This is General Wesley Clark, on two separate occasions, relating how he was told shortly after the inside job 9/11 about the plan for war and/or regime change in seven nations in five years.
In this second interview Clark suggests that Africa is not of any concern. He is wrong. Africom was created to regain control or impose further control on that mineral rich continent.
But note the nations named to Clark; Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Iraq was invaded in 2003 based on absolute pure and total bullshit.
Lebanon was bombed in 2006 after Israel contrived a war by sending troops into areas where Hezbollah was known to be and then declared war after the soldiers were taken knowing that the soldiers were dead already (as admitted by Olmert recently).
Libya was bombed and bombed and bombed after UN SCR 1973 was passed (when both Russia and China mysteriously abstained) but then the resolution was ignored and Gaddafi was assassinated.
Somalia and Sudan are beginning to show signs of trouble, with increased skirmishes in Somalia involving a European force after the UK declared it considered Somalia, not Afghanistan, as the new focus of anti-terrorism operations (and this came after it was recently discovered that Somalia had the world's seventh largest oil reserves just off its coast).
The meddling in Syria, by the Friends of Syria financing, arming, training, advising and protecting the Syrian al Qaeda rebs in order to create conditions to invoke the R2P, is clear for all to see.
And Iran has been the target for the Anglo-American Empire for centuries, but specifically in Operation Ajax, the Iranian Revolution and the Green Revolution, as well as the unfounded accusations of Iran developing a military nuclear program having been given civil nuclear power technology in the Atoms for Peace Program.
But in the videos of Clark above, Clark mentions Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. These two rogues were instrumental in creating the warmongering PNAC who wrote in their Rebuilding America's Defenses published in September 2000 that in order to go on a global warmongering spree to clean up all those old Soviet client regimes, Iraq, Iran and Syria, "a new Pearl Harbor" would be required. A year later on 11th September 2001 that new Pearl Harbor occured, when the USAF was mysteriously AWOL at a time when Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in control of The Pentagon and another PNAC member Dick Cheney was in control of Washington DC while President Bush was in Florida. Other PNAC members were in other very infuential positions to guide the response to the attacks.
Before publishing Rebuilding America's Defenses the same cabal of Zionists wrote another warmongering document entitled A Clean Break for Benjamin Netanyahu. On 9/11 Netanyahu said live on air that the 9/11 attacks were very good, but then quickly corrected himself. He later began to admit that the 9/11 attacks had been good for Israel (see http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/160408Netanyahu.htm).
Osama bin Laden was accused of 9/11 without evidence, despite some being promised but never shown. But he died from Marfan Syndrome years ago. The Taliban in Afghanistan had destroyed all the opium there, and they were also holding up the development of a series of pipelines.
So all the wars after Afghanistan have been part of that war-on-seven-nations-in-five-years.
But this is 2012. The war on Iraq began in 2003. In other words NINE years later and the plan is only half executed. The plan was seriously stalled in Iraq. So to speed it up a Faustian pact was agreed between Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA that Sunni terrorists would be unleashed to enable regime change. This worked well in Libya when Sunni al Qaeda caused enough trouble (with the help of NATO special forces and Gulf states) to invoke R2P. This is now happening in Syria. And if successful will be implemented in Iran.
But note this; the 9/11 attacks on the USA were alleged to have been committed by Saudis, but as Netanyahu admits the resulting series of wars benefit Israel because the targets of those wars were named in Zionist documents as targets for aggression and Netanyhau even admits it! In Libya last year and Syria this year Saudi Arabia funded Sunni terrorists to topple anti-Israel governments. In other words there is an obvious axis-of-evil consisting of the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that is creating terrorism for the benefit of the USA and UK.
Anyone who supports war on Syria, or allows regime change in Syria, is complicit in the plan for war-on-seven-nation-in-five-years, and is thus an accomplice in the crime of 9/11 that has enabled the wars.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
AN OPEN LETTER TO CRAIG MURRAY AND MICHAEL MANSFIELD
Dear Sirs
Over last weekend a group called Bilderberg met near Barcelona in Sitges, Spain. Bilderberg have been accused of, among other things, vetting our political leaders before election (most notoriously in the cases of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), planning wars and engineering the prices of oil. My own research indicates they are seriously implicated in the cause of the current financial crisis, the administration of the subsequent bailouts (which banks survived and grew stronger and which banks died and were gobbled up by the survivors), and the current crisis with the Euro, because Goldman Sachs, along with JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and Banco Santander (all have grown significantly in strength during the crisis while their competitors have gone under), is one of their banks.
