"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." (Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574)

Monday, 2 August 2010




By Gordon Duff

This week, the last piece fell into place. The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Science, heavy on politics and light on science, announced that America was no longer able to track nukes threatening our shores. Their report titled Nuclear Forensics: A Capability at Risk, released last week, outlines the details of a secret study requested by the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense and Energy, specifically the National Nuclear Security Administration. The gist of the story is easy, if a nuke goes off in America, dirty nuke in Times Square, one in a container at a port, anywhere, America won’t be able to tell who made it. Not a word of the report is true. It is wild speculation and disinformation written in broad language with no hard science, written for a reason.

A powerful group within the United States, one with influence over the press and the ability to derail an investigation as was done with 9/11, has been “tasked” with laying the groundwork for a terrorist attack on America, one using nuclear material. This report, unneeded, and highly inaccurate was printed in the New York Times to provide “cover.” It isn’t just this report, the pieces are falling together around the world. The Wiki-Leaks story, pre staging Pakistan’s ISI as a terrorist organization, a story built out of almost no information but fleshed out with massive speculation by “operatives” in the press is part of the process.

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 allows, “in case of a terrorist attack” for the president to declare marshal law, disband congress and rule by executive decree. With the suspension of habeas corpus by the Military Commissions act, also in 2006, America as we know it officially comes to an end the second a weapon of mass destruction in used. Only then will America learn who has been pulling the strings all along, who is scripting Wolf Blitzer and Glen Beck.

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attacks on Pakistan, made from New Delhi last week, seen by most as a serious political blunder, are part of the narrative. We will get to more background on a younger David Cameron later.

Another piece of the puzzle involved a federal task force, Defense, Energy, FBI, descending on a warehouse in Greenfield, Indiana under the guise of a “records search.” This “Waco style” assault on a facility storing furniture for college dorm rooms was much more than it seemed. No case, criminal or civil, provided any underlying reason for the search.

Further, the bizarre tale of rumored missing nukes, illegally transported on a B-52 from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, a major Defense Department scandal, is meant to create, not only fear and doubt, but “plausible deniability” if a weapon is exploded inside the US. These, however, are not, by far, the only missing nuclear weapons America has to fear as we will get into later.

Two recent attacks, the “Times Square Fizzler” and the Detroit “Crotch Bomber” were both amateurish affairs except for a couple of things. Both perpetrators had strong ties to Israeli organizations, one actually employed by an Israeli-American financial firm, the other the son of Israel’s primary partner in their defense industry complex in Nigeria. None of this was reported or investigated once discovered. It was shoved under the rug immediately. When cursory investigations of both suspects showed travel histories only possible with significant help from an intelligence agency, both stories disappeared from the news entirely. It is as though everyone involved vanished from the face of the earth like the second person arrested in Detroit or the “well dressed Indian” who aided the “Crotch Bomber” onto the plane in Amsterdam.


Conservative interpretations of Jewish law, currently being used to justify resettlement of Palestinians and even total removal of all non-Jews from greater Palestine and adjacent areas have long been used to justify acts such as the attack on the USS Liberty, bombings of US facilities in Egypt and, less openly, “false flag” terror attacks attributed to Muslims but performed by Israeli security forces. Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, seen as the ethical conscience behind the Netanyahu government have taken the following position as reported by Jonathan Cook:


“In the 230-page book, Shapira and his co-author, Rabbi Yosef Elitzur (The King’s Torah,currently Israel’s best selling book) argue that Jewish law permits the killing of non-Jews in a wide variety of circumstances. They write that Jews have the right to kill Gentiles in any situation in which “a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives” even if the Gentile is “not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”.

The book sanctions the killing of non-Jewish children and babies: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

The rabbis suggest that harming the children of non-Jewish leaders is justified if it is likely to bring pressure to bear on them to change policy. The authors also advocate committing “cruel deeds to create the proper balance of terror” and treating all members of an “enemy nation” as targets for retaliation, even if they are not directly participating in hostile activities.” (false flag terrorism)

This rationale allows deadly force to be used against Christians if their deaths advance the cause of Israeli security even if only through economic profit. Thus, if an attack such as 9/11 were to lead to America fighting wars against enemies of Israel or if, as in Afghanistan, Israeli companies were to profit from weapons or narcotics sales, any deaths of gentiles, no matter how innocent, would be justified by Jewish law as stated in the Torah.

Were an attack on the United States to bring that country to war against Iran, even if that attack were perpetrated by Israelis, it would be legal according to Israeli law, the same law being relied upon for justice in the attack on the Mavi Marmara.

