Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

US Surrounding Iran With New Bases

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Rumsfeld Surrounding Iran With New US Bases By Joel Skousen editor @ worldaffairsbrief.com 4-23-5 rense.com What was the purpose of Donald Rumsfeld s visits to
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 30 2:35 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Rumsfeld Surrounding Iran With New US Bases
      By Joel Skousen
      editor @ worldaffairsbrief.com

      What was the purpose of Donald Rumsfeld's visits to Azerbaijan and
      Kyrgyzstan last week? According to Alex Jones's news service, "There
      was no official statement on the agenda of the meetings with top
      Azerbaijan government officials. But the very next day, the commander
      of NATO forces in Europe, General Johns, issued a statement in the
      local press saying that the U.S. planned to deploy military bases in
      the Caspian region in order to ensure regional security.

      "Azerbaijan is seen as one of the launch pads for launching an attack
      on Iran, which some see coming as early as June. Local analysts say
      that the deal was already all but tied up and Rumsfeld's visit was
      simply part of the finalization process."

      The US has been quietly expanding military bases all over Central
      Asia, but particularly in the south surrounding Iran. We can discount
      US denials that there is "no intention to attack Iran" as strangely
      reminiscent of George Bush's denials that he had no intention of
      invading Iraq. My Israeli sources say that the IDF is preparing
      against a multi-nation Arab attack on Israel in 2006. The US
      intervention in Iran and Syria may be either fomenting that conflict
      or attempting to cut both countries down to size beforehand.

      It does appear that US and British black operations are trying to
      cause social unrest in Iran, in order to destabilize the country and
      provide an excuse to intervene. Al Jazeera has been banned from the
      country for supposedly publishing inflammatory material leading to the
      recent riots in Iran among the country's Arab minority. According to
      various reports, three people have died in ethnic clashes in Iran's
      southwestern Khuzestan province over the past few days. What al
      Jazeera actually did was become the first to broadcast the news of the
      demonstrations, thus alerting the rest of the Arab world to the
      growing unrest in Iran's Khuzestan region. But it also called upon
      other Arabs to join in "peaceful" demonstrations to act in solidarity
      with others. The Iranians feel this is provocative. It might well be,
      despite the fact that Arabs make up only 3% of the population of Iran.
      Keep in mind that al Jazeera has roots in a BBC outfit from London
      that was known to be a front for British intelligence.

      US Hypocrisy: I must continually point out to my readers the huge gap
      in consistency between the US policies toward Iran and North Korea. As
      the AP commented, "The United States has repeatedly said it has no
      intention to attack the North, and has sought to convince Pyongyang to
      return to international disarmament talks that have been on hold since
      last June." Why the double standard? Iran isn't anywhere near as
      dangerous to the world as North Korea, which already has missiles
      capable of reaching parts of the US.

      In point of fact, North Korea continually flaunts its claims of
      increasing production of nuclear weapons, and still the US pledges not
      to intervene. But for some reason, the North Koreans are bargaining
      for something more than US verbal assurance of non-aggression. The AP
      story continues, "North Korea said Thursday that the international
      standoff over its nuclear ambitions could be resolved if the United
      States gives up what Pyongyang alleges are its plans to overthrow the
      communist regime by a nuclear attack."

      Apparently, it hasn't been lost on the Pyongyang that Cuba secretly
      received such written assurances from the US that Cuba would not be
      attacked or undermined politically. North Korea wants the same thing
      in writing. The US is probably unwilling to give such a guarantee, not
      because it actually intends to attack, but because it fears Kim Yong
      Il can't be trusted not to wave that piece of paper before the world
      and expose the Bush administration for the hypocrite it is.