Anyway, due to a source within Bilderberg we know that over the weekend Bilderberg reached a consensus to wage war on Iran. For years critics of Bilderberg have long suspected that Bilderberg does control the major global events, but did not have definitive proof of that or proof of how they implement their plans. However, a Bilderberg member, wittingly or unwittingly, has finally divulged the information we Bilderberg critics have long been waiting for. That member of Bilderberg is Willy Claes, former longtime Minister in the Belgian government and former Secretary-General of NATO (ALL SecGens of NATO are Bilderberg). In a recent radio interview Claes admitted that Bilderberg does indeed set the agenda for the next twelve months before Bilderberg next meets, but he also described how the Bilderberg organisers implement their conspiracy. Each attendee at the conference gives a 10 minute speech, and at the end of the conference each member is given a list of action points that they should consider implementing as part of their professional role or in their particular sphere of influence, based on the speeches given by the attendees.
I have to tell you that this is dynamite information.
I have personally believed that war on Iran was always on the cards due to the documents entitled A Clean Break, written in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu, and Rebuilding America's Defenses, written by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I also believe, after a decade of research, that the current series of wars laid out in those documents are the final stages of a centuries long plan to implement a despotic world government after three world wars with the third due to a global war between Zionism and Islam. Both of the aforementioned documents were written by the same group of Zionists who on 9/11 occupied a number of very senior positions of the Bush Administration; Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney as Vice-President, Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, John Bolton. The list is long. PNAC wrote in Rebuilding America's Defenses that they wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to persuade the American public that the USA should create a massive military machine to go on the rampage and engage in multiple simultaneous wars across the globe. What happened? 9/11. What happened after that? They ignored bin Laden and instead went after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have WMD, but they have also invaded and occupied Afghanistan (and there is a lot of evidence that the US military let bin Laden and co escape from Tora Bora, and that the US military are now actively engaged in the opium trade, which several British and American aristocracy have been profiting from for centuries; the Taliban had virtually eradicated the trade).
All the above mentioned personnel are members of Bilderberg. Perle was there last weekend.
A Clean Break stated that targets of Israeli aggression should be
1. Iraq
2. Lebanon
3. Syria
4. Iran via Hezbollah
Rebuilding America's Defenses stated that the targets of US aggression should be
1. Iraq
2. Iran
and suggested that Iran was more of a threat to the USA than Iraq.
Since the highly suspicious 9/11, military conflict with these nations has been executed or proposed by the Israeli-US-UK alliance in one form or another.
A state of peace currently exists between the UK, the USA, Israel and Iran, but there have been several provocations, notably the Lebanon War 2006, and the capture of British Marines in disputed waters off Iran in 2007. With this vote by Bilderberg they are about to use their influence in government, media, academia, industry and commerce to push for war with Iran.
My question is; can the members of the Bilderberg Steering Commitee, and indeed those who voted for war on Iran over the weekend and do use their professional role and influence to engineer a war with Iran, be prosecuted for crimes against peace as per the Nuremberg Principle VI?
Over last weekend a group called Bilderberg met near Barcelona in Sitges, Spain. Bilderberg have been accused of, among other things, vetting our political leaders before election (most notoriously in the cases of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), planning wars and engineering the prices of oil. My own research indicates they are seriously implicated in the cause of the current financial crisis, the administration of the subsequent bailouts (which banks survived and grew stronger and which banks died and were gobbled up by the survivors), and the current crisis with the Euro, because Goldman Sachs, along with JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and Banco Santander (all have grown significantly in strength during the crisis while their competitors have gone under), is one of their banks.