More often however, attacks on Israel itself are believed to have been staged, not only to instill the population with fear and rage but to continue the “holocaust” tradition of Jewish victimhood as a justification for policies that have led to 62 vetoes in the United Nations by the US, vetoes against sanctions imposed against Israel for violations of international law.

We expect increased attacks on Israel, quickly tied to Hezbollah and Iran, attacks that will either involve no casualties or the deaths of either foreign workers or Russian emigres. This pattern has been used repeatedly, such as the March 18 “attack” killing a lone Thai ”guest” worker time to coincide with the visit of the European Union’s high commissioner for security, Catherine Ashton, a critic of Israel’s apartheid policy in Gaza.

On a side note, 400 children of “guest workers” are being expelled from Israel this week. Eventually all will be expelled, guilty of destroying “the Jewish character” through lack of “racial purity.”

When the US and Israel released Sharam Amiri, alleged Iranian nuclear scientist, we learned one thing. There is an inventory of Muslims, perhaps arrested, perhaps kidnapped, maybe lured into custody, rendition, imprisonment or “cold storage,” whatever you want to call it. Each one has an elaborate “legend” built around them, describing them as a “lone gunman” or “terrorist mastermind.” This is the group that will supply the names and photographs we will see after the next terror attack.

As Wayne Madsen described to us this week, this was the process the CIA and Mossad used to create Osama bin Laden from nothing. The organization we know of as Al Qaeda is, in itself, a false creation, an invention initially to serve as terrorist when we needed them and as enemies when we needed them too:

“Press clips gathered by the CIA and discovered in the National Archives’ stored CIA files point to an agency keenly interested in any leaks about the highly-classified CIA-Mossad program to establish Osama Bin Laden and the most radical elements of the Afghan Mujahidin as the primary leaders of the anti-Soviet rebels in the 1980s.

WMR [Wayne Madsen Report] has pored through the CIA files and a complicated picture emerges of America’s and Israel’s top intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia, establishing financial links and carve out intelligence programs to provide manpower and financial support to Bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan. It was these very elements that later created the so-called “Al Qaeda,” which the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook described as nothing more than a “database” of CIA front organizations, financial supporters, and field operatives. However, one component omitted by Cook in the Al Qaeda construct is the Israeli participation.”

A pattern of evidence is emerging that “cold storage” dupes and CIA/Mossad nurtured organizations may have had a hand in, not only the Mumbai attacks but the London and Madrid bombings as well. Additional trails are leading to attacks on American troops inside Iraq and Afghanistan and against security forces inside Pakistan, particularly against Pakistan’s ISI, primary target of press stories on the recent Wiki-Leak.


VELA satellites: Detect signatures of nuclear explosions

There are two reasons to attack America’s “forensic capabilities” when it comes to nuclear weapons. A leak the press chose not to cover, one bringing Israel under scrutiny for egregious violations of international treaties on Nuclear Proliferation, treaties Israel has never signed, were brought to the surface recently. Back on September 22 1979, Israel and South Africa tested a nuclear device, an 18.2 kiloton bomb. This test in a remote area of the Indian Ocean was detected by America’s VELA satellite system and confirmed by acoustic sensors. A forensic signature of this weapon was developed, not only through optics but through particle emissions. When an identical weapon was detonated by North Korea on May 25, 2009, a question was raised. How did a nuclear weapon built by Armscor, an Israel company operating in South Africa, end up in North Korea?

This is the story of the “Tory nukes,” nuclear weapons purchased by Margaret Thatcher in 1991 from South Africa under a secret authorization describing the weapons as “cylinders.” Those involved in putting this bombs into special containers, transporting them to Durban and then off to a container storage facility in Oman from which they disappeared are now filling volumes. When the weapons containers which had laid unguarded for months in a container yard in Oman were forwarded to the United States for dis-assembly in accordance with treaty requirements, only concrete blocks were found. The disappearance has been directly tied to two arms traders who ran illegal trafficking for Israel and South Africa during the Iran-Iraq War.

The accused were business partners in the “Ollie North era” Reagan hijinks known as Iran Contra. The “thieves” were connected to the highest levels of, not only Israeli intelligence but the CIA as well.

Israel says Saddam stole the weapons.

As late as 2003, Tony Blair used this “tale” to back what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg calls “the illegal invasion of Iraq.” Blair had financial incentives to back the invasion, several million of them, as secret letters leaked to the press but never printed have shown.


