WW III # Marching Towards 'Pre-emptive' Nuclear War? # (Ongoing videos/articles)

US war game foreshadows Israeli attack on Iran
by Peter Symonds
March 21, 2012
World Socialist Web Site

Details of a recent Pentagon war game, leaked yesterday in the New York Times, underscore the advanced character and recklessness of the Obama administration’s preparations for war against Iran. Nominally premised on an attack by Israel on Iran, the conclusion from the exercise was that “the strike would lead to a wider regional war which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead.”

The two-week war game was carried out by US Central Command to test communication and coordination between its headquarters in Tampa, Florida and US forces in the Persian Gulf.

“When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the [American] officials, [US Central Command head] General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first-strike would likely have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there,” the Times stated.

The article ominously noted that a similar “Internal Look” exercise had been used in December 2002, by Central Command head General Tommy Franks, “to test the readiness of his units for the coming invasion of Iraq.” Just three months later, in March 2003, US President George Bush unleashed the illegal US-led war of aggression that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and devastated much of the country.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

U.S.-IRAN: From War Of Nerves To Full-Scale War?
by Boris Volkhonsky
March 21, 2012

Apparently U.S. authorities want to create an assumption that a war with Iran is inevitable, and the only remaining questions are, who is to launch the first strike, and when will it happen?

The U.S. sticks to the scenario under which it will be Israel who initiates the war. In that case, it will give the U.S. a plausible excuse for being involved with the sole purpose to defend its core ally.

For the U.S., whose aim is obvious – that is the change of regime in Iran - the stalemate cannot last too long. Therefore, in the coming weeks and months we will probably see an escalation of war games, which by now have been games of muscles and nerves only, but have a potential of turning into a full-scale war.

As reported by The Los Angeles Times, the U.S. Navy is upgrading its defensive and offensive capabilities in the Persian Gulf to counter threats from Iran to seize the Strait of Hormuz and block the flow of oil.

Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert told reporters that the Navy will add four more mine-sweeping ships and four more CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters with mine-detection capability. The Navy is also sending more underwater unmanned mine-neutralization units to the region.

On the other hand, according to reports, the Iranians have boasted that they could “swarm” large U.S. ships with their smaller, fast-moving craft. They have also reportedly been laying mines along their coastline.

In January, the chief of the Iranian army warned the U.S. not to send another ship to the Persian Gulf after the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis departed. Another carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, entered the gulf weeks later without incident.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Saudi Arabia: House of Saud, Falling House of Cards
by Finian Cunningham
March 23, 2012

Saudi rulers are struggling to contain a new wave of public protests that has erupted across the Arabian kingdom as security forces open fire on unarmed civilians.

The big question: is the House of Saud finally beginning to collapse like the fragile house of cards that this creaking, ruling monarchy represents?

The irony is rich indeed. For the past year, the Saudi rulers have done their utmost to crush the slightest dissent in their country, while at the same time they have backed Western interference, aggression and regime change in Libya and Syria – under the guise, wait for it, of advocating democratic freedom and human rights.

At least two people have been reported dead from Saudi police violence against an outpouring of crowds who have taken to the streets in the kingdom – a female student and a man, described as a well-known human rights activist, are the latest victims. Many others have been injured or arrested as state security forces mobilise in what appears to be a desperate bid by the rulers to contain spreading protests.

The irony is that Saudi Arabia is one of the most vocal members of the Arab League to denounce Syria for alleged human rights violations against protesters in that country. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has even called on Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad to step down and give way to greater democratic reforms.

The irony comes in at least two parts: Saudi’s King Abdullah presides over an absolute monarchy that is brutally suppressing all and any peaceful dissent in his country calling for democracy; and, two, Saudi Arabia is funding and arming subversive groups in Syria who are accused of committing assassinations, kidnappings and many other terrorisms to bring down the secular Assad government.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Last Edited by RoXY on 03/24/2012 12:30 PM

IN HIGH GEAR: Advanced Preparations of U.S.-Israel War Against Iran
by Ben Schreiner
March 24, 2012

Following the highly scrutinized meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this month in Washington, consensus held that Obama had managed to secure assurances from the war-hungry Netanyahu that Israel would delay a military strike against Iran till 2013. That is, till after the November U.S. presidential election.

According to the Israeli daily Maariv, this commitment of Israeli “restraint” had been bought with the sale of U.S. “advanced bunker-busting bombs and long-range refueling planes” to the Israeli Defense Forces, as al-Akhbar (3/8) reported. Needless to say, such advanced weaponry would be required in any Israeli attack on Iran.