      The larger question: A question I am often asked about a US attack on
      Iran is how Russia, an ally of Iran, would react to such an attack. My
      answer is to remember Russia's betrayal of Iraq, of which it was also
      an ally. I think Russia will sacrifice Iran and/or Syria as well.
      Doing so furthers Russia's long range goal of painting the US as the
      "bully of the world," eventually justifying Russia's long-planned
      pre-emptive nuclear strike on America-that will forever change the
      world's balance of power. The only reason Russia might react otherwise
      is if it intends for a larger Middle East war to serve as a flash
      point for the Russia/China attack on the West and the ensuing World
      War III. In that case, we would see the Iran/Syria/Egypt coalition
      strike back with missiles both at US forces in Iraq and at Israel. I
      think, however, that it is still too early for the big war. Watch out
      during the next decade, when China will reach mega-power status.

      RICE IN RUSSIA-PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice
      put out dozens of mixed signals concerning Russia during her two-day
      visit to the country, voicing concerns and provocations on one hand,
      and calming words on the other.

      Reuters reported, "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday
      called the Kremlin's tight grip on power and the media 'very worrying'
      and urged Russian President Vladimir Putin not to cling on to power
      beyond his present term." Of course, the latter caution is a red
      herring, as neither Putin nor Yeltsin before him are the real leaders
      in Russia. They cover for "former" Communist leaders like Boris
      Berezovsky and other wealthy "exiles" who made themselves wealthy by
      signing over large blocs of Russian industry to themselves before
      going underground.

      Rice continued: "The centralization of state power in the presidency
      at the expense of countervailing institutions like the Duma
      (parliament lower house) or an independent judiciary is clearly very
      worrying." Savvy Russia watchers have always known, however, that the
      majority of "opposition" parties in Russia are also controlled
      entities, like Solidarity was in Poland. Real dissidents are relegated
      to small parties that are never allowed to gain a large following.

      Then, when Russia reacted with feigned offense at the Secretary's
      remarks, she responded with soothing words. The AP quoted her as
      saying that "there is a considerable amount of individual freedom" in
      Russia nowadays. "One can't imagine reverting back to Soviet times,"
      Rice declared. She went even further, according to Reuters, claiming
      that "despite serious setbacks to Russian democracy, there is no sign
      that the country is poised to return to its totalitarian past." No
      sign? What world does she live in? There are, in fact, no signs of
      real democracy in Russia. Worse, the US seems to be not-so-subtly
      sowing the seeds of future unrest within most of the former Soviet
      States still under the yoke of Russia's euphemistically named
      "Commonwealth of Independent States." Look at the Ukraine, and now

      As the Washington Times reported, "The United States and its NATO
      allies ventured into the former Soviet Union yesterday, where
      Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice clashed with her Russian
      counterpart at the close of a tough trip that contrasted sharply with
      her February visit to Europe. With the alliance holding its first
      high-level meeting on ex-Soviet soil, Miss Rice took time to meet with
      opposition leaders of Belarus (one of the ex-Soviet states that has a
      rabid Communist as leader), a nation heavily dependent on Russian
      economic aid.

      "'While it may be difficult and long and at times even far away, there
      will be a road to democracy in Belarus. We admire your courage, and we
      admire your dedication and we want you all to know you are in our
      thoughts,' Miss Rice told a group of seven dissidents who drove from
      the Belorussian capital of Minsk for the meeting." That's no small
      provocation to Russia, even though almost all "dissidents" the US
      chooses to meet with are plants provided by Moscow-like Vaclav Havel
      turned out to be in the phony "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia.
      Once again, despite the soothing words, it appears as if there is a
      globalist strategy to antagonize Russia into someday striking out at
      the West, and simultaneously facilitating that strike.

      At this same NATO meeting, Russia and NATO signed an agreement that
      allows Russia access to transit routes for transporting troops and
      military equipment through NATO countries. The signing in Vilnius,
      Lithuania of the Status of Forces Agreement by Russia and NATO comes
      at the alliance's first-ever ministerial meeting on the soil of a
      former Soviet republic. This symbolism is meant to give a powerful
      message of accommodation with Russia, while sending signals that the
      US is intervening in CIS internal affairs-which gives Russia an excuse
      for eventual pre-emptive retaliation against the US.

      World Affairs Brief
      Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
      at www.WorldAffairsBrief.com.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.