Back in 1990, a very young David Cameron, later to become Prime Minister David Cameron, was offered a free trip to South Africa, paid for by Israeli owned Armscor, a nuclear weapons manufacturer. Cameron was supposedly working with Dr. David Kelly investigating weapons of mass destruction in South Africa. In fact something much different was going on. On January 16, 2005, Tim Shipman, Defense Editor of the Sunday Express released the following story, one never reported in US papers. Today, Dr. David Kelly is dead, clearly murdered because of what he knew and David Cameron is in India carefully reading from a script written in Tel Aviv. This is the 2005 story from the Express:


Dr. David Kelly, the weapons expert who died in mysterious circumstances after the Iraq war, may have been about to reveal alarming details concerning missing nuclear weapons. Sources familiar with Dr Kelly’s work with South Africa’s security services say he also knew damaging details of how nuclear weapons decommissioned by South Africa were lost in the Middle East in 1991……..

Informed experts who have contacted the Sunday Express claim the missing nuclear weapons found their way to Iraq. The claims raise new questions about the extent of Dr Kelly’s knowledge of British security secrets, which some insiders believe may have contributed to his death. Some believe he may have been silenced to prevent him revealing more secrets to the media. The South African weapons allegedly went missing in Oman on their way to be decommissioned in the US and may have then been smuggled to Iraq. A source claimed: “Dr Kelly knew about the South African nukes because he worked for research facilities there.

Over the last year intelligence sources in both Britain and America have told journalists they believe that whatever Doomsday arsenal Saddam Hussein had accumulated before the second Gulf War was smuggled into Syria before the Spring 2003 invasion.

Last month the Sunday Express revealed that MI5 investigators looking for details of Dr Kelly’s involvement with the South African government, seized his laptop computers after he died. The coroner charged with investigating the Government scientist’s death has said he will not reopen the case.”

While British and American troops stormed across Iraq in 2003, searching for these missing nukes, defense experts now fear they had been in Israeli hands all along, a secret Dr. David Kelly was no longer willing to keep, one that led to his death. The missing containers may easily have been transferred to the Netherlands, Nigeria or even the United States, perhaps even Indiana or Toledo as is now rumored. British police have raided the homes of many involved in the missing weapons, seizing computers, personal papers and “frightening the hell out of people.” Some of those terrorized are scheduled witnesses for the Iraq War inquiry.


This summer, Turkey and Brazil negotiated a deal with Iran to remove any nuclear fuel that could be used for weapons development. It was exactly what everyone had been asking for. President Obama ignored it and pushed for sanctions demanded by Israel. Russia cancelled the sale of an S300 air defense system to Iran and voted to back sanctions against its ally, Iran also. The relationship between Tel Aviv and the Russian oligarchs, seen so clearly during the Jonathan Pollard spy scandal, had reappeared for public again though no news organization picked any of this up.

With secret Israeli bases, believed used for transit of narcotics from Afghanistan, ringing Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and other nations in the region, and US supplies and munitions in place or being delivered through Black Sea ports, only American public opinion is holding up an attack on Iran, despite the fact that Iran’s president Ahmadinejad has requested an immediate conference with President Obama to “settle outstanding issues.”


Even though Iran is isolated, even from its Islamic neighbors, it has a substantial defensive capability. Iran can quickly destroy all gulf region oil production facilities and close off shipping to that region, an act likely to collapse all western economies in days. Militarily, however, Iran is unable to defend itself against the vast technological superiority of the United States. However, after a decade of wars with Iraq remaining, not only unstable but increasingly so, and the United States facing defeat in Afghanistan, the American people are unlikely to want to begin a new conflict, especially with an adversary much more powerful than either Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel as the only ally, a country the United States has no mutual defense treaty with and no ability to sustain conflict beyond its own immediate borders for more than 48 hours.

Earlier this year, Israeli military historian Dr. Martin Van Creveld announced Israel’s “King Torah” policy toward the “gentile nations:”

“We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital…most European capitals would become preferred targets for the Israeli air force.”

The legal justification for a nuclear attack is in place, part of Israeli law. The will to do so is there if such an attack can be pulled off and few doubt Israel’s ability who have seen the power of the Israeli lobby in Washington and have spoken of their control of the press, such as with the recent media castration of director Oliver Stone.

The tools are in place. Israel is believed to possess two Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons, weapons that can be used freely because the media is ready to claim them to be “stolen” by Muslims if told to do so. The third weapon was exploded by North Korea with the media blackout leaving Israel as the only possible source for this weapon. No nation has the power to black out a leak like that one, not a leak that exposes Israel as a rogue arms dealer, first to apartheid South Africa, then Libya and both Iraq and Iran during their war and finally North Korea.