“You shall still have your war,” Obama thus seemingly sought to convey to Netanyahu, “but only in due time.”

Since the Obama-Netanyahu summit, however, indications of such Israeli restraint have dissipated. The Israeli dogs of war are not so easily tamed. In fact, in his latest column for Bloomberg (3/19), the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reports that talk of striking Iran is once more convulsing through the Israeli political establishment. And according to Goldberg, all such discussions have assumed a rather optimistic bent.

“One conclusion key officials have reached,” Goldberg writes, “is that a strike on six or eight Iranian facilities will not lead, as is generally assumed, to all-out war.”

We learn further that Israeli officials interpret Obama’s claims of “having Israel’s back” as meaning that even in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran in the face of U.S. protest, “Obama would move immediately to help buttress Israel’s defenses against an Iranian counterstrike.”

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Secret Nuclear Drone Plan Nixed by ‘Political Realities’
By Sam Biddle, Gizmodo.com
March 22, 2012

Sandia National Laboratories cooks up some of the craziest new technologies you’ll ever see—and some you’ll never see. That’s the fate of a secret method for driving unmanned aerial vehicles with nuclear power, abandoned by its creators.

The plan was outlined in a document (.pdf) acquired by the Federation of American Scientists, which outlines a study Sandia conducted. The results? A new way, potentially, of powering military drones.
Gizmodo

“As a result of this effort, UAVs were to be able to provide far more surveillance time and intelligence information per mission while reducing the high cost of support activities,” the report noted. “This technology was intended to create unmatched global capabilities to observe and preempt terrorist and weapon of mass destruction (WMD) activities.”

CONTINUE: [link to www.wired.com]

The Art of Warfare: Iran and The Gas Pipeline Battle
by Manlio Dinucci
March 29, 2012
ilmanifesto.it

Two major pipeline projects are at present vying to secure future energy supplies to Pakistan, India and China. One originates in Iran while the second one draws on reserves in Turkmenistan. The latter is promoted by an Israeli group and is supported by Secretary of State Clinton. According to Manlio Dinucci, an attack against Iran could cripple the Iranian project, which is currently ahead of the game. The question remains whether US leaders are still really in line with this strategy, as hinted in recent statements by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

On the Washington stage, under the world’s media spotlight, Obama stated that: "As president and commander in chief, I prefer peace to war." But, he added, "Israel’s security is sacrosanct," and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, "I will not hesitate to use force, including all elements of American power."

US nuclear weapons and their preemptive use are part of the options. Words worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. That’s the scenario. To find out what it is really all about, we need to go behind the scenes.

Leading the anti-Iranian crusade is Israel, the only country in the region which possesses a nuclear arsenal and, unlike Iran, refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then we have the United States, the World's greatest military power, whose underlying political, economic and strategic interests, will under no circumstances allow that a state in the Middle East, namely Iran, escape its influence.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

NORTH KOREA: To Celebrate or To Surrender?
by Prof. Gavan McCormack
April 6, 2012
Asia Pacific Journal

On 16 March 2012, North Korea announced that it would launch an earth observation satellite named Kwangmyongsong (Lodestar) 3, aboard an Unha carrier rocket sometime between the hours of 7 am and noon on a day between 12 and 16 April, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of its state founder, Kim Il Sung, and the attainment of "strong and prosperous" status by the country. The launch from a base in the north of the country close to the border with China would be pointed south, dropping off its first phase rocket into the Yellow Sea about 160 kms to the southwest of South Korea's Byeonsan peninsula and the second into the ocean about 140 kilometres east of Luzon in the Philippines. Due notice of the impending launch was issued to the appropriate international maritime, aviation and telecommunication bodies (IMO, ICAO and ITU) and, to mark the occasion, North Korea announced that it would welcome scientific observers and journalists. The 15 April date, in the 100th year according to the calendar of North Korea, has long been declared a landmark in the history of the state, and the launch seems designed to be its climactic event.

Meteorological earth observation satellites (multi-functional, but weather forecasting central) are either polar orbiting (Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite or POES) or stationary. This one, North Korea later made clear (KCNA, 26 March), was to be an "advanced geostationary meteorological satellite data receiver."

