THE MOTHER OF ALL HOAXES

Nearly 2 months ago, when an initial deal was reached between Iran and P5+1 over Iran's peaceful civilian nuclear power program (as opposed to Israel's offensive tactical nuclear missiles), I was curious as to why, after they pursued war on Syria following the false flag at Ghouta in August, Hague and Kerry were pushing for peace with Iran. Tony Cartalucci proposed it was a set up, quoting Which Path To Persia?

"...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.

[source : Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough", Land Destroyer, http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/nuclear-deal-with-iran-prelude-to-war.html, 26th November 2013]

This rush to war began with Ed Miliband. Vladimir Putin seems to have stolen the show, but without Miliband there would have been no rebellion in The Marsten House, and I believe no escape for President Obama from declaring war on Syria. After that vote Miliband was attacked in the NATO media, as was his late father.

If all this peacemongering is all one giant hoax then:
1. is Ed Miliband in on it?
2. were the NATO media attacks on himself and his father known of in advance, or at least expected?
3. were all the foaming-at-the-mouth rants from rabid Zionists like Bill Kristol and John Bolton, and the video from the Emergency Committee for Israel all a hoax?

I believe the answer to 1. is no. I also believe that the answer to 2. is no.

I believe the answer to 3. is also no, but if there is the mother of all hoaxes going down, that they are luring Iran into a trap, then would they be in on it?

So, regarding Syria, Obama has shown his wise reluctance to not attack Syria in an overt military assault. There was incredible pressure on him throughout 2013 to attack Syria, but still, even after the horrific events of 21st August, he refused, seeking a diplomatic solution instead.

Obama loves his peace prize. His sponsors don't. They wanted the trigger-happy Ziofascist Romney in The White House.

But was Obama in on the hoax of Ghouta? I believe the answer to that question is no. I believe that he fell for it, at first, but realised at the last minute he had been tricked. In fact, I think there is some kind of factional war going on now. After the attempt to Carterise Obama with the Benghazi incident there was a culling of top brass, including the DCI Petraeus, who is now firmly in the Bilderberg camp having been awarded with a cushy job at KKR. And following Ghouta and the decision to seek peace with Syria and Iran there has been an increase in the exposing of Saudi Arabia and its role in terrorism, particularly 9/11, but that seems to have retreated for now.

So it is possible that the mother of all hoaxes is going down to lure Iran into a trap, but Obama, Kristol, etc are not in on it. Netanyahu maybe.