The ground is prepared, America is now stripped of “forensic” ability to track nuclear explosions, so the cover story tells us. Israel still threatens the world with the missing nukes, weapons reason tells us they control. Any container in any port, any truck, any warehouse could hide these weapons, anywhere in the United States.

When it happens, the vast majority of Americans will find the trail left, Pakistanis, Iranians, all as planned. They will immediately call for the destruction of the Islamic world as is intended by Israel. The internet will be shut down, congress sent home and anyone mentioning that only Israel profits and that only Israel could have done it will be imprisoned, as intended.

They learned from 9/11. Too many questions were asked. They won’t make the same mistake again.

America’s man with a plan for Iran

The highest-ranking US military officer says America has a plan for thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while admitting that such a strike would “endanger the security of the region.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, turned up the temperature in the Middle East several degrees when he told a US news program that America has a military plan for engaging Iran, while adding that he hoped “we don’t get to that.”

Mullen was asked by NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the US military has a devised plan for confronting Iran over its alleged nuclear weapon’s program. “We do,” Mullen replied. Yet Washington’s leading military adviser held out strong reservations over implementing such a move: “I hope we don’t get to that, but it’s an important option and it’s one that’s well understood.”

Previously, it had been standard protocol for US military leaders to only hint at the possibility of a full-blown attack, stating diplomatically for example that “all the options are on the table,” rather specifically mentioning the last-resort military option.

Explicitly mentioning a military response to Iran’s ongoing nuclear program, which Tehran claims is solely for civilian energy purposes, falls short of Obama’s noble pledge to “sit down and talk” with America’s enemies, as opposed to relying on the last-resort option of military action that largely defined the Bush years.

As things now stand, the world continues to hold its breath, hoping the latest round of economic sanctions against Iran will compel the Islamic Republic to fully co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In June, the United Nations imposed the harshest round of sanctions on Iran yet, targeting Iranian banks and export businesses; the EU and the United States unilaterally moved to block oil and gas investment in the country. But Iran shows no sign of backing down.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone on record as saying the latest round of economic sanctions will have no effect on Iran, as it is his country’s “right to pursue renewable technologies, like other nations in the world.”

Yet, as the Russian president confirmed recently, Iran is not simply interested in the energy needs of its population.

Last month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned the world that Iran is "moving closer" to having the potential to create nuclear weapons.

"Iran is moving closer to possessing the potential which in principle could be used for the creation of nuclear weapons," President Medvedev told a meeting of ambassadors in Moscow.
What price military action?

Commencing a military operation against Iran would open a hornets’ nest of grave problems in the Middle East, as Admiral Mullen was quick to mention.

Without elaborating on the details of the plan, Mullen warned that such an attack would have “unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world.”

This was not the first time that Obama’s leading military advisor provided slightly ambiguous comments as to how America would respond to the threat of Iran possibly joining the nuclear club.

In February, during a news conference at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Mullen said he was opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, while repeating his warning of the “unintended consequences” of a military strike.

“From a policy standpoint, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, [or] nuclear capability,” Mullen said, before adding a significant caveat: “I’ve also been clear, them getting a weapon and/or the outbreak of a conflict would be a big, big problem for all of us. And I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike that are pretty hard to be specific about, in a pretty volatile region that’s pretty hard to predict.”

Indeed, even the suggestion of a military attack was greeted in Tehran with hostility and saber-rattling.

"If the Americans make the slightest mistake, the security of the region will be endangered. Security in the Persian Gulf should be for all or none," Yadollah Javani, the deputy head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the official IRNA news agency on Sunday.

"The Persian Gulf is a strategic region and if it is endangered they (Americans) will suffer losses and our response will be firm,” Javani added. "We will defend ourselves if America or Israel resort to any hostile measures against our vital values."

Also on Sunday, Iran's envoy to the United Nations warned that the Islamic Republic would set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel attacks it.

"If the Zionist regime commits the slightest aggression against Iranian soil, we will set the entire war front and Tel Aviv on fire," Mohammad Khazai said, as quoted by Kashmar, the Farhang-e Ashti daily.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Ahmadinejad made an impassioned plea to Barack Obama, challenging him on Monday to a televised debate to determine who has the best solutions for the world's problems.

"Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (UN) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr Obama, in front of the media of course," Ahmadinejad told a conference of Iranian expatriates in Tehran. "We will offer our solutions for world issues to see whose solutions are better.”

