This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is The US Preparing For "The Total Destruction Of Iran?"
Is war just around the corner? While in theory it would make perfect sense to distract Americans from the long road to US insolvency, and other more pressing issues such as the endless criminality all around us, in practice we have so far heard merely rumors. The Herald of Scotland, however, may have credible proof that a US-led attack on Iran approaches and could be just days away. The newspaper has procured proof of an arms shipment to Diego Garcia, which consists of "of 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs...put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities." Additional insight comes from Dan
Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy
at the University of London: “They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran. US bombers are ready today to
destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours." Is war imminent? And will Obama repeat Bush's mistake with Iraq, resulting in a huge spike in oil, coupled with a rush to safety in dollars and/or gold? If inflation will not start on its own, its has to be kindled: preferably by a Blu-117 bomb. Is the relatively long period of market stability and low volatility about to come to a sudden end?
More from the Herald:
Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.
Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.
Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.
The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.
And it gets worse, when one considers the eerie similarities with Operation Desert [blank]. We all know how that whole fiasco ended.
Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.
A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.
Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.
“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.
The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.
“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”
According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.
For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”
The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.
We are confident that the administration's diplomatic core is wildly spinning in advance of a possible incursion, and fully expect that Tehran will be exposed as a poison nest full of dirty, smelly CDS speculators who have been controlling the spreads on global credits ever since the late 70's, about the time Iran ceased being a most favored nation (forget that CDS did not come to the scene until the late 90's, at least Ollie North may get a cameo appearance as head CDS Novator). At worst, the Administration will coin a new term for the incursion's target, recycled appropriately from none other than the Oracle of Omaha: Weapons Of Mass CDS-based Destruction and Other Types of Mass Destruction that Speculators Do Good Too.
H/t fiatcurrency
»
- 57312 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
China, Russia, and Iran have an accord that states if one is attacked, the other two will respond. If we go to war with this bloc, total destruction is imminent.
Celente is adamant that attacking Iran will be
the start of WWWIII
Cheer up everyone. This war is being waged by Obama, therefore, it is all good. As proof: no one will even protest...!
He may even win a second Nobel Peace Prize for waging a "War of Change, and Hope." Hell, they'd have more reason to give him one than they did the first time.
An open, transparent war. Yes we can!
Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Can't wait for him to pay my bills! Ahh Lawdy!
If this happens, it could be the end of the Union once and for all.
INFLATION WILL NOT HAPPEN...this will just further slow down and detroy our economy. $6 gas will not do anything but prevent people from driving to the unemployment office. They will walk. This is about as dumb a thing i have seen posted here and I LOVE ZEROHEDGE.
um reducing the amount of goods or services due to higher gas prices would cause inflation. Just like if you increase the amount of goods or services, it causes deflation.
(relative to a constant money supply and constant demand.)
Rising oil prices would reduce the amount of money available for other goods and services (assuming constant money supply & demand). Rising commodity prices without a corresponding rise in the money supply is deflationary.
Not trying to pick a fight here but rising energy prices are deflationary...
Don't mistake price inflation with monetary inflation. Monetary inflation being the excess supply of currency beyond the demand for goods or services.
Almost every US recession since 1972 was preceded by an oil price spike. In each case, the tipping point was reached when oil consumption reached 4% of US GDP. If oil was inflationary the fed would be raising interest rates in these times instead of lowering them. Clearly deflationary.
The US is not an island onto itself. Other nations bid up the price for the same oil we consume.
Even if the US has all the supply to meet national demand, if the price of this oil reduces demand it is akin to decreasing the monetary supply which increases the dollars actual value and thus deflation.
I know, when it comes to energy it defies the general economic logic (whats taught at uni today anyway) but this is due to one simple fact. There is no difference between a dollar and oil. Dollars are backed by oil and are given its purchasing power by the resources supply.
Even on a gold standard, gold is only an account keeping tool. Money itself is a claim on energy, always has been and always will be ;-)...
absolutely right, gold star!
And oil has peaked, how cool is that?
That means production has peaked and money with it.
A total ROTFL Toonces the Cat moment we face here.
Haha yes, things are going to get interesting to say the least.
We know conventional crude has peaked given the time it will take to bring any new production to market and given present decline rates from producing fields.
Unconventional is another matter but at the end of the day will never make up for the rate at which conventional can be extracted so yes, we are up shit creek. Right now.
Supply that is unaffordable and reduces demand is no different to a decreasing physical supply itself. Strangley, both end with the same result of a low market price and therefore make unconventional resources uneconomic to produce because with out growth in energy demand you got no economic growth. A vicious self reinforcing cycle.
Oh, and i'll put this in bold caps lock to highlight importance to passers by haha.
OIL CONSUMPTION IS THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE OF A NATIONS ECONOMIC HEALTH POSSIBLE.
THEREFORE.
IF ANYONE TRYS TO TELL YOU NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THE ECONOMY BECAUSE OIL DEMAND HAS PEAKED, SLAP THEM IMMEDIATELY.
This entire system is going to collapse, not even the most religious economist can trump the laws of physics.
Its just a question of time ;-)
I am not confusing price inflation with monetary inflation. Although I should of been more specific and said price inflation. Price inflation of course being a symptom of either a loss of supply or monetary inflation.
If I remember correctly oil got to 140 or so in 2008 and crashed before the market crashed. The spike in oil isn't what causes the next period of deflation. It is the crash in prices due to price volatility, or rather prices out pacing inflation in other markets.
I am not saying the price of oil would reduce demand, far from it, it will reduce the supply of goods. That is completely different than reducing demand. The rising cost of oil increases the cost of everything, meaning supply has to be cut in order to sustain loss of business, or business has to raise prices in order to sustain the rise in oil prices. Either way it is inflationary.
