Obama Leading America To War

UN inspectors are back from Iran after a two-day visit. They wanted to inspect several sites where Iran is likely to be doing the scientific and engineering work that provides the specific knowledge of how to construct a nuclear bomb without actually building it. Iran refused them access to these sites.

One official said that the UN team "could not find a way forward". Another said ""We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached."

Two days ago General Martin Dempsey said that attacking Iran was "premature" and that sanctions should be given time. He did not, however, say that such an attack was inadvisable due to its consequences. He did not speak against using the "military option". He could not do so without going against Obama’s stated policy that the U.S. will attack Iran if Iran tries to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

Dempsey said that he had made clear to the Israelis that "a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn't achieve their long-term objectives." This is a weak and ineffectual warning. This is not a warning not to strike at any time, only at this time. In fact, Dempsey allowed as how the Israelis have "unique" national interests and "consider Iran to be an existential threat", which weakened his warning even more.

Obama needs to do more to if he wants to stop Israel, such as by preventing Israel’s airplanes from flying over Iraq or Saudi Arabia. We have no indication that he is doing much of anything concrete to stop an Israeli attack. Obama is intentionally sending weak messages to Israel and intentionally sitting on his hands, so far as we know.

Obama is leading America into war with Iran. Israel has the U.S. right where it wants it. This is, however, where Obama wants to be. So it seems. Let us hope it is not so.

Would you support a war against Iran if you knew that:

Iran has one of the largest Jewish populations in the world, and the second-largest in the Middle East behind Israel

Jews are protected by the Iranian constitution, and are guaranteed seats in the Iranian parliament

The CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister

If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over. (Moreover, the U.S. has had a large hand in strengthening radical Islam in the Middle East by supporting radicals to fight the Soviets and others)

The U.S. armed and supported Iraq after it invaded Iran and engaged in a long, bloody war which included the use of chemical weapons. Here is former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein in the 1980′s, several months after Saddam had used chemical weapons in a massacre:


* The U.S. has been actively planning regime change in Iran – and throughout the oil-rich Middle East and North Africa – for 20 years

* The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11

* America and Israel both support a group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization which is trying to overthrow the Iranian government

* Top American and Israeli military and intelligence officials say that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb

* Top American and Israeli military and intelligence officials say that – even if Iran did build a nuclear bomb – it would not be that dangerous, because Israel and America have so many more nukes. And see this

* American military and intelligence chiefs say that attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform

* The people pushing for war against Iran are the same people who pushed for war against Iraq, and said it would be a “cakewalk”. See this and this

* Well-known economist Nouriel Roubini says that attacking Iran would lead to global recession. The IMF says that Iran cutting off oil supplies could raise crude prices 30%. War with Iran would kill the American economy. And see this and this

* China and Russia have warned that attacking Iran could lead to World War III

Despite the directions of the US and UK, not to attack Iran, Israel seems to be determined to attack Iran which has repeatedly threatened to retaliate. However, any Israeli invasion on Iraq will result in dire repercussions in the region as well as whole the world

We have been saying it for weeks, and today even the WSJ jumped on the bandwagon: the sole reason why crude prices are surging (RIP European profit margins: with EUR Brent at a record, we can only assume the ECB will pull a 2011 and hike rates in 3-4 months even as it pumps trillions in PIIGS, banks bailout liquidity) is because global liquidity has risen by $2 trillion in a few short months, on the most epic shadow liquidity tsunami launched in history in lieu of QE3 (discussed extensively here in our words, but here are JPM's). Luckily, the market is finally waking up to this, and just as world central banks were preparing to offset deflation, they will instead have to deal with spiking inflation, because the market may have a short memory, it can remember what happened just about this time in 2011. And the problem is that when it comes to the inflation trade, the market, unlike in most other instances, can be fast - blazing fast, at anticipating what the central planning collective's next step will be, after all there is only one. And if Bank of America is correct, that next step could well lead to the same unprecedented economic catastrophe that we saw back in 2008, only worse: $200 oil. Note - this is completely independent of what happens in Iran, and is 100% dependent on what happens in the 3rd subbasement of the Marriner Eccles building. Throw in an Iran war and all bets are off. Needless to say, an epic deflationary shock will need to follow immediately, just as in 2008, which means that, in keeping with the tradition of being 6-9 months ahead of the market, our question today is - which bank will be 2012's sacrificial Lehman to set off the latest and greatest deflationary collapse and send crude plunging to $30 just after it hits $200.

How do we get to $200 crude? BofA's Francisco Blanch explains: Oil could spike to $200/bbl to further slow down demand

read more at link

Yesterday, the State Department “quietly” warned that Syria’s nuclear weapons program “may still be in operation” and their other suspected WMDs threaten the region. In other words, the final push for another war is being sold using the same marketing strategy that’s been proven to work time and time again. oreign Policy magazine writes:

This week, the State Department sent a diplomatic demarche to Syria’s neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, warning them about the possibility of Syria’s WMDs crossing their borders and offering U.S. government help in dealing with the problem, three Obama administration officials confirmed to The Cable. For concerned parties both inside and outside the U.S. government, the demarche signifies that the United States is increasingly developing plans to deal with the dangers of a post-Assad Syria — while simultaneously highlighting the lack of planning for how to directly bring about Assad’s downfall.