Anyway, due to a source within Bilderberg we know that over the weekend Bilderberg reached a consensus to wage war on Iran. For years critics of Bilderberg have long suspected that Bilderberg does control the major global events, but did not have definitive proof of that or proof of how they implement their plans. However, a Bilderberg member, wittingly or unwittingly, has finally divulged the information we Bilderberg critics have long been waiting for. That member of Bilderberg is Willy Claes, former longtime Minister in the Belgian government and former Secretary-General of NATO (ALL SecGens of NATO are Bilderberg). In a recent radio interview Claes admitted that Bilderberg does indeed set the agenda for the next twelve months before Bilderberg next meets, but he also described how the Bilderberg organisers implement their conspiracy. Each attendee at the conference gives a 10 minute speech, and at the end of the conference each member is given a list of action points that they should consider implementing as part of their professional role or in their particular sphere of influence, based on the speeches given by the attendees.
I have to tell you that this is dynamite information.
I have personally believed that war on Iran was always on the cards due to the documents entitled A Clean Break, written in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu, and Rebuilding America's Defenses, written by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I also believe, after a decade of research, that the current series of wars laid out in those documents are the final stages of a centuries long plan to implement a despotic world government after three world wars with the third due to a global war between Zionism and Islam. Both of the aforementioned documents were written by the same group of Zionists who on 9/11 occupied a number of very senior positions of the Bush Administration; Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney as Vice-President, Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, John Bolton. The list is long. PNAC wrote in Rebuilding America's Defenses that they wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to persuade the American public that the USA should create a massive military machine to go on the rampage and engage in multiple simultaneous wars across the globe. What happened? 9/11. What happened after that? They ignored bin Laden and instead went after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have WMD, but they have also invaded and occupied Afghanistan (and there is a lot of evidence that the US military let bin Laden and co escape from Tora Bora, and that the US military are now actively engaged in the opium trade, which several British and American aristocracy have been profiting from for centuries; the Taliban had virtually eradicated the trade).
All the above mentioned personnel are members of Bilderberg. Perle was there last weekend.
A Clean Break stated that targets of Israeli aggression should be
1. Iraq
2. Lebanon
3. Syria
4. Iran via Hezbollah
Rebuilding America's Defenses stated that the targets of US aggression should be
1. Iraq
2. Iran
and suggested that Iran was more of a threat to the USA than Iraq.
Since the highly suspicious 9/11, military conflict with these nations has been executed or proposed by the Israeli-US-UK alliance in one form or another.
A state of peace currently exists between the UK, the USA, Israel and Iran, but there have been several provocations, notably the Lebanon War 2006, and the capture of British Marines in disputed waters off Iran in 2007. With this vote by Bilderberg they are about to use their influence in government, media, academia, industry and commerce to push for war with Iran.
My question is; can the members of the Bilderberg Steering Commitee, and indeed those who voted for war on Iran over the weekend and do use their professional role and influence to engineer a war with Iran, be prosecuted for crimes against peace as per the Nuremberg Principle VI?
Thursday, October 01, 2009
ISRAEL'S INVISIBLE NUKES
John Kerry, Presidential candidate in 2004 and member of Skull and Bones and the CFR, today writes in the FT on the topic of Iran and its nuclear program. And not surprisingly Kerry does not mention Israel once, not even to remind us that Israel, though having the only known unknown nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, is apparently prepared for a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
How can Israel's nukes be so invisible?
If Iran is developing nukes then it has at least two obvious reasons to do so;
1. to protect itself from Zionist nuclear aggression
2. to threaten Israel to stop its murder, bullying and land-grabbing
The US Military knows this and has even suggested that Israel should de-nuke to stop the nuclear arms race. But for whatever reason (though secretly we all know why) US politicians ignore this most sensible suggestion.
But at least Kerry isn't demanding an immediate attack on Israel, unlike Gideon Rachman (1st class degree History (Cantab)).
======================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fbd6c88-ae0a-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Time for diplomacy to end the stand-off with Iran
By John Kerry
Published: September 30 2009 22:50 | Last updated: September 30 2009 22:50
Today the Obama administration begins the most important American diplomatic engagement with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The public revelation of the Qom enrichment facility and Iran’s provocative ballistic missile test on Monday demonstrate what is at stake. Iran has increased its low-enriched uranium 20-fold since 2007, enough to produce, eventually, at least one nuclear weapon after further enrichment.