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

DANGEROUS CROSSROADS: US-JAPAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA: Tension ahead of Pyongyang Missile Test
by Nile Bowie
April 7, 2012

As China declares fresh warnings of retaliation against any strike on Iran [1], the regime in Pyongyang shows no signs of aborting its upcoming controversial satellite launch, scheduled to take place on April 12th through to April 16th. The Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite will be launched southward from the Sohae satellite launch station in Cholsan County, North Phyongan Province, using a long-range Unha-3 rocket; North Korean officials assured the international community that it would "strictly abide by relevant international regulations and usage concerning the launch of scientific and technological satellites for peaceful purposes." [2] As Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak insinuate that Pyongyang’s upcoming satellite launch is a pretext to expand a program of nuclear terrorism [3], North Korea has invited the space agencies of eight countries, including Japan, the United States, China and Russia, and the European Space Agency to observe the launch [4].

While North Korea attempts to assure the transparency of its space program to the international community, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency have both declined the invitation from Pyongyang [5]. Additionally, Japan has announced the extension of unilateral sanctions on North Korea for another year [6], including a trade freeze and visa ban, while the US has announced a suspension of 240,000 tones of food aid to North Korea, reportedly allocated for children and pregnant women [7]. While the feasibility of the proposed $850 million satellite launch is questionable given North Korea’s economic instability in recent times [8], the Washington consensus has used UN Resolution 1874 to impede what may rightfully be a peaceful technological investment to monitor the country's crops and natural resources, in a move to prevent further food insecurity.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Nuclear Chess
Stephen Lendman, Contributor
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Activist Post

On April 14, two days of nuclear chess began in Istanbul. At issue is Iran's civilian program. So-called P5+1 countries -- America, Russia, China, Britain, and France, plus Germany -- know it's peaceful. They pretend otherwise.

Expect to-ing and fro-ing without resolution. Washington plans it that way. So do Britain, France and Germany. They're part of the dirty game claiming Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions.

They demand Tehran prove a negative. How do you provide evidence revealing what you don't have? Resolution won't come from Istanbul. Nor will Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against acquiring nuclear weapons help.

He calls possessing them sinful and anti-Islamic. Saying it falls on deaf ears. It's more proof of Washington's hypocrisy. It shows considerations other then Iran's legitimate program are at issue.

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]

China warns US: military confrontation could arise over South China Sea dispute
Madison Ruppert, Contributor
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Activist Post

The United States has been goading China in the South China Sea dispute for some time now by arming the Philippines – one of the parties in the dispute – and continuing to arm them with more naval vessels and training through joint exercises.

Meanwhile, the West has shifted focus over to the Asia-Pacific region and continues to pour huge sums of money into military hardware which seems to be designed to be deployed in a scenario like what might develop in the South China Sea or a more traditional conflict, perhaps with Iran.

China has been quite vocal in opposing the United States’ antagonistic hegemony and indeed has been increasing their military spending quite a bit.

Now Chinese state media has warned the United States that the dispute in the South China Sea could indeed lead to a military confrontation.

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]

North Korea vows 'special operations' against South's leader
April 23, 2012

North Korea's military has announced it will soon launch "special operations" against South Korea's conservative President, accusing him of insulting Pyongyang's past leaders.

"We announce that special actions by our revolutionary army aimed to crush reckless challenges by the enemy forces will begin soon," said a statement on official media which gave no details of the actions.

"The target of the special actions is the main enemy, Lee Myung-Bak, and his followers, including the conservative media," said the announcement today by what was termed the "special operation action unit" of the top military command.

Read more: [link to www.smh.com.au]

TOP OF THE WORLD: NATO Rehearses For War In The Arctic - The Western campaign for global dominance has reached the top of the world.
by Rick Rozoff
April 24, 2012

To the world’s military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources and long-dreamed-of sea-lanes. Rick Rozoff scrutinizes the feverish military activity taking place in the High North, under the official label of a joint Norwegian-NATO-Partnership for Peace endeavor, including preparedness drills against terrorist threats, mass demonstrations... and spies coming in from the cold!

The largest military exercise in the High North, inside and immediately outside the Arctic Circle, since the end of the Cold War (and perhaps even before) was completed on March 21 in northern Norway.

Except for the crash of a Norwegian military transport plane in Sweden during its course the world would have been unaware of it.

Cold Response 2012 was conducted from March 12-21 primarily in Norway but also in Sweden with the participation of 16,300 troops from fifteen nations as part of full spectrum – air, sea, infantry and special forces – maneuvers against the backdrop of the past three years’ new scramble for the Arctic.