Syria is believed to have a substantial chemical weapons program, which includes mustard gas and sophisticated nerve agents, such as sarin gas, as well as biological weapons. Syria has also refused IAEA requests to make available facilities that were part of its nuclear weapons program and may still be in operation.(My emphasis)

Swap out the word “Syria” for “Iraq” or “Libya” and we’ve all read this press release for the business of war before. What worked for attacking an innocent Iraq worked for attacking an innocent Libya. And now it’s also being used as an excuse to destroy two more nations which have never even threatened the West: Syria and Iran.

Even the blind should notice the same trends leading to war:

Claim the leaders are bad guys (which is not difficult because most leaders are).

Incite, fund and arm rebels (terrorists) to lure those governments into fighting back.

Claim the leaders are killing their own citizens (which almost all leaders do including the good ole U.S.).

Slap economic sanctions on the government while simultaneously creating a shadow government, central bank, and economy for the puppet rebel leaders.

Scare domestic populations until they’re okay with more war.

Bypass any authority to commit tax money and troops for war.

Drop billions of dollars in bombs by remote control destroying innocent life and infrastructure.

Murder the former leader in cold blood if need be.

Consolidate any and all resources into the hands of Western cartels.https://2img.net/i/fa/wysiwyg/text_bold.png

Fund these same cartels with more tax dollars to reconstruct the devastated war zone.

Rinse and repeat.

The only difference lately is that “providing aid to terrorists” is no longer used as an excuse for war. Perhaps, this is because Israel and NATO, led by the U.S., are the only ones currently aiding terrorists, as they did to oust Gaddafi in Libya, and who they are now arming to instigate a civil war against Assad in Syria. They’re even openly funding terrorists in Iran to do the exact same thing. Furthermore, the FBI has proven to be the only provider of aid to supposed domestic U.S. terrorists.

But you, Activist Post readers, already know all this. But understand that WMD is not just any propaganda, it’s the “nuclear option” of propaganda. It’s the only way to claim these countries are a threat of any kind, because they have very little or no history of actually attacking the West. And they will keep beating this WMD war drum because it works.

read more at link http://www.blacklistednews.com/State_Department_Uses_‘Nuclear_Option’_Propaganda_to_Justify_More_Preemptive_War_/18128/0/38/38/Y/M.html

THE crisis has been a long time coming. Iran started exploring paths to nuclear weaponry before the fall of the shah in 1979. Ten years ago the outside world learned of the plants it was building to provide “heavy” water (used in reactors that produce plutonium) and enriched uranium, which is necessary for some types of nuclear reactor, but also for nuclear weapons. The enrichment facilities have grown in capability, capacity and number; there has been work on detonators, triggers and missile technology, too.

Iran wants, at the very least, to put itself in a position where it has the expertise and materials with which to build deliverable nuclear weapons quickly. It may well want, at some point, to develop the bombs themselves. This is deeply worrying to Israel, which is threatened by Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and disgusted by the anti-Semitic rants of Iran’s leaders. It also alarms Arab states, which fear Iranian power (and their own Shiite minorities). That alarm could lead some of them—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, perhaps Turkey—to seek nuclear weapons of their own. Many fear that this would make the region even less stable than it is. Even if it did not, it would make the possible consequences of instability much more terrible.

Outside powers, especially America, would give a great deal to avoid the prospect of an emboldened, nuclear-armed Iran. Hence ever-stronger sanctions designed to get Iran to cease enrichment and content itself with reactor fuel made elsewhere. Hence, also, a willingness by America and others to keep open the option of military strikes.

In Israel that willingness has hardened close to the point of commitment. Israel has nuclear weapons itself, including submarine-based weapons that could posthumously annihilate any aggressor who destroyed the country. But this deterrent is not enough to stop Israelis from seeing a nuclear Iran as the precursor to a second holocaust. The problem is that military action will not necessarily bring about what Israel wants—and could, in the medium to long term, make matters worse.

read more at link http://www.economist.com/node/21548228

Ready for a Staged EMP attack (Blamed on N. Korea, or Iran?) You might want to look into it
http://deadlinelive.info/2012/02/25/ready-for-a-staged-emp-attack-blamed-on-n-korea-or-iran-you-might-want-to-look-into-it/

Just an off track warning to prepare for what might be coming really soon. We could see a pre-planned EMP that would do everything the babylonians want. Shut down the country, the Internet, borders, freedom, the election, all while initiating the long planned economic martial law to avoid the crash of the dollar. (or to create order out of Chaos)
Of course, the next step would be to bomb the heck out of Iran as planned which could bring back a devastating attack by Russia or China, or both. We can easily see all this as a highly potential possibility, but most will discount it and ignore the warning to prepare. What happened to that missing nuke anyways?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158
To all with eyes to see and ears to hear, it has been pointed out previously that all this election stuff could go away in a heartbeat after such a planned EMP attack. If it does happen, we will be off track in America and on our way towards the new world disorder.
Didn’t Newt Gingrich speak to this recently?
http://www.wnd.com/2011/11/370917/
Helpful and supportive links:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1549/1