Peter Symonds

The preparations for war against Iran are no more being driven by concerns over its nuclear program than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were motivated by “terrorism” or “weapons of mass destruction”, or the NATO bombing of Libya was to protect the Libyan people.

Articles in the British-based Guardian and Telegraph newspapers on Wednesday have lifted the lid on military preparations by the US and Britain for an attack on Iran that go well beyond routine contingency planning.

The leaks pointing to a dangerous new military adventure take place amid a debate within the Israeli inner cabinet and media over whether to unilaterally launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Officials and ministers in all three countries have denied the reports, but have repeated the longstanding threat that “all options remain on the table”. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to release a new assessment of Iran’s nuclear programs, described to the Guardian by an unnamed Western official as “a game-changer”, that could well provide the pretext for war. Iran has consistently denied it has any plans to build nuclear weapons.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

Testing in the Negev desert. Next time it'll be
against Iran. Thousands may be killed.

The Jewish State and its lobbies are the greatest threat to world peace. If we want to save ourselves, there is no other way of doing so than looking closely into Jewish, Israeli and Zionist culture, identity and ideology.

It does not take a genius to gather that the Israeli aggression towards Iran would endanger every living species on this planet. Devastatingly enough, our Western governments do nothing to stop the Jewish State. That should not take us by surprise: our politicians are largely funded and vetted by Israeli lobbies that openly support attack on Iran.

Here in Britain Defence Secretary Liam Fox had to resign two weeks ago when it became clear that he was ‘breaching ministerial laws’. The British press went out of its way to reduce the issue of his resignation into just another 'gay-ish mini scandal'. But we actually have strong reason to believe that Fox was working intensively for Israel. He was enthusiastically advocating Israeli interests such as an attack on Iran. Together with his ‘best friend’ Adam Werritty, he was also funded by the Israeli lobby. We know also that Fox and his ‘flat mate’ Werritty were in direct contact with the Mossad, and were even warned by the MI6 about it.

But Fox was not alone: with 80% of our leading party’s MP's being Conservative Friends Of Israel’s (CFI) members, we have good reason to believe that treachery is now institutional amongst UK elected politicians.

As we brace ourselves while learning from the Israeli press about the IAF’s final preparations ahead for an attack on Iran's nuclear plants, I would like to share with you a short passage from The Wandering Who?.

More »

Stephen Lendman

In the past five years, Iran faced four harsh rounds of sanctions. At issue is its alleged nuclear threat. No evidence proves it.

Last May, its Bushehr nuclear plant began operating. In September, it began supplying the national grid with 60 megawatts of electricity, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) spokesman Khadem Qaemi said operations were at 40% of capacity.

Earlier in 2011, the IAEA said no information suggests "possible military dimensions" to its plans.

For years, Tehran's insisted its intentions are entirely commercial and peaceful. It's emphatic claiming no interest in producing nuclear weapons. It hopes Bushehr will become one of a network of commercial reactors supplying electricity. If so, it will reduce Iran's fossil fuel reliance. Other nations do it for the same reason despite the hazards of nuclear power in all forms.

It also says only low level uranium enrichment suitable for power plant fuel or medical and agricultural uses are pursued.

Iran joined dozens of other nuclear club nations. Only ITS program is questioned with no evidence to suggest it's other than what Iran claims.

For years, however, Washington's fabricated numerous Iranian threats.

More »

Melanie Butler

The Divine Feminine at Occupy Wall Street

Bonobos and chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives, are almost exactly the same type of monkey. They are so similar, in fact, they only became distinguished as separate species in 1929. But chimpanzee and bonobo societies are dramatically different. In chimpanzee culture, males dominate, sex is strictly for reproduction and violence and infanticide are common. Bonobo society, on the other hand, is remarkably peaceful and is characterized by an abundance of recreational sex and strong female bonding. This marked difference is inextricably linked to the relative levels of female interaction in each society. In chimpanzee habitats, where food is difficult to obtain, females spend their time isolated from one another, gathering food and caring for their offspring. Their seclusion leaves them susceptible to violence and allows male chimpanzees ample opportunity to fight and build hierarchies. In bonobo society, where food is abundant and easy to gather, females spend most of their time with each other. Pervasive female bonding obscures paternity lines, removing the incentive for infanticide, and offers protection and support against other forms of violence.

The evolutionary advantages of bonobo lifestyle, well-known among primatologists, served as an introduction to our first Divine Feminine discussion at Occupy Wall Street. Tired of male-dominated spaces and conversations, female occupiers were insisting on the importance of coming together simply for the sake of, well, coming together. Unlike WOW (Women Occupying Wall Street), there was no agenda, no actions being planned. The purpose was solely to meet and share what was on our minds without men present.

To be perfectly honest, I entered my first Divine Feminine discussion out of duty rather than desire. I had more than enough commitments, caucuses and events competing for my time – meeting for meeting’s sake was not a priority. I was also a bit put off by the group’s name, with its whiff of gender essentialism. I was more interested in dismantling gender binaries than discussing estrogen with a bunch of earth mothers.

More »

Bill Van Auken

In May, Germany’s popular daily Bild said the CIA
reported talks of a possible military coup if the situa-
tion becomes more serious and uncontrolled. Hürriyet

The sudden dismissal of the Greek military’s high command Tuesday night, amid international uproar over a proposal for a referendum on an EU debt plan, has all the hallmarks of an action taken to preempt the threat of a military coup.

A measure of this political magnitude would not have been take lightly. At the very least, one must assume that Prime Minister George Papandreou had strong reason to believe that his government, and possibly his own person, was facing an imminent threat from the country’s military.

The Greek minister of defense, Panos Beglitis, a close political ally of Papandreou, summoned the four highest-ranking Greek military officers—the chiefs of the general staff, the army, navy and air force—to a hastily convened meeting to announce that they were being removed from their posts and replaced by other members of the Greek military brass.

Last month, Defense Minister Beglitis was quoted by the EU Observer web site as describing the Greek military hierarchy as “a state within a state.”

The Greek government should make public what it knows about the conspiracies of this “state within a state” and with whom it was allied. Given the record of Papandreou’s PASOK party, however, this is exceedingly unlikely. The last thing that it and its pseudo-left apologists want is to alert workers to the dangers they confront.

A number of daily papers in Europe have raised the question of whether the sacking of the high command was aimed at preempting a military coup. These include both the Telegraph and Daily Mail in Britain. Among the more blunt pieces written on the matter came one from Gabor Steingart, the editor of Germany’s main financial daily, Handelsblatt.

Under the headline “If I were Greek”, Steingart acknowledges that the supposed rescue plan for the Greek economy is in reality another bailout of the banks at the expense of Greek workers, who will be compelled to pay for it through the wholesale destruction of their jobs, wages and social conditions. These measures will only deepen the country’s depression and indebtedness, laying the groundwork for even more terrible austerity demands in the future.

Comparing the plan to the “shock” treatment implemented in the former Soviet Union, Steingart writes: “If I were from Greece I would be amongst those who are alert and worried. I would keep a wary eye on that military machinery which governed the country until 1974 and which might lie in wait for an opportunity for revenge. We know from many countries: Dr Shock is an enemy of democracy.”

More »