>

The Coalition of the Gobbling vs Iran 1

According to commentator, Patrick Seales and others, it’s only a matter of time before the neoziocon nepotists attempt to whack Iran.

It is now clear that U.S. President George W. Bush has decided to confront Iran — politically, economically and militarily — rather than engage it in negotiations, as he was advised to do by James Baker and Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group report.

Bush appears to have been influenced by pro-Israeli advisers such as Eliott Abrams, the man in charge of the Middle East at the National Security Council, and by arm-chair strategists at neo-conservative think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, who have long clamoured for regime change in Tehran.

Although Washington’s neo-cons have suffered some severe setbacks, notably because of the abysmal failure of their belligerent Iraqi strategy, they clearly continue to exercise considerable influence in the White House and in the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney.

On a recent visit to the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought to mobilize the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, plus Egypt and Jordan, to join the United States in confronting Iran.

Leading Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are, of course, concerned by the rise of Iran and of militant Shi‘ism, but they are even more alarmed at the possibility of a United States/Israeli war against Iran, which would inevitably inflict heavy blows on their own societies.

The declared aim of the United States is to contain Iran and reduce its influence throughout the Middle East. But the danger of such a policy is that it runs the risk of escalating from verbal assaults and sanctions to armed clashes, and even to a war.

Some experts believe that if the United States were to attack Iran, Iran might respond by firing missiles against U.S. bases in Iraq and the Gulf, Hizbullah might attack Israel, and Israel might invade Syria, igniting a full-scale regional war with devastating consequences for all concerned.

Washington has long identified Iran as an adversary, part of Bush’s famous — or infamous — “axis of evil.” But, in the last few weeks, a decision appears to have been made to get tough with the regime in Tehran which, in the words of Vice President Cheney, is said to pose a “multidimensional threat” to the United States and its allies.

Meanwhile, the Dems fire a broadside at the chimp, claiming he does not have the authority to whack Iran.

Contemporaneously, Israhelli possible PM-to-be Tipsy Livni urges for stiffer sanctions against Iran.

Sanctions naturally increase poverty, extremism and fundamentalism – but these are tactical and familiar outcomes for Zionists.

Meanwhile, Cheney goes to Saudia

Whilst the intrigue of Litvinenko’s poisoning titillates and frightens the British public, the Great Game continues quietly and malevolently elsewhere.

Note that if the Litvinenko affair is an attempt to discredit Putin and to restrict Russia’s power on both negotiations on supply of energy to Europe and sanctions on Iran, this would be an ideal time for Cheney to attempt his coup de grace. Cheney does have connections with Scaramella via the Environmental Crime Prevention Program (ECPP) cum black ops front Washington-based organisation which Scaramella heads.

Ugly it is, but quite credible considering the criminal machinations emanating in the past few years from the Cheney clique. Machiavelli has nothing on Cheney. Divide and conquer and perpetuate eternal war to bolster the only industry keeping the United Stupids afloat financially – armaments.

From : http://www.omidyar.net/group/community-general/news/445/703/

“A well-placed and highly reliable source has provided the following account of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Nov. 25, 2006 visit to Saudi Arabia. The report coincides with other evidence of a scheme to induce the United States to self-destruct. While the source may have missed some elements of the picture emerging from the Cheney visit, the essential details appear to be accurate.

1. The essential message delivered to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah by Vice President Cheney was that there is no basis for dialogue with Iran. The U.S. position in the region has been weakened, and therefore a new security architecture must be established, particularly in the Persian Gulf, to contain and counter Iran’s growing influence. Already, NATO has been in dialogue with Qatar and Kuwait, in pursuit of closer, upgraded cooperation. Cheney proposed to establish a new regional balance of power, through a Sunni Arab alliance with Israel, to confront the Iranian threat. Cheney argued that to negotiate with Iran at this time would be tantamount to surrender. A new military organization will be built, involving the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Egypt, and Jordan. NATO and the United States will be closely involved, and Israel will be a de facto participant. These moves led by Cheney obviously aim to preempt adoption by the Bush Administration of any recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, to initiate diplomatic talks with Iran.

