping its foreign policy and therefore their writings should be shared and understood. On its own website Brookings states that it is “proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.”
Only today our very own foreign secretary William Hague has made the bold statement that Iran’s nuclear ambitions could lead to a new ‘cold war’ scenario. This is despite the following facts…
- Last month, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.”
- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing – following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate in 2011 – that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”
- Mohamed ElBaradei – who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA – said that he had not “seen a shred of evidence” that Iran was pursuing the bomb.
- And six former ambassadors to Iran within the last decade say that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that Iran is complying with international law.
For an analysis of how these powerful think tanks and lobby groups interact in order to shape global affairs I would recommend the writings of Adrian Salbuchi, whom I link to in a previous piece entitled “Move to World Government.” What do you feel about today’s blogiquote in light of the increased pressure on Iran that we are witnessing? As always, your opinions and viewpoints are very much welcomed and appreciated.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/rights-group-says-libyas-militias-are-out-of-control/
Blogicalcomment: Western backed militia groups who assisted in the bloody overthrow of the Gaddafi regime have been accused of ‘committing human rights abuses with impunity.’
The insurgents, who were portrayed as freedom-fighting activists in the western media despite the admission that they contain “flickers of Al-Qaeda,’ are now ‘out of control according to a report from Amnesty International. The dossier states that detainees have been routinely tortured, migrants have been targeted and entire communities have been displaced in revenge attacks.
As commented in an earlier piece the policy of backing largely unknown insurgent groups to topple a dictator, while becoming increasingly popular, is a dangerous one. While we have seen that these Western backed groups can unite in a common cause, once the task at hand is complete it is more than predictable that these militiamen will commit human rights abuses of their own on those they fought against. For many the findings of this dossier do not come as a surprise.
Blogicalcomment: As highlighted in a previous piece, parts of the US are increasingly beginning to resemble a police state and this goes hand in hand with the rise of the electronic surveillance grid with methods that would not seem out of place in George Orwell’s 1984. But of course this shocking violation of civil liberties is all in the name of protecting the citizens from the dreaded Al-Qaeda bogeyman, isn’t it?
(Click on the links to read more)
http://www.naturalnews.com/034919_spy_drones_America_surveillance.html
Every Email & Phone Call to be Stored
Blogicalcomment: MI5 and MI6 will have access to every phone call and text message, email traffic and websites visited under anti-terror legislation to be introduced in May.
According to The Telegraph, landline and mobile phone companies and broadband providers will be ordered to store the data for a year and make it available to the security services under the scheme. The databases would not record the contents of calls, texts or emails but the numbers or email addresses of who they are sent and received by.
For the first time, the security services will have widespread access to information about who has been communicating with each other on social networking sites such as Facebook. Direct messages between subscribers to websites such as Twitter would also be stored, as well as communications between players in online video games.
The Telegraph reports that negotiations with internet companies commenced over the last two months. The plan has been drawn up on the advice of MI5, the home security service, MI6, which operates abroad, and GCHQ, the Government’s “listening post” responsible for monitoring communications.
Critics and civil liberties advocates are calling for mass opposition to the plans, noting that the scheme is open to abuse not only by spy agencies and communications companies themselves, but also by hackers and online criminals.
Providing some background on the recent the rise of UK surveillance, Steve Watson of infowars.com reports: Back in 2008, the government announced its intention to create a massive central database, gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited by everyone in the UK.
The programme, known as the “Interception Modernisation Programme”, would have allowed spy chiefs at GCHQ, the centre for Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities, to effectively place a “live tap” on every electronic communication in Britain in the name of preventing terrorism.
Following outcry over the announcement, the government suggested that it was scaling down the plans, with then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stating that there were “absolutely no plans for a single central store” of communications data.
However, as the “climbdown” was celebrated by civil liberties advocates and the plan was “replaced” by new laws requiring ISPs to store details of emails and internet telephony for just 12 months, fresh details emerged indicating the government was implementing a big brother spy system that far outstrips the original public announcement.
The London Times published leaked details of a secret mass internet surveillanceproject known as “Mastering the Internet” (MTI).
Costing hundreds of millions in public funds, the system continued to be implemented by GCHQ with the aid of American defence giant Lockheed Martin and British IT firm Detica, which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.
A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms attempted to fight back over the radical plans, describing the proposals as an unwarranted invasion of people’s privacy.
Currently, any interception of a communication in Britain must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank. Only individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations may be subject to surveillance.
If the GCHQ’s MTI project is completed, black-box probes would be placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing eavesdroppers to instantly monitor the communications of every person in the country without the need for a warrant.
In recent years we have witnessed the rapid rise of the surveillance grid and these latest proposals grant similar powers to the authorities as were stealthily passed under the US’s Patriot Act in the wake of 911. The White House anti-terror legislation allowed the feds massive domestic surveillance powers which fly in the face of traditional civil liberties which were protected by the Constitution.
from → Big Brother, Blogicomments, society, Terrorism