Don't kill the messenger
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1...
They are probably just re-stocking the stuff that they used in the Iraq war. And how does this guy get "Ready to strike 10,000 targets" from a shipment that contained 302 bombs?
True... If the fed had the power to lower oil prices they could create instant inflation...
(edit... When increasing oil supply to an economy and lowering its value, that increases the energy each unit of currency is backed by, energy allowing us to do work which boosts economic growth. Yes I realise how that sounds but its fact, junking this comment will not change that)...
Now we all know that no one has the power to decrease the price, unless of course, you could increase the phyical supply available to the market (hint hint, wink wink).
Economics 101.
Look, a purple unicorn!
if(approvalRatingPercent < 50)
{
invade($randomEvilCountry);
}
Awesome!
correction:
if(approvalRatingPercent < 50)
if(AmericanIdol.Ratings == ViewershipRatings.Low)
if(economy.Jobless_U1 > 10%)
invade(GetRandomMiddleEastCountry());
A robot that destroys worlds...
They should make a movie about that.
correction #2:
function (government.corruption);
{
if(approvalRatingPercent < 50)
if(AmericanIdol.Ratings == ViewershipRatings.Low)
if(economy.Jobless_U1 > 10%)
invade(GetRandomMiddleEastCountry());
else(economy.Blame==Snowstorm.inWinter)
if(approvalRatingPercent >50)
get(StateOfTheUnion.Speech==Iran.AxisOfEvil);
if(StateOfTheUnion.Speech==Iran.AxisOfEvil[selected.Index.value=null])
return(Alert="Believe me..... We have proof of WMD.")
if(isNaN);
then(Credibility=0)
}
So when do we see the spark? What are they going to do to false flag this attack?
It seems to be a little heavy in explosives for how small the target sites are. Unless they intend to take out the Iranian military at the same time- which I doubt. Could be a few are for North Korea.
Or maybe it is just a little short squeezing for the area. Like my father use to do to my brother and me. We would come inside from playing and find his belt lying on the table but he was not in sight. Two things always happened; we quite doing whatever it was that was pissing off our mother and, we began doing what we were suppose to be doing.
Without his belt, his pants were likely around his ankles. Where was your mother while this was all happening? LOL
Hey, might as well kill two birds with one stone, right?
(also, dead cat bounce. just wanted to say it.)
Surprised you waited this long.
These are NOt the bombs we had in the basement! MY gads,!its a swindle!
No, those are not my footprints and you are not reading this.
I am so amazed at americans view of war.
We are now roughly at the point we were in 62, kennedy standoff re cuba. I was a 11 year old at the time. This was such a big deal that they allowed me to watch their black and white tv for ten minutes. They felt since we all were in danger we all should know.
Germany was bombed heavily during the wars and the impact upon the people was transmitted to us children who were born from them.
My mother (not jewish)was in her late teens and became a casualty of lust and beauty and was marched for many days, starved and were glad for a piece of shoe lether to chew on.
I dont see the seriousness here. I bet the world could blow up and someone will respond with
Yea..SO?
"March Madness" - basketball and bombing - the ratings will go through the roof...
Sorry - but I don't believe this. President Barack Obama has WAY too big of an ego to do this, resulting in a one-term presidency. Unless there is some manufactured pretext (and I mean serious rationale to scare supporters into accepting it - Iran simply having nuke weapons is not nearly enough)... he would lose whatever remaining support he has from anyone still holding out hope that he is a positive change agent (and there are many).
And Bush failed to win a second presidency due to starting the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts?
War = Second term (And the added bonus is that the NeoCons would then have to support Obama)
Iran simply having nuke weapons is not nearly enough
you are kidding, right?
There is virtually no country in the world that supports Iran having nuclear weapons.
Yes because Pakistan and PRK have used them as soon as they got them.
There is no nation on the planet that has issued more bellicosity than PRK and yet they were allowed to get nukes and haven't used them.
Nukes protect you from US invasion
Obamas ego. ?? lol I dont think he runs the SHOW. I doubt Obabme matters to anyone but his family and those who were fooled again.
We keep having elections in which we have no choices. I dont think WE matter either.
Lets not forget, if we hit Iran we are also putting our thumb in Chinas eye again.
keeping in mind our policy of preventive domination, (Iraq, afganistan)Pakistan may be the target.
Two words for you:
RAND Corporation.
:-) Good to see you you sick bastard. More phucknuts than before brotherman. peace
"195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs"
"US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours."
Something wrong with the math here.
The targets are all clustered REALLY close together.
Yup... most are in just a couple of mosques actually...
No. Israel is preparing for the total destruction of Iran. The U.S. is awaiting its marching orders.
Did I miss something? I see no sources in that Herald story that could be followed-up for verification. I also kinda doubt that a tender for transport services would have gone into such detail. Having been a private sector Contract Adminstrator for companies doing D.o.D. business, this just doesn't look right.
You got it, Sparky. Those bombs are empty tubes full of ... wait for it ... bearer bonds.
Those Japanese bankers. They never give up.
+1000
They never did tell us what happened to those, now we know.
My Dear Friends,
Iran should be a glass-top parking lot within weeks, if not sooner.
Hannibal
Self lighting as well.
My id spooks me even more :(
So...I'm wondering what China and Russia do then? I thought that much of Iran's crude was going to China.
Russia will get out the party hats and start the Conga line. Their oil and natural gas just inflated big time.
China? Not so much.
the China oil flow has been worked out over quite some time.
the Russians cannot wait to ring the cash register.
No no guys. You read it wrong. The BLU-117 are bing SOLD to Iran and shipped there on commercial freight. We're trying to wean them off their Uranium addiction. You ever tried to kick Uranium cold-turkey? I didn't think so.