The proposal by Ahmadinejad is an interesting one, especially since Barack Obama regularly pledged during his presidential campaign to “sit down and talk” with America’s enemies, as opposed to implementing the “option of last resort” more popular with the neocon hawks of the Bush presidency.

Yet in the unlikely event that such a debate would occur (which could possibly attract better television ratings than the World Cup), there are several nagging factors that Ahmadinejad would use to his possible advantage, including the assertion that Israel has a nuclear weapons capability.

Analysts are practically unanimous in the belief that Israel has no less than 200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, including submarine-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Iran’s predictable counterargument is one commonly heard in any school playground: “why is he allowed to do that, but we are not?” A very simple question that has no simple answer, at least not one that will be acceptable to Tehran in any case.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic firmly believes, especially with the anticlimactic demise of Iraq next door, that it is an influential regional power that should not be restrained from developing its nuclear capabilities. After all, there are already nine nuclear powers on the planet, Tehran argues, including punchy Pakistan, which borders Iran in the southern part of the country.

In light of these and other factors, which place Washington in an extremely awkward position when it comes to lecturing Iran about its own nuclear developments, it is more understandable why Obama has become the international spokesman for a “world without nuclear weapons.”

Such an ambitious platform, forwarded by none other than the Nobel Peace Prize winner, gives the United States more of an argument for discouraging other countries, including Iran, from letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle.

In other words, do as we say, not as we do. Whether the world will ever go “nuke-free,” well, that is an altogether different question.

So if – God forbid – the latest round of sanctions fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the decision to open yet another military front in the Middle East is decided, what can we expect?

Certainly nothing good, to say the least. First, it is doubtful that a full-blown military campaign will destroy all of Iran’s nuclear research facilities, while it would only intensify its quest for nuclear power.

“Even a successful military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would delay Iran's program by only a few years, and it would almost certainly harden Tehran's determination to go nuclear,” wrote James A. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs political journal.

The authors then rather half-heartedly speculated that a military attack, or even the threat of one, could be enough to bring down the already wobbling regime of President Ahmadinejad: “The ongoing political unrest in Iran could topple the regime, leading to fundamental changes in Tehran's foreign policy and ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But that is an outcome that cannot be assumed.”

Finally, it needs to be remembered that the Iran of 2010 is not the Iraq of 2003: Iran possesses an impressive range of ground and air resources.

In a 2007 parade to commemorate the anniversary of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Tehran put on display its Shahab 3 missile, saying it could travel 2,000 km – a range long enough to hit Israel and US bases in the region. Another missile, the Ghadr 1, can reach targets up to 1,800 km away. In November 2008, Iran said it had test-fired a Sejjil missile with a range of close to 2,000 km.

But a full-blown war in the Middle East would have repercussions not just for the immediate region, but for the entire planet. It does not take a very vivid imagination – considering the vast arsenal of weapons that such a military adventure would demand – to foresee the horrible environmental consequences that such a decision would inflict around the world. This underlines the paradox of modern military power: the more powerful the weapons of mass destruction become, the more national governments must restrain themselves from implementing their use unless they want to wish to wipe out all life as we know it.

In the end, either war will become extinct or mankind – it is as simple as that. The current debate on Iran will test mankind’s ability to use judgment in deciding which of the two evils is greater: allowing one’s avowed enemy to (possibly) arm himself with the deadliest weapons ever created, or unleash a war the likes of which the planet may never recover from. After all, Iran may cool its heels when (if) it ever acquires nuclear weapons. Or it may not. But the latter scenario would mean nothing less than national suicide, which not even Ahmadinejad would be willing to accept.

Fortunately, there is a third option: We can hope that the present sanctions against Iran will work to erode the power base of the present regime, thus paving the way for an Iranian leader the West can work with.

Ironically, the West had exactly that man with Mohammad Khatami, an Iranian scholar and liberal-minded politician who served as the fifth President of Iran from August 2, 1997 to August 3, 2005. Khatami was a peace-loving leader who pushed for a “Dialogue amongst Civilizations”. The United Nations declared the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, on Khatami's suggestion.

Since the United States must take a large part of the blame for the rise of Iran's hawkish President Ahmadinejad, who rose to power on a wave of anti-American fervor following the very unpopular and very unnecessary War in Iraq, it seems that the United States must “sleep in the bed it made” and find the most peaceful and reasonable way of disarming Ahmadinejad.

In the end, it has to be a decision we can all live with.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home