These are ominous developments. But after years of policy drift and transatlantic disagreement, the US and its allies will enter the talks in a position of relative strength and unity.
Consider the view from Tehran. It is on the defensive – caught red-handed in another nuclear deception. In contrast to the rancorous run-up to the war in Iraq, America and Europe are increasingly reading from the same script and Russia is signalling an openness to further sanctions.
The walkout of dozens of delegates during Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s anti-Semitic speech at the UN last week highlights Iran’s diplomatic isolation. Deciding the reputational and political risks are too great, many international banks and oil-trading companies have withdrawn voluntarily from Iran, which must import a third of its refined petroleum.
Domestically, Iran’s economy has been devastated by mismanagement, corruption, lower oil prices and fallout from the world financial crisis. Banks and foreign currency reserves are in rapid decline. Iran’s oil trust fund, which should hold tens of billions of dollars, has run dry. The bloody repression in Iran’s streets since June has compounded the damage. Iran’s ruling elite is divided, and the regime’s legitimacy is openly challenged – internally – as never before.
For years, the regime counted on bombastic language from Washington to distract its public from problems at home. No longer. Today there is no obscuring the fact that Iran is choosing repression over democracy.
For our diplomacy to have any success, two things are vital.
First, if Iran is not willing to negotiate in good faith, it must understand the consequences. Pressure is not an alternative to engagement; the two strategies complement each other.
UN Security Council sanctions are the most potent pressure, but there are also other levers. Insurance companies could be prohibited from insuring the Iranian tanker fleet. Export credit guarantees for Iran could be ended. Travel bans on human rights abusers could be enacted, Iranian assets seized, arms sales curtailed and investment bans enacted. Neighbours could cancel plans for natural gas pipelines linking Iran to the region’s energy distribution architecture. Some have proposed unilateral sanctions against foreign companies. While the prospect of such sanctions may goad other countries to action, we need to ensure unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospects of tougher international action.
Second, we must be willing to take yes for an answer. An important lesson of Iraq is that intrusive inspections can work. Our ability to detect and monitor the Qom enrichment facility for years before publicly revealing it is encouraging. One objective should be a more expansive inspections and monitoring regime to prevent Iran from diverting nuclear material to a “break-out” military programme.
While diplomacy with Iran was never going to be easy, the summer’s unrest has only increased the difficulty. In agreeing to talks, Iran has expressed an unexpected interest in discussing democracy and human rights. This is a conversation America should welcome, and an opportunity to demonstrate to the Iranian people that progress on the nuclear issue will not come at their expense.
Engagement may well fail. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s deep distrust of the US is no secret. The abuses of this summer may be the regime’s curt answer to US president Barack Obama’s outstretched hand. Given the turmoil, Iran may not even be capable of undertaking a sustained, strategic dialogue with the outside world.
And yet, it remains vital to seek a diplomatic solution to the stand-off. The international community is finally in a position to force Iran to choose either pariah status or a more constructive relationship with America and the world. Certainly the real possibility of either military conflict or a nuclear-armed Iran compels us to give diplomacy a chance.
The writer is chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
How can Israel's nukes be so invisible?
If Iran is developing nukes then it has at least two obvious reasons to do so;
1. to protect itself from Zionist nuclear aggression
2. to threaten Israel to stop its murder, bullying and land-grabbing
The US Military knows this and has even suggested that Israel should de-nuke to stop the nuclear arms race. But for whatever reason (though secretly we all know why) US politicians ignore this most sensible suggestion.
But at least Kerry isn't demanding an immediate attack on Israel, unlike Gideon Rachman (1st class degree History (Cantab)).
======================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fbd6c88-ae0a-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Time for diplomacy to end the stand-off with Iran
By John Kerry
Published: September 30 2009 22:50 | Last updated: September 30 2009 22:50
Today the Obama administration begins the most important American diplomatic engagement with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The public revelation of the Qom enrichment facility and Iran’s provocative ballistic missile test on Monday demonstrate what is at stake. Iran has increased its low-enriched uranium 20-fold since 2007, enough to produce, eventually, at least one nuclear weapon after further enrichment.
These are ominous developments. But after years of policy drift and transatlantic disagreement, the US and its allies will enter the talks in a position of relative strength and unity.