We <3 Iran. Really.
Sold. Now that's an interesting idea coug. Although the Iranians may not be too happy with the delivery 'mechanisms' we use to deliver these babies...
A Burroughs reference perhaps?
Airsoft instead of the real freaking deal. "Ow! My freaking eye!"
More CO2! I said I need more CO2 Damnit! Over!
Screw it. Caparzo, get on the damn flexi-straw NOW!
Little did they know Caparzo was a full-time flute player prior to the war. Soon the enemy would feel the wrath of spit-ball projectiles traveling at 800 fps
10 Containers is NOTHING, a close relative is a Captain for the Military Sealift command and is permanently stationed with a preposition ship in Diego Garcia. MARAD and MSC have lift capability for TENS of THOUSANDS of containers. I haven't heard anything through the grapevine on any major movements. (I also hold a US Merchant Marine license).
Besides we won't bomb Iran until the CIA sets off a: "...Dirty Bomb...traced directly to Iran's nuclear program..." in a major city of the US or a close US ally.
Jump! You Fuckers!
Besides we won't bomb Iran until the CIA sets off a: "...Dirty Bomb...traced directly to Iran's nuclear program..." in a major city of the US or a close US ally.
+1
I've been thinking the same thing for the next "terror" event. Needs to be big to make sure people jump on for a major conflict, and don't ask to many questions. Also thinking maybe Chicago, lot of spin potential if Chicago is hit. Heartland, president's home state, financial center, etc...
I have nothing to go on for them doing it just idle speculation. And really there does not need to be an event. If Israel moves they will be supported. Both sides of the Big Government party will back up Israel no matter what they do.
Bunch of BS. The regime is ripe for internal revolt - which should be encouraged, just as the fund Islamic radicals to attack our interests. If the USA were to bomb, the people of Iran would unite behind their crazy "leaders" whom most currently detest. Iranians are no different than Americans when it comes to sneak attacks. They would rally around their flag.
The only way we should consider bombing anything in Iran is if we could ID a legit A-Bomb factory. Much like Israel did when it took out the plant in Syria. Syria did not say boo because they knew they were caught red handed and did not want international inspectors on site.
The point is not regime change in Iran. If that were the case, your proposal, which has worked (well, until it didn't) many times in the past in many countries, would make sense. In this case, war is the way out of the depression. Pump to GDP, add $$ to the supply without people paying too much attention, add jobs for military production, etc.
Don, you are most like correct. Wallstreet needs the bomb . Wish i could help out getting it there
War will pump up GDP (building lots of stuff to blow up) and lower unemployment because people desperate enough will sign-up to be cannon fodder but it won't get us out of the depression.
Do you believe that WW2 got the US out of The Great Depression?
You seem to believe much of what you see on TV news????
T V = Total vapors?
Excuse me! ? Which regime is due for change?
USA, Iran, afghanista? Let me adjust my seat.
Interesting that this comes on the heels of all the Mubarak rumors (death) and the reported blacked out assasination attempt (and wounding/Debka) of Maliki in iraq which would pave way for Allawi to lead gov't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayad_Allawi) that works..Not to mention Iran nabbing the Jundallah leader and his purported implicating of the US/CIA funding for subversion
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC13Ak01.html
There is even more recent news that points in the same direction.
http://wp.me/px1MN-fx
Yes the article has problems. These bombs are
not the so called "bunker busters". They are
too small. 1k and 2k ones might work on smaller
bunkers but will not be effective against the
deeper bunkers that Iran has made with European
help.
The quantities are also small implying a mere
replenishment of inventories that were used up
during that past several years.
Nope this is not "the sign" that many of us
have been watching for. Sorry TD this is
bogus.
The article is full of paranoid left-speak, right down to the ordinance being "totally" to destroy Iran.
I would take this with a grain of salt.
+100 wag the dog by its tail
Jihad recruiter and Lefty gibber jabber
+1000
That' shame. Considering the Iranian people have been growing tired of the current regime and have been flirting with reform. If the US bombs d'em, the Iranian people are just going to be pushed back into the arms of the religious fundamentalists and Amadinadooka whatever who gives a shit.
What time will the war be televised and will the programing be commercial free?
Pay per view only
And its a wonderful diversion.
All scenarios can be given a probability rating. The chance that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow and set in the west is 100%. The chance that Jesus of Nazareth will reappear descending from the clouds with his donkey at the gates of Jerusalem via YouTube in December 2012. (Just to shut those silly Mayan pagan worshippers up and those smart-arse film directors as well) is 0%.
The "Iran Nuclear Weapons Development to an Extremely Dangerous Point" scenario is being watched 24/7. The current political dynamics and intentions of the various players mean that the chance of a pre-emptive air strike against Iran by the USA/Israel/Britain by April 30th, 2010 is 10%. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmedinejad's motivations are the key to this dynamic. A growing maturity is in evidence amongst the big players in the Middle East. There is a timetable that trumps all others. Much is happening behind the scenes...
EVE OF DESTRUCTION:
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/03/eve-of-destruction.html
Old Russian proverb: A good war is better than a bad peace.
Amen to that. Pass the popcorn.
Great quote, greater representation of a bad war as I join the parade of affection for your use of humor.
Thank you for printing this TD.
Notwithstanding the specifics discussed in this piece, I'm not alone in saying "no surprise" here.
Most if not all countries on the planet (the ones that count) do not want to see Iran with nuclear capability. Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal and that is so evidently clear that one would have to have blinders on and spent most of the past few years living under the proverbial rock.
the issue is just how close is Iran and none of us phucks know. the powers that be may or may not know for sure either but if they think Iran is close, game over. the decision to go in will rest on the analysis of that data.