The term High North is a translation of the Norwegian designation nordområdene which was adopted by NATO in January of 2009 for its two-day Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North in Reykjavík, Iceland attended by the bloc’s secretary general, chairman of its Military Committee and two top military commanders, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.

Four of the five Arctic claimants – the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark – are members of NATO. The other, Russia, is not. In 2010 Norway became the first Arctic nation to move its military command center within the Arctic Circle, transferring the Norwegian Operational Command Headquarters from Stavanger to Bodø, a five-story complex built during the Cold War to withstand a nuclear attack. The preceding year Norway purchased 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fifth generation multirole fighters.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Former US President Jimmy Carter warns against a possible war with Iran
April 24, 2012
AFP

Former US President Jimmy Carter warned against a possible war with Iran Monday as he decried his nation’s involvement in unjust conflicts at a summit of Nobel Peace Prize laureates in Chicago.

Carter, a naval veteran who served as Democratic president from 1977 to 1981, said that while he is “not against conflict when necessary,” the criteria for a just war are often not met.

War is only just when it is a “last resort” after “every other possible peaceful resolution” is exhausted, when all efforts are made to protect civilians, when the purpose of the conflict is to make the situation better, not worse, when society in general agrees it is just and when the level of violence is “proportional to the injury received,” he said.

“That would obviously exclude our recent policy of preemptive war,” Carter said in a keynote address.

The United States has been “almost constantly at war” in the past 60 years — in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many others.

“And now we are contemplating going to war again perhaps in Iran,” said the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

THREATENING NORTH KOREA: A Tale of Two Rocket Launches
by Stephen Gowans
April 28, 2012

North Korea launched a rocket on April 13 to loft a satellite into space–part of the country’s civilian space program. The rocket, based on ballistic missile technology, broke up only minutes after launch. Western state officials and media rebuked Pyongyang for directing part of its strained budget to a rocket launch when it depends on outside food aid. Along with other countries, India “voiced deep concern.” [1]

Six days later, India launched Agni-V, a ballistic missile capable of delivering a 1.5 ton nuclear warhead to any point in China. India–which the American Federation of Scientists estimates has an arsenal of 80 to 100 nuclear weapons—boasted that the launch represented “another milestone” in its “quest to add to the credibility” of its “security and preparedness.” [2]

Both launches violated UN Security Council resolutions. Security Council Resolution 1172 (1998) calls upon India “to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” [3] Security Council Resolutions 1718 (2006) [4] and 1874 (2009) [5] direct North Korea to do the same.

On April 16, North Korea was censured by the Security Council for violating resolutions 1718 and 1874. [6] India has not been censured for violating resolution 1172. Indeed, that a Security Council resolution exists which prohibits India’s ballistic missile program has been almost completely ignored.

What’s more, while North Korea was savagely attacked in the Western media for its satellite launch, the same media treated India’s long-range ballistic missile test with either indifference or approval. India’s massive poverty was not juxtaposed against its decision to allocate resources to building nuclear warheads and the missiles to carry them.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

The Empire versus Iran and Syria: A New World War for a New World Order?
by Jooneed Khan
April 28, 2012
rabble.ca

Confronted with a declining World Order it can no longer control, does the West want to re-assert its will through a new world war, which this time would be really global?

A terrifying scenario emerges from the ceaseless escalation of pressures and threats against Syria and Iran, pitting, for the first time since the NATO-OECD Empire won the Cold War two decades ago, the Western trio of the UN veto club (U.S., U.K., France) against its non-Western duo (Russia and China).

These two latter superpowers, key players of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) spanning the Eurasian mega continent, have blocked the trio's plans to carry out a Libya-II in Syria, and to choke Iran with an array of sanctions that include cutting off its oil exports - while keeping the military strike option "on the table."

This is the first time the Russians and Chinese have, together, raised obstacles in the way of the apparently unstoppable march of the victors of the Cold War - and the destroyers of the former Soviet Empire.

But the march of the NATO-OECD Empire is becoming less and less triumphal. With support from most of the non-Western countries of the Non Aligned Movement and the G77, Russia and China are reasserting the primacy of international law and UN diplomacy in tackling the Syria and Iran issues, hobbling further the Western propensity to drown every "crisis," real or fabricated, under a carpet of bombs, missiles and boots on the ground - with dire unintended consequences for all!