Consider the view from Tehran. It is on the defensive – caught red-handed in another nuclear deception. In contrast to the rancorous run-up to the war in Iraq, America and Europe are increasingly reading from the same script and Russia is signalling an openness to further sanctions.
The walkout of dozens of delegates during Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s anti-Semitic speech at the UN last week highlights Iran’s diplomatic isolation. Deciding the reputational and political risks are too great, many international banks and oil-trading companies have withdrawn voluntarily from Iran, which must import a third of its refined petroleum.
Domestically, Iran’s economy has been devastated by mismanagement, corruption, lower oil prices and fallout from the world financial crisis. Banks and foreign currency reserves are in rapid decline. Iran’s oil trust fund, which should hold tens of billions of dollars, has run dry. The bloody repression in Iran’s streets since June has compounded the damage. Iran’s ruling elite is divided, and the regime’s legitimacy is openly challenged – internally – as never before.
For years, the regime counted on bombastic language from Washington to distract its public from problems at home. No longer. Today there is no obscuring the fact that Iran is choosing repression over democracy.
For our diplomacy to have any success, two things are vital.
First, if Iran is not willing to negotiate in good faith, it must understand the consequences. Pressure is not an alternative to engagement; the two strategies complement each other.
UN Security Council sanctions are the most potent pressure, but there are also other levers. Insurance companies could be prohibited from insuring the Iranian tanker fleet. Export credit guarantees for Iran could be ended. Travel bans on human rights abusers could be enacted, Iranian assets seized, arms sales curtailed and investment bans enacted. Neighbours could cancel plans for natural gas pipelines linking Iran to the region’s energy distribution architecture. Some have proposed unilateral sanctions against foreign companies. While the prospect of such sanctions may goad other countries to action, we need to ensure unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospects of tougher international action.
Second, we must be willing to take yes for an answer. An important lesson of Iraq is that intrusive inspections can work. Our ability to detect and monitor the Qom enrichment facility for years before publicly revealing it is encouraging. One objective should be a more expansive inspections and monitoring regime to prevent Iran from diverting nuclear material to a “break-out” military programme.
While diplomacy with Iran was never going to be easy, the summer’s unrest has only increased the difficulty. In agreeing to talks, Iran has expressed an unexpected interest in discussing democracy and human rights. This is a conversation America should welcome, and an opportunity to demonstrate to the Iranian people that progress on the nuclear issue will not come at their expense.
Engagement may well fail. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s deep distrust of the US is no secret. The abuses of this summer may be the regime’s curt answer to US president Barack Obama’s outstretched hand. Given the turmoil, Iran may not even be capable of undertaking a sustained, strategic dialogue with the outside world.
And yet, it remains vital to seek a diplomatic solution to the stand-off. The international community is finally in a position to force Iran to choose either pariah status or a more constructive relationship with America and the world. Certainly the real possibility of either military conflict or a nuclear-armed Iran compels us to give diplomacy a chance.
The writer is chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Monday, September 28, 2009
HOW DO THEY DO IT?
It is now the turn of that ol' Zionist Paul "WMD" Wolfowitz to write in the FT.
Wolfowitz, lest we forget, was the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He knew where the WMD were. He knew the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces with open arms.
Wrong, and wrong.
Well, Wolfowitz is wrong again in this latest load of billox.
His error is that he does not mention Israel's WMD.
He does mention Israel, but referring only to Israel's desire for attacking Iran and that we must do it instead, continuing the policy of regime change as we saw in June.
But how do they do it? I mean, the FT publishes comments by the likes of Wolfowitz, Geithner and Ackermann, and they all attend Bilderberg frequently, and in some cases almost every year.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Martin Wolf, Associate Editor of the FT, is also a regular attendee at Bilderberg.
PS I wonder what the response would be if in the title Tehran was replaced by Tel Aviv?
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75d1d86-ab91-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html
Confront Tehran now in pursuit of a nuclear-free world
By Paul Wolfowitz
Published: September 27 2009 23:16 | Last updated: September 27 2009 23:16
Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary flexibility in his approach to Iran’s nuclear programme. He has supported Iran’s “right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme”, declared his willingness to meet unconditionally and extended his own deadlines for Iran to begin serious negotiations. He has maintained that position despite Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and despite congressional pressure for sanctions.