Who cares if they have nukes? The Soviets had nukes. The Pakistanis have nukes, the Israelis have nukes. The only nation who has ever used them as a Weapon is the US. It's a great deterrent, I would want them to. Look at the geopolitical situation of Iran. They are surrounded by nuclear powers, the US on 3 sides (Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan) and of course Pakistan has the bomb, and in the region more powers have the bomb. Hell and look at NKorea. They are a vile country and having the bomb is protecting them. Iran knows if they have the bomb they are less likely to be attacked by the US.
Put yourself in Iran's shoes, wouldn't you want the bomb. And I'll point out they are signers on the non nuclear proliferation treaty and not everyone in the region is.
Who cares if they have nukes?
Like I said, the countries that count do not want Iran to be yet another state with nukes which just exponentially compounds the problem that you mentioned, ie paki, north korea. The soviets and israelis are among the countries that "count".
The countries that count also do not want the Pakistanis to have nukes (that's why we are playing in AF/Pak). As to North Korea (those nukes will be taken out somehow but China is a bit of a problem in that regard at this juncture) they are watched on a high alert status every second of the day..... any suspicion that they are going to try launch one and they will be one giant mushroom cloud in about 10 minutes or less.
Iran knows if they have the bomb they are less likely to be attacked by the US.
Agreed. that's why the odds increase every day that Iran's nuclear capabilities will be taken out.
Sure the leadership of these countries are worried but the average citizen should have 0 concern. I have 0 concern of Iran's nuclear program. Now sure a war is baked into the cake. It's going to happen. I don't know when but we will go to war with Iran. They are disrupting the petro dollar by selling oil in Euros. They will not bow to our mandates. And to top if off we need to get Joe Sixpack's mind off the soul crushing wealth destroying depression. Give him a few images of Iranians being bombed and slaughtered that should perk him up!
"And to top if off we need to get Joe Sixpack's mind off the soul crushing wealth destroying depression. "
It is weighing on my mind, and part of the reason I am on ZeroHedge.
"Give him a few images of Iranians being bombed and slaughtered that should perk him up!"
Wrong on that one. I would hate to see us go to war with Iran. In fact I am in favor of getting the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan (if we can).
You have to admit there is a lot of people out that that love the military displays of power and watching people get murdered. I watched people go gaga over it in the Iraq conflict. Some people have a blood lust. This is not new, for milenua humans have cheered while other humans are savagly killed.
What gets me are young guys who join the military and 'can't wait to get real combat time'. Too many video games.
Iran is in possession of two organized military forces not under the control of any government. Hizbollah and Hamas. That is why Iranian nukes are a problem. They can deliver them by proxy.
Really? So why didn't the KGB use nukes by proxy? Oh yeah blowback! The more countries that have nukes the less likely they get used and I seem to notice the only country that has gotten invaded while having nukes is Pakistan and they let us in and we made ourselves at home. "Don't mind the drone attacks, the boys like to get their murder on"
Our Armies will be spread out thruout the World. We will then become vunerable.
Lack of Resources and limited Army resources to protect ourselves.
Yeah right. Everybody in America has guns. Nobody can attack us.
Half the people on ZH have military style equipment under their houses. How is anybody going to attack our ghettoes, when they all have the same?
Nobody can attack America conventionally. It'd be such a nightmare for any invaders.
Right, which is why you use a little style. You don't attack the cities, you bomb the water treatment plant, the power plant and cut the gas pipe lines. And for added measure bomb the roads leading into and out of the towns. The towns will turns into abattoirs of violence and murder in weeks. In months it will be a gutted ghost town and with a minimum of losses for the occupier. Use the armements of the people against them. And if they try to leave town let them, they have what 1 tank of gas?
As posted,,
Iran announced the capture of Abdulmalek Rigi, the boss of the terror organization Jundullah, which works for NATO. The capture of Rigi represents a serious setback for the US-UK strategy of using false flag state-sponsored terrorism against Iran and Pakistan, and ultimately to sabotage China’s geopolitics of oil. The Iranians claim to have captured Rigi all by themselves, but the Pakistani ambassador to Teheran is quoted in The Dawn as claiming an important role for Pakistan. The Iranians say that Rigi was attempting to fly from Dubai to Kyrgystan, and that his plane was forced to land in Iran by Iranian interceptors. This exploit recalls Oliver North’s 1985 intercept of the accused Achille Lauro perpetrators, including Abu Abbas, forcing their Egyptian plane to land at Sigonella, Sicily. But other and perhaps more realistic versions suggest that Iran was tipped off by the Pakistanis, or even that Rigi was captured by Pakistan and delivered to the Iranians.
Jundullah, otherwise known as the Rigi organization, is a clan-based Mafia organization that has long infested the Iran-Pakistan border. The Rigis are traditionally smugglers and drug pushers of royalist persuasion, and now they have branched out into terrorism. Jundullah is mounting a Sunni rebellion against the Shiite Iranian regime in Iranian Baluchistan. They have blown up a Shiite mosque, killing 25, and managed to kill 50 in a bombing in Pishin last October, where their victims included some top commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, against which Mrs. Clinton has now declared war. There is no doubt that Jundullah is on the US payroll. This fact has been confirmed by Brian Ross of ABC News, the London Daily Telegraph, and by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. Hersh noted that Jundullah has received some of the $400 million appropriated by the US Congress in the most recent Bush-era regime change legislation targeting Iran.
Jundullah is a key part of the US-UK strategy of fomenting ethnic and religious civil war in both Iran and Pakistan. Jundullah is a twofer in this context, since it can help destabilize both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. Baluchistan has special importance because any oil pipeline linking Iran with China must go straight across Baluchistan. Jundullah’s false flag jihad is a means to make sure that strategic pipeline, which would help solve China’s energy problem, is never built.