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Last Edited by RoXY on 05/18/2012 07:19 PM

China’s Rise, America’s Fall. Which Superpower is more Threatened by its “Extractive Elites”?
by Ron Unz
May 1, 2012
American Conservative

The rise of China surely ranks among the most important world developments of the last 100 years. With America still trapped in its fifth year of economic hardship, and the Chinese economy poised to surpass our own before the end of this decade, China looms very large on the horizon. We are living in the early years of what journalists once dubbed “The Pacific Century,” yet there are worrisome signs it may instead become known as “The Chinese Century.”

But does the Chinese giant have feet of clay? In a recently published book, Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson characterize China’s ruling elites as “extractive” — parasitic and corrupt — and predict that Chinese economic growth will soon falter and decline, while America’s “inclusive” governing institutions have taken us from strength to strength. They argue that a country governed as a one-party state, without the free media or checks and balances of our own democratic system, cannot long prosper in the modern world. The glowing tributes this book has received from a vast array of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including six Nobel laureates in economics, testifies to the widespread popularity of this optimistic message.

Yet do the facts about China and America really warrant this conclusion?

China Shakes the World
By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.

China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

IRAN ACCUSED OF BEING BEHIND 9/11 ATTACKS - U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran)
by Julie Lévesque
May 11, 2012

The U.S. court judgment issued in December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran) which blames the Iran government for the 9/11 attacks is part of the propaganda ploy, which consists in demonizing the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is part and parcel of America's ongoing war against Iran since the overthrow of its U.S.-backed monarchy in 1979.

Like many similar lawsuits in America, this legal procedure's ultimate goal is to draw off important sums of money from the Iranian government leading to the possible confiscation of assets, thereby further strangling the country’s economy, already targeted by U.S. sanctions, while simultaneously reinforcing Iran’s image of a “state sponsor of terrorism”.

This ruling allows the families involved to claim damages from the Iranian government as well from a number of Iranian State corporations, the amount of which is still unknown, but could reach billions, like last December’s judgement which found Iran liable for the 1983 Beirut bombings.

This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.

In addition, all three branches of the U.S. government, under both Republicans and Democrats, contributed to make this and other legal attacks against Iran possible, while preventing comparable cases against the Saudi monarchy, most notably a case accusing Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks. Although the evidence pertaining to the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 remains classified, the available evidence in the public domaine indicates more connections between Al Qaeda and the Saudi monarchy than those allegedly pertaining to Iran.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

The Israel Lobby Never Sleeps - H.R.4133 — United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012
by Philip Giraldi
May 14, 2012

There has been no media reporting on H.R.4133 — United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 introduced into the House of Representatives of the 112th Congress on March 5th “To express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the President to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.” The sponsors include Eric Cantor, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Howard Berman (all of whom are Jewish) and also Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who is Norwegian but might as well be Jewish given his frequently expressed love for Israel. The bill provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the US taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military superiority” over all of its neighbors combined. It is scheduled for passage on a “suspension of the rules,” which means it will not actually be voted on and will be approved by consent of Congress.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

"It will Lead to War", Statement on H.R.4133, The US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 - It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both.
by Rep Ron Paul
May 14, 2012
US House of Representatives

Statement on H.R.4133 – United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, May 9, 2012
Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to HR 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which unfortunately is another piece of one-sided and counter-productive foreign policy legislation. This bill's real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria, and it undermines US diplomatic efforts by making clear that the US is not an honest broker seeking peace for the Middle East.

The bill calls for the United States to significantly increase our provision of sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and states that it is to be US policy to "help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge" in the region.

While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation - should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by US taxpayers and backed up by the US military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to "reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Israel fears nuclear talks with Iran could prevent unilateral military strike
Madison Ruppert, Contributor
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Activist Post

For those who have not been following the situation with Iran closely – especially how Israel fits in – it might be somewhat surprising to learn that Israel is not all too interested in negotiating with Iran.

One might assume that Israel would want a peaceful resolution so both countries can leave in peace without a drop of blood shed in the name of stopping an alleged nuclear weapons program.

That assumption would be dead wrong, as Israel has completely ignored the fact that both U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have said Iran does not have nukes and instead declared that talks with Iran are a “trap.”

Indeed, somehow they continue to act antagonistically towards Iran even when their own military chief admitted that Iran has not decided to begin developing nuclear weapons.