Although it has produced no positive response from Tehran, the Obama administration’s flexibility has clearly demonstrated that the obstacle to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is not a US refusal to negotiate. Even under the Bush administration, the US participated regularly in multilateral talks with Iran. But if there was any ambiguity about the previous administration’s willingness to negotiate, there has been none whatsoever about the Obama administration.
Last week’s revelation of a covert uranium enrichment facility makes it clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons. Common sense suggested this long ago. Iran’s proven reserves of natural gas are the world’s second largest (after Russia) and four times those of the US. With two-thirds of those reserves still undeveloped, expensive nuclear power plants are a waste of resources. Even for nuclear energy, it would be cheaper to purchase reactor fuel rather than enrich uranium. Most tellingly, why would Iran be developing long-range ballistic missiles if its nuclear intentions were peaceful? And why build a covert centrifuge plant that is too small to be of commercial use and at a military base? As a senior official of the Obama administration said last week: “Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.”
In 1994, proponents of the Framework Agreement with North Korea argued that Pyongyang would not cheat because the risks of being caught were too great. As it turned out, even the chances of being caught were not great and the consequences proved to be negligible. When the Clinton administration found signs of a secret facility in 1998, it was unable to prove it, perhaps because the North Koreans had cleaned up the site (as the Iranians are probably doing now). Definitive proof of North Korea’s centrifuge programme did not come to light until 2002, but when charged with this violation, Pyongyang rapidly broke out of the 1994 restrictions, reprocessed the previously “safeguarded” plutonium and tested a nuclear device. Faced with the prospect that North Korea could always do something worse, the US kept making concessions in order to resume negotiations.
Iran has said that it simply aspires to follow the Japanese model of peaceful nuclear development, but that is not as reassuring as it sounds. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, now general-secretary of Japan’s new ruling party, said: “We have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, [enough to] produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads.” Given Japan’s decidedly peaceful foreign policy, those stockpiles do not occasion great fears. No one expects Japan to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and abrogate safeguards as North Korea did. The same cannot be said of Iran, which is steadily accumulating its own break-out capability by producing low-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement that allows Iran continued enrichment of uranium is likely to repeat the unsatisfactory experience with North Korea, in which violations are followed by new concessions to bring the violator back to the negotiating table.
Normally even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranian economy is far less vulnerable to sanctions than North Korea and Iran’s rulers have shown that they care little if their people suffer. However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal. The push for reform in Iran that began with the protests against June’s election fraud offers an opportunity to bring the Iranian people into the debate about the true costs of their rulers’ nuclear ambitions.
To do so, the world must talk less about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and more about how the regime is wasting the people’s resources. It means doing what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. Unfortunately, it also means bringing home to the Iranian people that they will pay an increasingly high price for their rulers’ nuclear ambitions. That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out. The suggestion that Iran can avoid sanctions without abandoning uranium enrichment, simply by opening its illegal facilities to inspection, will be interpreted by Tehran as a sign of weakness. Even this approach may not be enough to persuade Israel not to act on its own, but at least it offers some prospect of success. And it is more than Israel’s security that is at risk. Iran’s Arab neighbours are also deeply worried that nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s support for terrorism, subversion and even conventional military aggression. Americans need to consider that nuclear weapons might embolden Tehran to provide sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Or, more catastrophically, even to provide them covertly with nuclear weapons.
The pursuit of a nuclear-free world involves substantial risks. Those risks could only be justified if they eliminate the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war between regional powers. Iran is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.
The writer is a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Wolfowitz, lest we forget, was the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He knew where the WMD were. He knew the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces with open arms.
Wrong, and wrong.
Well, Wolfowitz is wrong again in this latest load of billox.
His error is that he does not mention Israel's WMD.
He does mention Israel, but referring only to Israel's desire for attacking Iran and that we must do it instead, continuing the policy of regime change as we saw in June.
But how do they do it? I mean, the FT publishes comments by the likes of Wolfowitz, Geithner and Ackermann, and they all attend Bilderberg frequently, and in some cases almost every year.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Martin Wolf, Associate Editor of the FT, is also a regular attendee at Bilderberg.