There is also no doubt that Jundullah functions as an arm of NATO, a kind of irregular warfare asset similar in some ways to the KLA of Kosovo. Rigi is reported by the Iranians to have met with Jop de Hoop Scheffer when he was NATO Secretary General. Rigi has also met with various NATO generals operating in Afghanistan. Who knows — he may have met with McChrystal himself, a covert ops veteran from Iraq.
This capture comes at a moment when Baluchistan is the object of intense US-UK exertions. The current US-NATO offensive in southern Afghanistan targets Marjah and the rest of Helmand province, which directly faces Baluchistan. Many observers were puzzled when the US and NATO publicized the Marjah offensive in advance. Militarist talking heads like General Barry McCaffrey responded that the main goal of the Marjah offensive was not to destroy the Taliban, but to drive them out of the province. It was thus clear from the beginning that the real goal was to drive the Helmand Taliban fighters into Pakistani Baluchistan. Why?
A statement from the Afghan Taliban covered on the RIA Novosti web site suggests that the real goal of the US-NATO offensive in Marjah-Helmand is to attack Chinese economic interests in Pakistani Baluchistan, and especially the port of Gwadar, one of China’s largest overseas projects. If the US can push the Taliban into Pakistani Baluchistan and into the area around Gwadar, they will have a pretext for militarization – perhaps through Blackwater mercenaries, who are already operating massively in Pakistan, or perhaps through direct US military involvement in the zone. US jackboots on the ground in Baluchistan would interfere mightily with Chinese economic development plans. They would also allow the US to commandeer Gwadar as the home port of a new NATO supply line into southern Afghanistan, allowing the avoidance of the Khyber Pass bottleneck. The US could also use Baluchistan as a springboard for bigger and better terror ops into Iran, electronic surveillance of Iranian activities, and so forth.
The US and NATO had evidently planned a double envelopment of Baluchistan, with Taliban fighters from Helmand arriving from the north, while the Jundullah escalated their own activity on the ground. Now that Rigi has joined his brother in Iranian jails, Jundullah has been decapitated, and the NATO strategy has consequently been undermined. Iran has bagged a dangerous terrorist foe. Another winner is Pakistan, where The Dawn celebrated the capture of Rigi as “a godsend” and “a lucky break” for Pakistan. By helping Rigi to fall into Iranian hands, Pakistan may have finally found an effective way to counter the US-UK strategy, which notoriously aims at the breakup and partition of Pakistan. The coming Iranian trial of Rigi may go far towards exposing the real mechanism of terrorism in today’s world, with the CIA sitting in the dock next to Rigi. More mass destruction on the horizon...
Speaking of shipping containers and weapons of mass destruction, what are the odds there are not a few nuclear weapons imported into the US and currently residing in various cities until such time that we really do get in a fight of us vs. them and them likely including the Chinese, who loaded many of those shipping containers? Not like their leadership is any less psychopathic than ours.
+1 quadrillion....I have one question for you, possibly two parts (second part depends on answer); Is it their intention to go to war?! If yes, when?
1. Currently yes...
2. When propaganda is at a proper pitched level..
What do you think, about five business days from start to finish for height of "awareness"? That is, once the prop-machine starts up, about that long until enough Americans consider themselves reasonably informed and therefore in support of another preemptive attack on the bad guys?
I mentioned this article to a co-worker today and she really didn't know shit about the Israel/Iran cold war. And she reads a lot of primetime news! The wardrums have been beating in the background for a really, really long time now. I brought up "Balochistan" with family last summer and because they had never heard of it it couldn't have been important. Blank stares all around. I forget that people can't even remember their own state capital these deyz.
What do you think would be a trigger event outside of a Iranian direct attack on Israeli/US assets? What are the chances of a false-flag/real(!) attack on Israeli/US soil?
What are the chances of a false-flag/real(!) attack on Israeli/US soil?
As U.S. soil is defined as all global / empire of the electissimus,,we have dim choices to make. we now need to escort cause effect reaction in laymen,,,the parabolic infusion, Liberty, Justice for All lets nuke a whale for Jesus...In effect all is good!!! Samuel P. Huntington,,PNAC,, The Grand Chessboard,,,Leo Strauss. We need a Pearl Harbor type coagulation event to accelerate the encroachment of the American Psychopathology of the modern post 9/11 epoc.." Either you with us!! or your with the TERRORISTS. Binary inclusion of thought...No gray area,, need to exterminate...brown people,,push start,,pull start..
High..
geopol you're nearly as cynical as my old man who drummed geopolitics into my brain from a very young age... I use to despise it as a child for it took the shine off the world so to speak but can only now feel grateful as as it turns out the information he was pushing has plenty of truth....keep these exceptional insights coming as they're much appreciated.
Yes, but we will let Israel do the primary dirty work (with our best weapons on display for the arms trade biz) and disavow all knowledge or support of the action.
The gatekeepers are diminished on that front..Israel as Cats-paw is not further functional...
The rational observer knows that to make such an unprovoked attack would set the US back a hundred years, probably cause a crisis of confidence in global markets. Remember the invasion of Iraq followed the first invasion, by more than a decade, during which we patrolled a no-fly zone within Iraq. The actions which ultiimately led to the war covered three Presidencies. There is nothing in place to barely suggest we are at that point with Iran, more likely this news is being leaked for media purposes. Remember the Russians have supplied Iran with many of their very most sophisticated weapons. However the Russians have shown that while they might give the weapons to one country, Iran, they would gladly give the (ECM-electronic counter measure keys to another, like the US)
Why would they play these games? Islamic terrorism virtually lives at Russia's back foor, in Chechnya. Additionally many of the former Soviet satellites have military command systems which are staffed by Islamic officers. It can be surmised that Putin offered Bush this Machievellian solution, divide up the world, Russia to control the energy, and the military umbrella over Europe, in exchange for the keys to the Middle East, Iran primarily.