In what might be a shocking article for some, Barak Ravid wrote for Haaretz, “Israel views the talks, set to take place on May 23 in Baghdad, with some bitterness, perhaps even with hopes that they will fail completely.”

Recently information – much of which has so little credibility that even calling it “information” is a bit of a stretch – has surfaced which supposedly indicates that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons.

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]

DANGEROUS CROSSROADS: Russian Prime Minister Medvedev Warns of ‘Full-Blown Wars’
May 17, 2012
Ria Novosti

ST. PETERSBURG: Military intervention in the sovereign affairs of other states may lead to outright war, including nuclear war, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday.

“The introduction of all sorts of collective sanctions bypassing international institutions does not improve the situation in the world while reckless military operations in foreign states usually end up with radicals coming to power,” he told an international legal forum in St. Petersburg.

“At some point such actions, which undermine state sovereignty, may well end in a full-blown regional war and even - I’m not trying to spook anyone - the use of nuclear weapons,” he said.

The right of nations to choose their own path of development is a universal value, he said referring to the situation in Syria and the Middle East as a whole ahead of a G8 summit.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

BREAKING: The US Military Option for Iran is "Ready", American Ambassador to Israel says - Amb. Shapiro’s comments, broadcast on Israeli TV
by Michal Shmulovich and Greg Tepper
May 17, 2012
Times of Israel

The United States has completed its planning for a military strike on Iran, the US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro said in remarks at a closed conference in Tel Aviv that were broadcast on Israel TV on Wednesday night.

“It would be preferable to resolve this diplomatically, and through the use of pressure, than to use military force,” Shapiro said in comments that were recorded Tuesday and were broadcast Wednesday. “But that does not mean that option isn’t available. Not just available, it’s ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it’s ready.”

Shapiro, the Channel 2 TV report said, was speaking at a closed forum in Tel Aviv — reportedly an Israel Bar Association event — and the comments were recorded by a newspaper reporter. The TV item noted that the envoy had apparently not intended for his remarks to be publicly aired.

The broadcast of the Shapiro comments came a day after Israel TV reported that the Israel Air Force is soon to take part in joint military exercises in the US. The IAF has not trained in the US for several years.

The exercises, to be held in the coming months, will strengthen the relationship between the IAF and the US Air Force as they practice carrying out joint operations, according to the report.

Israeli and US air defense forces are also to take part in a major joint drill later this summer in Israel to simulate a massive attack. Thousands of US soldiers are expected to arrive in Israel for the drills.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

THE IRAN WAR PATH HAS RESUMED: With Another ‘Colin Powell Moment’?
by Finian Cunningham
May 16, 2012

You know when Western powers are getting trigger happy towards Iran again because the mainstream media propaganda machine starts cranking out lurid scare stories.

The latest wheeze is based on “computer-generated drawings” allegedly depicting a nuclear explosion blast chamber that Iran has allegedly been using to test mini nukes. The drawings were provided “exclusively” to the Associated Press news agency by an unnamed official from “a country tracking Iran's nuclear program, who said it proves [sic] the structure exists”.

Don’t you just love the way “unnamed sources” are quoted, who go on to “prove” their own unverifiable claims?

The AP story has since been picked up, predictably, by all and sundry Western media [1].

Not only are the stories illustrated with computerised images of the alleged blast chamber, there are also mathematical details of chamber dimensions, design and structure.

A good rule-of-thumb is that when western media and unnamed “diplomats” assiduously provide “details” on suspect installations, then it is a sure sign of desperation to convince the wider public about otherwise dubious claims.

The template for this kind of disinformation stunt was the presentation by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell in February 2003 before the United Nations Security Council. Then, in a contrived performance that smacked of sheer theatre, Powell presented audio recordings and satellite images to testify that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was a piece with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s hysterical assertion that Iraq had the capability of launching such weapons “within 45 seconds”.

In sonorous tones, Powell declared to the world: “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

All of the supposed “solid sources” claimed by Powell (and Blair and George W Bush) were later shown to be fabrications or spurious. Powell for one lied through his teeth. But based on his performance, the US and Britain launched a nine-year war of aggression on Iraq that claimed over one million lives and bequeathed that country with a heinous legacy of ongoing internecine violence, poverty, destruction and widespread cancer-causing depleted-uranium contamination.

Incredibly, far from being shamed over committing war crimes and being complicit in war crimes, Western governments and media continue to repeat the same cynical charade of weapons of mass destruction on Iran.

