Jim W. Dean

The recent breakthrough in the Iran-Sextet nuclear talks, a geopolitical earthquake in itself, has also brought on many interesting aftershocks which could usher in a New World Order much different than the one normally associated with the term.

The fight leading up to the Sunday night success has revealed the battle lines more clearly than ever before who the real threat has been all along.

Israel deployed a full scale assault on America and the world, attempting to strangle the peace baby in its bed. Sure, we had the usual Congressional shills shaming America as they went through their sock puppet talking points recitations. Americans are used to having this humiliation.

But this time the Zionist lobby lead with their A-team, the senior senators who have long worked hand in glove with Israeli intelligence operatives to perpetrate a long running psychological operation on the American people. This is a treasonous act but they unfortunately have immunity for it.

The Israelis, especially Netanyahu, have been running the ‘Iran is about to have the bomb’ scam for twenty years. In the early years they were wrong, the middle years wrong, and in what I call the current ‘red line’ years even more so. Why did they keep spouting this garbage out when it was proven wrong time after time?

The answer is that their intelligence operations have so infiltrated American media, government and the think tank pundits, they have bullet proofed Israel from any loss of credibility consequences whatsoever. Promoting Israeli lies and deceptions became just another day at the office for their American 5th column. They even turned the deception game around to falsely accuse the Iranians.

More »

Bill Van Auken

This will continue: Villagers look at the bodies of three children
after they were killed in an airstrike by U.S. troops in Arghandab
district of Kandahar, south of Kabul, on Wednesday. Four local
civilians including three children were killed. (Photo: B. Nadim)

Now Washington is embarked on permanent occupation and for much the same motives that it attributed to the Soviets.

Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s national security adviser, issued an ultimatum Monday to Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai: either sign a bilateral security agreement with Washington immediately, or face the withdrawal of all US military forces and a cutoff of Western funding by the end of 2014.

The exercise in mutual brinksmanship by US imperialism and its Afghan puppet continued to unfold during Rice’s secretly organized visit to Kabul. In his late-night meeting with Rice, Karzai not only insisted that he would not sign any deal until after elections next April to choose his successor, but also conditioned any agreement on demands that the US not interfere in these elections, act to further peace talks with the Taliban, and release 17 Afghan prisoners held at the Guantanamo detention camp. He also reiterated his demand that the US military halt all raids on Afghan homes.

The written response issued by the White House was blunt: “Without a prompt signature, the US would have no choice but to initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no US or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan.” Rice, the statement continued, “stressed that we have concluded negotiations”—meaning Washington will not consider any new demands from Karzai—and warned that delaying the signing of the accord until next April “is not viable.”

The national security adviser also spelled out that a withdrawal of US troops would lead to a cutoff of hundreds of billions of dollars in US funding upon which the Afghan government and US-organized security forces are wholly dependent. The US political establishment and media refer to this as the “zero option,” which generally is portrayed as unthinkable, while Karzai himself is painted as a madman for even risking such an outcome.

More »

A Short Comment By Tony Cartalucci

"...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal." - Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.

Written years ago, as the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were already plotting to overrun Iran's neighbor and ally Syria with Al Qaeda to weaken the Islamic Republic before inevitable war, this quote exposes fully the current charade that is the "Iran nuclear deal."

The West has no intention of striking any lasting deal with Iran, as nuclear capabilities, even the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran was never truly an existential threat to Western nations or their regional partners.

The West's issue with Iran is its sovereignty and its ability to project its interests into spheres traditionally monopolized by the US and UK across the Middle East. Unless Iran plans on turning over its sovereignty and regional influence along with its right to develop and use nuclear technology, betrayal of any "nuclear deal" is all but inevitable, as is the war that is to shortly follow.

More »