The Bush people, Cheney mostly, spent the entire eight years subscribing new Nato members from the former Soviet Bloc, in order to aim missiles at Moscow. Obama tried to back down, somewhat, from the confrontation, but like everything Bush, he has let this policy stand as well.
If Iran falls its because Obama took the deal, call off the missile shield, and the US gets to keys to Iranian defenses. This is how the deal was brokered with Israel to bomb the rumored Syrian Nuclear facility. The Syrians had state of the art Russian air defense systems. None of it worked. The Israeli's didn't lose a single aircraft. That was a test of the system, and it worked flawlessly.
If the US is shipping weapons, its probably intended for us by the Israeli airforce. We know Obama is Bush III, and Hillary is an Iran hawk from long ago. B Clinton kept the no-fly zone operative for eight of eight years, bowing to Republican pressure to gut that country, starve its people, and murder its children, by bombing hospitals and electric generators.
But even Obama knows that you have to follow some kind of protocol in these matters, and first of all that should begin with a no-fly zone over Hormuz, ostensibly to protect Freedom of the Seas, that sounds phony enough. Then after the Iranian radar locks on US aircraft a few times, we take out the sites, and push their defenses all the way back to the outskirts of Tehran. It might take years, but that's the way things have to be done, and even Obama knows it. Certainly if he wants Republican votes, (and he sure as hell doesn't care about his own party) then he will agree to economic sanctions first, containment second, and all out war will have to wait, until the Jenna Bush administration, probably.
The Israeli's are currently on the hot seat, for inviting Biden to dinner, and then announcing new settlements. So how much sense does any of this make? Very little.
I do believe Obama can win the war in Afghanistan because it isn't really a war, and the Taliban isn't our enemy. The war in Iran would be Cakewalk II, (much easier, and perhaps his military people have told him that, the key to Afghanistan is Iran) but until the administration propagandizes the American people, to have the shit scared out of them with all kinds of lies about Iranian invincibility, nothing is going to happen.
Over selling a paper enemy is political grandstanding 101.(Bush oversold the threat in Iraq and it came back to bite him)
Iran is toast but either way we can't afford it, although don't be surprised to see Congressional Republicans screaming for budget restraint stand up and cheer new spending to bomb the Mullahs. And that's Obama's ace in the hold.
The flaw I see is won't Russia lose a lot of business by deactivating those weapons for USA/Israel making it a lot harder to be in the weapons biz? I mean if you were a minor nation looking for gear and you know France will turn your gear off (Falklands), as will Russia (this possibility), and the US (main invader of the last 50 years), that pretty much just leaves China.
Now high oil prices is good for Russia so there is a preverse incentive for a conflict to happen and for Iran to have it weapons to fight. Russia would love to see 150 a barrel again or 200+. And if Russia did backstab them what is the US going o do? "Russia said they would give us codes so we could rout Iran's military, lets get them" Sure the CIA and leaders would be pissed but America would have it's hands full and be a little to busy to open another front with Russia.
Russia already got paid for what they have sent to Iran.
Russia's profit on the oil due to an Iran conflict would be just a little higher than margins on the weapons biz.....
Yes but what are the geopolitical implications of them getting into bed with us? China would not be happy for starters. They do not want higher commodity prices. And more control over the middle east forces them to move more into Africa but their navy is no match for the US navy and their holdings in Africa could easily be cut off.
Also most of the world is probably not overly pleased with our open imperialistic policy, and more importantly buying the debt to fund our wars of aggression. To defeat America they simple need no longer buy our debt and sell into the market. Sure they will be harmed but the dollars death will end Empire America. Troops won't fight when they are not paid, and can't fight without food and fuel.
I don't pretend to know what game Russia is playing but I don't think they will back us up completely. Their so to much to be gained but a twist after we are already committed in yet another country and totally bogged down and hemorrhaging money. I wouldn't expect this to happen over night, but not sure we can maintain our current burn rate more than a few years much less taking on another major war and occupation, Iran has a lot more people then Iraq. And we need to remember Syria which has a pact with Iran, as well as other allies of Iran will not just stand by. They may not declare, but they will fight their own silent war at the very least.
I don't think they will back us up completely...
Shameful,, Your on to something..It's vague..
VIENNA — Russia's president said Moscow was ready to consider new sanctions on Iran for its nuclear defiance on Monday and the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that he cannot confirm that all of Tehran's atomic activities are peaceful.
President Dmitry Medvedev emphasized that he still hoped for a settlement with Iran on nuclear issues that would negate any need for a fourth set of U.N. Security Council sanctions. Still, his comments appeared to be the strongest sign to date that the Kremlin was prepared to drop traditional opposition to such penalties if Tehran remain obstinate.
"Unfortunately, everything we have tried to say to the Iranian leaders, all our appeals to them to work on a peaceful nuclear program under the control of the international community, haven't provided any results," Medvedev told reporters in Paris.
"We believe that it's not over yet, that we can still reach an agreement," he said. "But if we don't succeed, Russia is ready — along with our partners, as I have already said — to consider the question of adopting sanctions."
His comments marked a new stage in Russia's slow progression from opposing new sanctions on Tehran to its reluctant acceptance of them because of Iran's growing list of nuclear activities opposed by the world powers.
Beyond reflecting unity with the U.S., Britain and France — the three Western permanent Security Council members — Russia's endorsement of new sanctions would put strong pressure on China, which continues to openly oppose such measures.
