. . . For example they could;
1.  accept an offer of enriched uranium from another source, to allay the false and groundless suspicions the U.S. has engendered in the world community.
2. They could offer to allow more inspections of Iran by the international community, in order to show that everything Iran had said was true.
3. Another even more dramatic policy step would be for Iran to announce it will officially recognise the reality of Israel's continued existence and will work with all nations to make a peaceful, secure middle east etc.

Does Bush Think War with Iran Is Preordained?

The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

Home

U.S. Nuclear Attack on Iran

Comment by Larry Ross, October 8, 2006 (after reflection)

Ex-U.S. Senator Gary   Hart claims Bush will launch "a preemptive war against Iran " this month before the November Congressional elections in the U.S.

The present predictions are that the Democrats would win enough seats to take control of the House, thus upsetting the Republican majority and perhaps preventing the more extreme war plans of the Bush Administration. The Bush neoconservative regime is determined to prevent that and reverse public opinion so that the Republicans will retain control. 

• Will the Bush Administration rely only on lies and false propaganda, as Gary Hart's article implies, to justify preemptive war against Iran?
• Or will Bush stage a 'False Flag' so-called 'terrorist attack' on the U.S. and blame Iran , in order to justify the use of nuclear weapons?

Many eminent Americans believe so and many of the 28 million articles a Google search found on this subject, confirm the suspicions that Bush will attack Iran and will use nuclear weapons, and many say he will use a 'False Flag' operation to incriminate Iran.

Due to Bush's declining popularity, doubts, questions and disillusionment about the Iraq war and rising public suspicions and concern about Bush's real motives, Bush's lies to justify the war on Iran won't work as well as they did for the Iraq war. Lies alone won't be enough to justify the use of nuclear weapons.

With U.S. troops bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq , poorly motivated, and becoming more and more disillusioned, Bush hasn't the means to win a conventional war against Iran , three times larger, better armed and prepared than Iraq . He needs more than lies to justify using his only military advantage - nuclear weapons, and possibly other hi-tech Weapons of Mass Destruction. That would be a very great departure from all U.S. nuclear policies, it's past disarmament policies and treaties, and against all ethical, moral and even practical military considerations, international law and the UN Charter. It would be against many  U.S. and world interests and the long-term survival of our species. 

The excuse to use such weapons seems quite insane on many counts. It demands more than another litany of lies, similar to those invented to justify the Iraq war. Bush needs a powerful, very, very persuasive excuse to use weapons that can quickly escalate to a much wider nuclear war, even a global war that can annihilate humanity.

He must shock and terrify the American people into accepting whatever he does - even more than they and Congress were terrified over the 9/11 attack in 2001. The rest of the world, and the UN, must also be persuaded that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is justified.

Perhaps the only strategy Bush can use to get public and Congressional approval for a preemptive war using nuclear weapons, is to first stage a 'False Flag' operation like the alleged terrorist 9/11 attack on Sept 11, 2001. This time Iran would be blamed for deliberately killing Americans. With 9/11, Iraq was partly blamed and linked to the attack which killed over 3,000 Americans. Although Saddam Hussein had no links to Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks,

U.S. war propaganda and constant mass media repetition of Bush lies, have resulted in over 50% of Americans still believing that Saddam and Iraq were involved in the 9/11 attack. That belief helps power the dwindling public support for the war. Proofs of falsehood and lying don't seem to matter much to many Americans who naturally want to believe their President.

Given the present state of people's beliefs and prejudices, most would believe a Bush accusation that an  Iran terrorist operation had killed Americans.

They would reject or immediately dismiss as absurd 'conspiracy theory ravings' any suggestion that Bush would stage an operation to kill Americans in order to incriminate Iran and justify using nuclear weapons. It's too, too fantastic for most people to believe.

It is the normal reactions of most uninformed but rational people, that has made 'False Flag' operations work so well since 1600. Leaders staged them to justify wars the people would otherwise have rejected. False Flag operations immediately generate hatred for the accused enemy and many recruits lining up and ready to lay down their lives for their leader in his false war. They believe in their often adored leader, as the German's believed in Adolph Hitler when they went to war for him and accepted his dictatorship after he burned down the Reichstag in one of history's most successful 'False Flag' operation. He blamed foreign terrorists for the fire and most Germans quite naturally believed him.

This famous case of a successful 'False Flag' operation - Hitler's burning down of the German parliament - the Reistag on Sept 22, 1933, was just before the German elections. Hitler was given dictatorial powers by Chancellor Hinenburg to deal with this terrorist threat. The result were many wars culminating in World War II, incredible suffering, starvation, destruction and 50 million dead.

One of the most famous and successful in U.S. history was the alleged sinking of the Maine by the Spanish, which the US used to justify wars against the Spanish in Cuba and The Philippines.

Another famous 'False Flag' that worked was in 1965.  U.S. President Lyndon Johnson staged an alleged attack by North Vietnam on US Destroyers patrolling in The Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War. Even though there was little damage to the destroyers and no casualties, most Americans and the Senate believed Johnson's claims, and justified escalating the Vietnam war to attack and bomb North Vietnam . Several million Vietnamese and 50,000 U.S. troops were killed in the totally unjustified Vietnam war. Only 2 Senators, Wayne Morse and William Fullbright, dissented from the Senate vote to escalate the war and attack North Vietnam .

The U.S. has refined the technique of 'False Flag' operations and has used many of them. Many very eminent Americans believe the alleged 9/11 attack in 2001, was really a 'False Flag' operation, used to justify the wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and any other country the Bush Administration chooses to accuse in it's endless "wars on terrorism". A growing number of US websites deal with the Unanswered Questions about 9/11, and about the alleged role of the Bush Administration, perhaps with  Israel 's Mossad spy and covert action organization, in actual staging the 9/11 attack. There are two schools of thought about the attack

1. That the Bush Administration knew 9/11 was planned and when it would happen, but did nothing because it was "The Pearl Harbour" the neoconservatives said they needed to galvanize the American people to support their long-planned war on Iraq.
2. The other school believes there is sufficient proofs to accuse the Bush Administration of staging the 9/11 attack and blame Muslim terrorists, in order to justify the endless 'wars on terror'.

If they are right the implications are enormous for America and the world. However as things now stand, the majority of people and countries, claim to believe the official story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First thoughts on October 7th.

Here is an article which gives more in-depth information about one of the themes in my NZ Tour talk - the influence of religious beliefs on Bush's foreign policy decisions. Also, "The October Surprise " may include a "False Flag" operation to gain public support for war with Iran and give a boost to Bush's and Republican Party popularity, for the Nov U.S.  elections, as detailed in my talk. It's very much like Adolph Hitler having the Reichstag burned down 3 days before the 1933 German elections, in order to get popular approval and Hindenberg's agreement to sign papers doing away with civil rights and allowing the installation of Hitler's dictatorship. At the moment, NZ might follow the U.S. lead, due lack of public education about this possibility.

(Note: Google "False Flag" for more information on the extent of various Governments use of FF)

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

The October Surprise

By Gary Hart, HuffingtonPost, October 3, 2006

It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.

And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. "Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction....." In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets.

But the authors of the war on Iraq have "regime change" in mind in Iran. According to Colonel Sam Gardiner (author of "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing U.S. Military Options in Iran," The Century Foundation, 2006) to have any hope of success, such a policy would require attacking at least 400 targets, including the Revolutionary Guard. But even this presumes the Iranian people will respond to a massive U.S. attack on their country by overthrowing their government. Only an Administration inspired by pre-Enlightenment fantasy could believe a notion such as this.

Continue...