Less than three years after Colin Powell’s disgraceful moment of mendacity before the eyes of the world, the New York Times ran a story alleging that Iran had nuclear warheads. The claim was based on images obtained by unnamed American intelligence officials allegedly from a stolen Iranian laptop. That story was later exposed by investigative journalist Gareth Porter to be a ludicrous fabrication because the images were actually of redundant North Korean missiles.

It is with this kind of track record of war crimes and blatant fabrication that the latest “exclusive” story of a secret Iranian nuclear blast chamber must be assessed – a story based on computer drawings supplied yet again by ubiquitous unnamed sources. Debunking such disinformation is not enough. Given the seriousness of consequences from publishing this disinformation, Iran or some international citizen body should be filing a legal case against Western mainstream media for inciting illegal wars.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Will Rogue Fundamentalist Christian Military Leaders Start a Nuclear War in the Middle East?
by Washington's Blog
May 19, 2012
Washington's Blog - 2012-05-18

Before You Write Off This Threat … Read This
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that if the U.S. invades the sovereignty of countries like Syria or Iran, it could lead to nuclear war.

Russia and China have previously stated that an attack on Iran would be considered a direct threat to their national security.

And Iran and Syria have had a mutual defense pact for years. China and Russia might also defend Syria if it is attacked. So an attack on Syria could draw Iran into the war … followed by China and Russia.

Of course, while the Middle Eastern wars are mainly driven by oil (and perhaps protecting the dollar) – and while real conservatives are anti-war - many in the U.S. military view the wars as a literal crusade, and see Islam itself as their mortal enemy.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Pushing for War on Iran. Congress Provides the "Green Light"
National Defense Authorization Act 2013: De Facto Declaration of War
by Stephen Lendman
May 22, 2012

Congressional hawks want war. Bipartisan support backs it. Moderates outnumber hotheads. At issue is for how long.

Saber rattling, fear mongering, and bogus accusations persisted for years. Now it's showing up in legislation. More on that below.

Possibly a false flag will ignite another Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."

At high-anxiety times, options often dwindle to war. Knee-jerk congressional support authorizes it with no formal declaration. The Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 mandates it.

It hasn't been declared since December 8, 1941. Why bother when presidential diktats send Americans to war with no congressional opposition.

Threats don't exist so they're invented. False flag attacks masquerade as real ones. Body counts rise exponentially. Buildings and other facilities topple like tenpins.

When people realize they've been had, it's too late. They never learn. No matter how often they're fooled, they're easily deceived again. Once a damn fool, always one. Relying on scoundrel media for news and information makes it easy.

Television is worst of all. Print managed news also omits what people most need to know and distorts the rest.

Ahead of the May 18 and 19 G8 meeting and NATO Chicago summit, a New York Times editorial headlined, "NATO and Afghanistan," saying: Washington claims "real progress" against Taliban forces. In fact, things are out-of-control. Pentagon officials quietly admit the war was lost years ago.

Even The Times was skeptical, saying the "Taliban continue to strike with impunity. Central and local governments are riddled with corruption."

Violence rages. Afghan forces may be more foe than friend. Overwhelming popular sentiment wants America and coalition partners out.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

'Iranians won't give up nuke program, it's matter of national pride'
Iran is hoping to convince world powers its nuclear programme serves a peaceful purpose and isn't about making bombs. A new round of talks has begun in Baghdad - with further pressure on Tehran to stop higher-grade uranium enrichment which it's feared could be put to military use. Iran has already tried to ease worsening relations, by tentatively agreeing to new UN inspections of sites which are suspected of involvement in atomic weapons development.

Only Bombing Iran Into Submission Will Satisfy Israel
Brit Dee, Contributor
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Activist Post

Iran and six world powers are meeting today for nuclear talks in Baghdad - and Israel is unsurprisingly unhappy about such diplomacy.

In a clear sign that Israel will not be satisfied until Iran's nuclear facilities have been bombed, Israeli Defence minister Ehud Barak yesterday accused Iran of "deception" over its recent agreement to allow UN inspectors into the country.

A statement released by Barak's office accused Iran of trying to "reach a technical agreement that will create a deception of progress in talks in order to reduce the pressure ahead of talks tomorrow in Baghdad and postpone harshening of sanctions". He further went on to dictate how attendees of the Baghdad talks should deal with Iran, demanding that "It's forbidden to make any concessions to Iran. World powers' demands must be clear and unequivocal."

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]