China and Russia have in the past blocked Western attempts for a fourth set of sanctions, with Beijing traditionally following Moscow's lead. But because it depends on Iran for much of its energy needs, China may continue to resist pressure from the other four Council members.
Iran already is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze uranium enrichment — a potential pathway to nuclear weapons — and other activities generating concerns that it seeks to make fissile warhead material. It insists, however, that it is enriching only to make nuclear fuel for an envisaged reactor network.
Amid Medvedev's warnings, IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told a meeting of the Vienna-based agency's 35-nation board that he cannot verify that Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. And international officials revealed a new source of friction between Iran and the agency, telling The Associated Press that Tehran was resisting IAEA efforts to improve monitoring of the Islamic Republic's recently launched higher enrichment program.
Iran started enriching uranium to near 20 percent about three weeks ago, from the previous 3.5 percent level. Iran says it is doing so to create fuel for a research reactor, but the move increased international concern because it moves the country closer to creating weapons-grade material that can be used to arm missiles.
The officials said that since then, Iran has resisted agency requests to be able to mount additional cameras to monitor the new program.
The officials, who asked for anonymity because their information was confidential, specified that cameras previously in place were now trained on Iran's new enrichment effort but said the agency believed it needed additional equipment to be able to fully observe the process.
Asked whether his agency was able to monitor the new enrichment program as closely the previous one, enriching to 3.5 percent, Amano said making the needed adjustments "takes a certain amount of time."
Delegates were closely following Amano's comments at the board meeting's opening session Monday to see if he would follow up on his hard-hitting Iran report issued last week.
In that document, Amano — who took the post in December — expressed concern that Iran may be working on making a nuclear warhead, suggesting for the first time that Iran had either resumed such work or never stopped when U.S. intelligence thought it did.
Iran denies any interest in developing nuclear arms, contradicting a 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment concluding that Iran had worked on such weapons before apparently suspending such activities in 2003. Amano's report, in contrast, suggested Iran never froze its experiments, expressing "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
The Japanese diplomat was more circumspect Monday, devoting only four paragraphs to Iran in eight pages of comments. His assessment that the agency "cannot confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities" was less forceful than the central finding of his report.
The careful wording was reminiscent of language used by Amano's predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei. The Egyptian diplomat was occasionally accused by the West of being too soft on Iran.
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the meeting, expressed gratification at Amano's choice of words Monday.
"This oral report of Mr. Amano was a little bit better than the written," he told reporters, calling last week's written report "unjustified and not acceptable."
A diplomat from one of the board member countries said Amano was attempting to defuse passions generated by his report and seeking to head off potential confrontation with Iran's allies on the board — nonaligned nations Iran counts upon for support. He asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
These nations, which make up about a third of the board, often blame the U.S. and other Western nations accusing Iran of harboring weapons ambitions of making unsubstantiated accusations. And they are suspicious of what they see as attempts by developed nations to block them from acquiring peaceful nuclear technological know-how and back Iran when it depicts itself as a victim of such endeavors.
Such sentiments were reflected in a confidential statement from developing nations prepared for delivery later in the week at the board session and made available to The Associated Press.
"States' choices and decisions, including those of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology ... must be respected," said the statement.
But what new spending would we really need?
We already have the resources there. We're already paying for our troops to fight now. Move them a few hundred miles west (and east) and it really wouldn't cost that much more.
It beats our guys standing around holding their puds waiting for roadside bombs to go off...
Moving those troops is not an option as we are basically semi permanently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. The mission is not over or some such nonsense. Also you must add Syria into the mix. Open up google maps and look how big an area it is from Syria to the other side of Afghanistan. And then ask yourself "Can a bankrupt empire really hold all that land by force?". And that land is not empty, and will be filled with purple that are pissed by a foreign invader showing up. After all I assume you would be pissed if someone came in and started blowing up America and occupying it, even if they did it for "Freedom".
hm...at this point, if they were blowing up the right stuff, I'd be all for it.
-It’s possible that these weapons are ultimately intended for Israel so that they can do the dirty deed. By the way, we should be tighter with India by now as they are the world’s largest democracy. They probably don’t want Iran to have nukes either. Is it out of the question that these weapons are intended for, you know, one of our other two theatres of war in the general area?
-Not that we need another war but what exactly is the best response when some whack-job state develops/gets nukes? (and yes some countries can be more trusted with them than others.) Sanctions haven’t really worked anywhere and even if diplomacy does work it creates the following incentive: nukes = endless blackmail for goodies. Look at our recent history with N. Korea.
-Can we put the “war for oil” crap to rest already? Where is that Iraq war oil dividend exactly, 7+ years down the road? I don’t think any US companies were even chosen by Iraq for the recent development contracts. New US shale gas means we have all the hydrocarbon energy we need. For now let’s put the pedal to the metal on that instead of tilting at windmills.
-I love how “it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision.” We’ve totally given up on the whole Congressional declaration of war thing I guess.
-Uh, feel free dear editor to delete that above sloppy HTML paste job or whatever that gibberish is.
you can self edit.Its easy
You can edit it yourself. Click edit then delete the trash. It will show on your screen. This one you won't be able to edit because I have answered you.
You can also junk yourself.
"Martyrdom is only a click away!"
Or just let it ride. After all, this is a public space where everything is observed....
It gives a post a certain cyberpunk Newspeak flavor.
Thanks Ms.
I wonder how the Shiite in KSA will respond to our bombing of Iran? I still think if I were Iran I would bomb every KSA oil facility, terminal,pipeline,well, as well as blowing up every tanker in the straits which is only two miles wide at points.
If we nuke Iran.
Oil will go limit down and consumer stocks, airlines, cruise lines, hotels, etc. will skyrocket.
And say goodbye to all those companies that make those airport scanning machines.