2. Cheney took the lead in proposing this new security architecture. There is, at this point, a consensus inside the Bush Administration to pursue this policy. When President Bush arrives later this week in Amman, Jordan, to meet with Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, he may also hold secret talks with several senior Syrian officials. In that meeting, President Bush will bluntly offer Syria the opportunity to break its ties to Iran and join in the emerging Sunni Arab bloc.

3. The approach to Syria coincides with a major effort, within Lebanon, to force Michel Aoun to break his alliance with Hezbollah, in the wake of the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. Over the weekend, there was a meeting of leading Maronites, sponsored by Patriarch Sfeir, aimed at tightening the pressure on Aoun to break with Hezbollah, and join a Sunni Arab, Christian, Druze coalition to counter Hezbollah’s power. Were the Syrians to accept the Bush offer (highly unlikely), they would be expected to pressure Hezbollah to disarm, as a condition for negotiations to get the Golan Heights back from Israel.

4. Condi Rice’s planned meeting with Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert is aimed at kick-starting the Israeli-Palestinian talks. But the key to the Israeli policy will be to complete the construction of the wall, and to build similar walls of separation along the border with Lebanon. The argument is that both Hamas and Hezbollah represent extensions of Iran’s influence into the areas bordering on Israel, and they must be contained. The “peace” offer being put on the table will center on these walls of separation.

5. Iran is already aware of these Cheney-led initiatives. While Arab governments will assume that Iran will react and respond to the attempt to create this Sunni Arab-U.S.-Israel security architecture to confront Iran by playing for sectarian conflict in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, sources caution that Iran is taking a more sophisticated view. Recurring statements by President Ahmadinejad are calculated to instigate an Israeli attack on Iran’s purported nuclear weapons sites. Iran anticipates some kind of attack on these sites–either by the United States or Israel. Iran would prefer an Israeli attack for several reasons. First, the U.S. has far more significant military capabilities to strike Iran than Israel does. Second, any Israeli attack on a Muslim country would trigger a revolt on the Arab streets. Iran carefully studied the response of the population throughout the Persian Gulf and Arab world to the Israeli attacks on Lebanon this summer. They anticipate massive Arab support, across the sectarian Shi’ite-Sunni divide, for Iran, in the event of an Israeli strike.”

Bush Games

On the macro front, as the United States position their fleet to aggress Iran, Ahmadinejad predicts the downfall of Israel. Israel has previously threatened Iran of course, though they have now issued a decree that they have no intention of attacking Iran – has Bush decided to do the dirty work on Iran and told the Israelis to back off or is a US attack on Iran off the agenda for the time being?

Russia is sounding supportive of Iran – they don’t want their trade and investments disrupted. Russia holds the key to the EU energy supply. Iran continues to make negotiation noises about its nuclear enrichment program – treading a very clever fine line. From what’s coming out of the Israeli media, one can tell easily how much Netanyahu and his neozionists really want to whack Iran. The thing is, Iran haven’t invaded anyone for a couple of hundred years – unlike the Israelis who are constantly whacking their neighbours. And the apartheid land thief zealots continue and will continue to reap what they sow until they compensate those they have dispossessed, whose fury foments with the ongoing crimes perpetrated upon them by the unrestrained Israeli regime. Given the comparative lack of support amongst Democrat voters for Israel, the Zionista will be pulling out all stops to keep the Bushista in power.

Bush continues to mouth ‘we are staying the course’ in Iraq as the civil war there rages. He denies the findings of John Hopkins Uni (a very conservative establishment) on the astronomical number of Iraqi civilian deaths resultant from the illegal invasion by the Coalition of the Killing.

Would an attack of Iran take the heat off Bush’s Iraq failure, or will an artificially high DOW and vacuous noises from Bernanke keep the US consumers placated sufficiently for a Bush success in the Congressionals? or will unaccountable Diebold do the job if all else fails?

Will the US neocons aka the PPT in collusion with the Bush buddies, the Saudis, further depress the POO prior to the elections to keep inflating the DOW and deflating the POG? The Bundesbank reveals they were cajoled recently by the Central Banks to flog gold but they resisted.