On The Path To Iran War -
Preparing The Scapegoats

By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief

The Bush administration is engaged in three simultaneous provocations on the road to war with Iran: (1) financing of cross-border terrorist groups into Iran; (2) faking evidence of Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents; and (3) creating scapegoats to absorb the blame as Iraq and Afghanistan descend further into chaos.
The first two have been covered in prior briefings. In this brief I will showcase the third. All three are important in antagonizing the Arab countries and inducing greater conflict, though both Iran and Syria are appearing to play it more careful of late. In Iran's case, this may be due to the rumored cancer that is threatening the reign of Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. President Ahmadinejad fears that Khamenei's successors--which include former presidents Mohammad Khatami (a reformist), Hashemi Rafsanjani (his rival), and Mehdi Kharroubi (Parliamentary Speaker)--may not be as tolerant of his provocative outbursts.
All three agendas are also key to maintaining the false patriotic support of dumbed-down American conservatives, who still stubbornly persist in their belief that the Bush-Cheney team are working for American interests. Creating scapegoats to shift blame away from the Republicans for the inevitable failures to come is very much a part of keeping conservatives loyal. For example, the administration has already couched the new surge in Iraq in terms that blame PM al Maliki for failing to secure and stabilize Iraq: "The Iraqi government has failed to 'step to the plate.'"
This not-so-veiled threat is what motivated al Maliki to send out the word to the Mehdi Army to disappear temporarily rather than confront US troops directly. If there is a "success" it will only be superficial, since there is little or no enemy. But, what keeps it from being a success is the dramatic increase in car bombs, which happen to be a product of US-driven agent provocateurs (unbeknownst to our troops). For the US Powers That Be (PTB) "success" is NOT really an option, because it removes the US rationale for staying, and the opportunity to provoke a larger war. Since failure is the desired end, the US is creating scapegoats on a wide variety of fronts so that conservatives can continue to believe in the phony rationale for this never-ending "war on terror."
Scapegoat number two: Pakistan. A Taliban led insurgency in Afghanistan is about to erupt, and the US and Britain are preparing for a surge in troops there. Naturally Pakistan is being set up to take the blame. This scapegoat is especially important for the globalist agenda since Afghanistan is the designed to be Europe's tar baby-sucking them into a US-style quagmire. NATO thought that Afghanistan was merely a mopping up operation that was going to be a cake walk, but the trouble is only just beginning.
As Ken Silverstein wrote [my comments in brackets], "It is now the conventional wisdom in Washington that American efforts to defeat Al Qaeda [and the Taliban] are being undermined by Pakistan. Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip ["unannounced" always signifies preparation for some covert operation] to Islamabad Monday to deliver, wrote the New York Times, 'an unusually tough message to Gen. Pervez Musharraf ... warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda.'"
There are always superficial reasons to justify everything the administration does. This one is one of them. Cheney was actually there to do just the opposite: to reassure Musharraf that even as the US blames Pakistan (we need a scapegoat), the administration will continue to back him with money and weapons. In fact, Musharraf's support for al Qaeda (a CIA-controlled entity for creating high profile terrorist attacks) is US directed, as is Pakistan's penchant for looking the other way at Taliban safe havens on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border.
It is true, as Silverstein says, that "[t]here are factions within Pakistan's political and defense establishment --especially the intelligence service, known as the ISI, which is sympathetic to the Taliban" and al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the pro-insurgent factions are supported by the US as it funnels cash and intelligence directives to the ISI. In the spring, the US expects heavy Taliban attacks on US, British, and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan will get the blame, and the US will be able to justify a troop surge there. Rest assured, you will not see the Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding.
Silverstein continues: "Though President Musharraf has been playing fast and loose with the US, going in for action when Washington tightens the screws and looking the other way when the focus is not on him [a superficial mainstream view], the fact is there is deep hatred of US policy among the people of Pakistan. Large sections in the army are also sympathetic to the Taliban. However, to blame Pakistan completely for the situation in Afghanistan is also not fair. [True, the US is mostly to blame for what Afghanistan has become.] Controlling Afghanistan is of course no cake walk. The British could not do so in the past. The Soviet Union with all its military might had to withdraw. Today, the US and NATO forces are in a similar no-win situation."
Syed Saleem Shahzad of the Asia Times revealed more about the secret Pakistani collaboration with the Taliban: "The Pakistani establishment has made a deal with the Taliban through a leading Taliban commander that will extend Islamabad's influence into southwestern Afghanistan and significantly strengthen the resistance in its push to capture Kabul. One-legged Mullah Dadullah will be Pakistan's strongman in a corridor running from the Afghan provinces of Zabul, Urzgan, Kandahar, and Helmand across the border into Pakistan's Balochistan province, according to both Taliban and al-Qaeda contacts Asia Times Online spoke to [This may only be partially true. I don't trust any "news source" that claims to have regular contacts with the enemy (which US intel could easily track down). "Permitted" sources are always tied to covert operations.] Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able to safely move men, weapons, and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan."