I am not a commodities trader, why would oil go limit down with the loss of 15% of world production?
Because the primary driver of global risk premium would cease to exist... oh, and the "war on terror" would effectively end, at least with regard to the Muslim world; it'd be time for 'O and crew to turn that loaded cannon toward its ultimate intended targets: anyone expressing dissent with respect to the agenda of "the powers that be"
I can assure you if missiles start flying on Terhan oil will not go limit down. I have been a crude oil trader now for 10+ years and about 5 years ago there was a "rumor" that Iran attacked one of our aircraft carriers in the Straight of Hormuz. Oil went up 8 bucks in the span of about 2 minutes. With all the hot money out there right now I would suspect that Oil will be up 10 - 20% fairly quickly... maybe a day or 2 in the initial spike. I know I will be buying as many futures as I can. You go and sell into that news and see how it works out for you.
I think the robot was beinf fascetious.
Wow, you might try reading some history! Osama Bin Laden is KSA not Iranian and Iran would love nothing but the total destruction of Al Qaeda who has bombed and killed many in Iran. Who do you think offered to find Bin Laden for the U.S.?
"Who do you think offered to find Bin Laden for the U.S.?"
The same group that warned the U.S. of an impending terrorist attack during the Fall of 2001 and subsequently mentioned the likely involvement of foreign intelligence organizations in plotting said attack; the same group that has, unlike a hanful of its ME neighbors, complied in full with demands put forth by the IAEA?
Normal "Empire" strategy to distract the populous from the coming depression. War won't help just cause our accelerated demise. Ask the Brits what WW1 and WWII did to their empire, hasta la vista baby!
What a Headline !!
Is War Imminent?
For the United States to continue the Bush Doctrine (our right to a pre-emptive first strike) under a "new" administration would be sheer folly; the country would face universal condemnation from even our European allies as both illegal and immoral.
Even neo-conservatives realize that an Iranian "threat" has yet to be formed in the eyes of the world. We all know Nara and sympathize with the domestic opposition; blowing them up serves no purpose. As mentioned above, we should first expect a false flag attack.
And at the end of the day, an Iranian counter-offensive would be very detrimental to US interests, the least of which would be high oil prices to cause a depression. Think of our troops, all of whom are within range of the most conventional of weapons.
There is no way to protect 50% of the population that dont agree with its own counrty.
Nothing's happening until American Idol concludes....
and the health care legislation
All the services have a war to play with right now except the air force. You can bet they are preparing for a war!
this is just a distraction. to throw us off the scent. Stay focused !
My dimwitted friend says Isreal has made certain its Mossad has infiltrated Iran's nuke program. Nothing to see here.
Any student of economic history knows that when a king can't pay his debts, a war to capture booty is an option. Iran doesn't have much booty, but if somehow our largest creditor China could be dragged in, then you're talking.
Since war is probably the most inflationary (real labour, material and energy that cost $'s evaporated) weapon known to curb deflation, short of depositing heaps of dosh in everyones bank account, then it makes sense the US would consider this. The fact that I'm reading about it tells me it's a load of bullishiiiit.
Find the Carrier Battle Groups without them you have squat.
Maybe they are going to blow up the "stargate" suposedly found in the gulf of Aden?
If we don't do it, Israel will. And the bunker busters they use will fuse the ground with a rather nifty 20-30 kt yield sealing the inhabitants inside to suffer a slow, painful radioactive death if they survive the initial blasts. Everyoe is focused on airpower.
I wonder if anyone has been asking the question I have: Where are the 2 SLCM loaded Dolphin subs the Israeli Navy has?
Where are the 2 SLCM loaded Dolphin subs the Israeli Navy has?
They are presently being refitted with nuke missiles at this very moment.
And after Israel attacks them, how many of them do you think will perish?
Sorry, but I don't think the Chinese and the Russkies are all that smitten with Israel, nor particularly that many other countries.
Are you kidding me?
The Ruskies and ChiComs would LOVE an attack by the Israelis or U.S. They would make a fortune plus pretty much neutralize the US presence in the Middle East.
Yep - brought through the Suez not too long ago. Tricky.
To give you an idea how bad things are with our youth, speaking in the current events realm, a bunch of young people (late teens, early '20s) have mentioned to me over the past several months that what America needs to boost its economy is a war.
When I patiently explain to them that we are presently involved in two official wars (Afghanistan & Iraq), and a whole bunch of smaller, unofficial ones (Iran, North Africa, etc.), they look dumbfounded.
Then I patiently explain that it is not helping our economy.
Geez, I feel so frustrated.......
BTW, super post, super comments all...
That's because we have been told since children that war is good for the economy. As I've said before if you expect good things from my gen your probably going to be sourly disappointed. I try explain my anti war stance on economic and liberty principles and most looks at me like I have two heads even the liberal kids who I foolishly thought were against war. Turns out there were just against Bush not war, my bad.
If you ask me, our generation is better than the one before it.
We're not the people who sold America out.
I got no beef with the GenX guys and gals. The Boomers sold us out, but I don't think we are any better then them. They were spoiled brats so are we. We might turn out better because of the suffering, but we are not going to open our hearts and work like slaves to bail the system out. And we are not going to be super creative and solve the problems. The most you can ask out of us is we might care for our boomer or Xer parents after the social safety net collapses.
What a crock of BS. Who are these guys kidding? The Appeaser-in-Chief attack Iran? Egad! That is the joke of the century. Obama is the peanut farmer x 100. No way in hell this guy attacks anyone. Forget it. It ain't gonna happen until the day comes when we take a 1st strike from Iran or their proxies.
Appeaser-in-Chief?
smh.
More like drone-bomber-in-chief
Obama will do what his Zionist masters command him to do.