PS I wonder what the response would be if in the title Tehran was replaced by Tel Aviv?
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75d1d86-ab91-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html
Confront Tehran now in pursuit of a nuclear-free world
By Paul Wolfowitz
Published: September 27 2009 23:16 | Last updated: September 27 2009 23:16
Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary flexibility in his approach to Iran’s nuclear programme. He has supported Iran’s “right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme”, declared his willingness to meet unconditionally and extended his own deadlines for Iran to begin serious negotiations. He has maintained that position despite Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and despite congressional pressure for sanctions.
Although it has produced no positive response from Tehran, the Obama administration’s flexibility has clearly demonstrated that the obstacle to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is not a US refusal to negotiate. Even under the Bush administration, the US participated regularly in multilateral talks with Iran. But if there was any ambiguity about the previous administration’s willingness to negotiate, there has been none whatsoever about the Obama administration.
Last week’s revelation of a covert uranium enrichment facility makes it clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons. Common sense suggested this long ago. Iran’s proven reserves of natural gas are the world’s second largest (after Russia) and four times those of the US. With two-thirds of those reserves still undeveloped, expensive nuclear power plants are a waste of resources. Even for nuclear energy, it would be cheaper to purchase reactor fuel rather than enrich uranium. Most tellingly, why would Iran be developing long-range ballistic missiles if its nuclear intentions were peaceful? And why build a covert centrifuge plant that is too small to be of commercial use and at a military base? As a senior official of the Obama administration said last week: “Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.”
In 1994, proponents of the Framework Agreement with North Korea argued that Pyongyang would not cheat because the risks of being caught were too great. As it turned out, even the chances of being caught were not great and the consequences proved to be negligible. When the Clinton administration found signs of a secret facility in 1998, it was unable to prove it, perhaps because the North Koreans had cleaned up the site (as the Iranians are probably doing now). Definitive proof of North Korea’s centrifuge programme did not come to light until 2002, but when charged with this violation, Pyongyang rapidly broke out of the 1994 restrictions, reprocessed the previously “safeguarded” plutonium and tested a nuclear device. Faced with the prospect that North Korea could always do something worse, the US kept making concessions in order to resume negotiations.
Iran has said that it simply aspires to follow the Japanese model of peaceful nuclear development, but that is not as reassuring as it sounds. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, now general-secretary of Japan’s new ruling party, said: “We have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, [enough to] produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads.” Given Japan’s decidedly peaceful foreign policy, those stockpiles do not occasion great fears. No one expects Japan to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and abrogate safeguards as North Korea did. The same cannot be said of Iran, which is steadily accumulating its own break-out capability by producing low-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement that allows Iran continued enrichment of uranium is likely to repeat the unsatisfactory experience with North Korea, in which violations are followed by new concessions to bring the violator back to the negotiating table.
Normally even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranian economy is far less vulnerable to sanctions than North Korea and Iran’s rulers have shown that they care little if their people suffer. However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal. The push for reform in Iran that began with the protests against June’s election fraud offers an opportunity to bring the Iranian people into the debate about the true costs of their rulers’ nuclear ambitions.
To do so, the world must talk less about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and more about how the regime is wasting the people’s resources. It means doing what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. Unfortunately, it also means bringing home to the Iranian people that they will pay an increasingly high price for their rulers’ nuclear ambitions. That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out. The suggestion that Iran can avoid sanctions without abandoning uranium enrichment, simply by opening its illegal facilities to inspection, will be interpreted by Tehran as a sign of weakness. Even this approach may not be enough to persuade Israel not to act on its own, but at least it offers some prospect of success. And it is more than Israel’s security that is at risk. Iran’s Arab neighbours are also deeply worried that nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s support for terrorism, subversion and even conventional military aggression. Americans need to consider that nuclear weapons might embolden Tehran to provide sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Or, more catastrophically, even to provide them covertly with nuclear weapons.
The pursuit of a nuclear-free world involves substantial risks. Those risks could only be justified if they eliminate the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war between regional powers. Iran is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.
The writer is a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)