Target Shia: Seymour Hersh wrote this week that the US is secretly funding Sunni jihadist groups in Lebanon to create an atmosphere of civil war there, just as in Iraq. "It is probably the single most explosive, if you will, or depressing--or distressing sort of thing I discovered in the last few months, which is simply this. This administration has made a policy change, a decision that they are going to put all of the pressure they can on the Shiites, that is the Shiite regime in Iran, the Shiite--and they are also doing everything they can to stop Hezbollah. As far as he [Nasrallah] is concerned, we [the US] are interested in recreating what is happening in Iraq in Lebanon, that is Sunni versus Shia.
"And in looking into that story, and I saw him [Nasrallah] in December, I found this. That we have been pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, [and] without any congressional oversight. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia is putting up some of this money, for covert operations in many areas of the Middle East where ... we want to stop the Shiite spread of the Shiite influence. ... And a lot of this money, and I can't tell you with absolute certainty how--exactly when and how, but this money has gotten into the hands--among other places, in Lebanon, into the hands of three--at least three jihadist groups [in Lebanon]. There are three Sunni jihadist groups whose main claim to fame inside Lebanon right now is that they are very tough. These are people connected to al Qaeda [US-controlled] who want to take on Hezbollah."
It appears that this strategy will not only destabilize the Shiite popularity in Lebanon, but enrage the Hezbollah support groups in Iran. The US if trying to provoke some radical outrage to justify more US and Israeli intervention in both Lebanon and Iran.
The UK Telegraph revealed this week that "Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. ... To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear program, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so, the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon."
Of course, that's all very obvious--except the part about "negotiations." This is a joint planning operation, not a negotiation. What isn't so obvious is that this story was leaked to the Telegraph and other sources so that the American public can grow to expect Israel to strike the first blow.
Three other Arab states allied with the US (Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates) secretly let the US know they would "not object" to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response. Arab news sources got wind of this collaboration with the US and Israel and issued statements on behalf of the three denying any such agreement. That is all just political posturing. The three are still onboard the US plan and so is Turkey.
As further evidence of the US planning for war while denying the same, John Bolton said the following concerning his disappointment with Iran's decreasing militancy: "They have not rejected the sanctions resolution, they have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do--that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us." Very telling in terms of conflict creation. US Neocons like Bolton are fishing for a "new Pearl Harbor!"
IPS News received a dose of partial misinformation: "Two weeks ago, Pentagon officials discussed a strategy to escalate U.S. pressure on Iran with the intention of creating the impression that the U.S. is ready to go to war, according to an account by one of the participants. A meeting at the Pentagon in mid-February was said by the participant to have revolved around a plan to ratchet up U.S. rhetoric about an Iranian threat and make further military preparations for war in a way that would be reminiscent of what happened prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003." The impression of the story is that the militant increase in rhetoric wasn't real, but simply a ploy to scare Iran into backing down on its nuclear enrichment program or doing something rash that might provoke a bigger response. Part of the story is disinformation. The preparations are real. The story about intent was a feint.
Some admissions of real intent did surface in the meeting. "According to the account provided by the participant, the administration's decision last month to increase U.S. military strength in Iraq by at least 22,000 troops is related more to a strategy of increased pressure on Iran than to stabilizing the situation in Baghdad. The troop decision was described as putting the U.S. military in a better position to respond to attacks by Shiite forces on U.S. troops in retaliation against a possible U.S. strike against Iran." In reality, the US knows the response is coming because it intends to provoke it.
Lastly, the New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue that "[d]espite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush." The plan focuses on Iran's nuclear facilities and also targets Iranian supplying or aiding militants in Iraq--which could be anything.
Gareth Porter of notes the hypocrisy of the top three Democratic aspirants to the presidency: "The three leading candidates in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination have all stated their support for continuing to consider the option of a military attack [on Iran]. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told the AIPAC annual convention at the end of January, 'In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.'
"Former senator John Edwards was even more vehement in a speech on Iran last month at the Herzliya Conference in Israel. 'To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table,' he said, and then repeated the point for emphasis. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appearing on '60 Minutes' recently, declared, 'I think we should keep all options on the table.'"
The media so carefully limits what is considered acceptable alternatives in these created crises that even if any candidate should emerge that is not controlled directly by the PTB, they would still parrot the standard media-driven doctrine. Virtually all the mainstream, highly-paid political advisors on any campaign are schooled to avoid what the media would deride as "extreme."
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (
PDF Version:
World Affairs Brief March 2, 2007



This Site Served by TheHostPros