LA Protesters Slam War Threats Against Iran

Source: PressTV

Hundreds of demonstrators are gathering in Los Angeles for a "No War on Iran" rally.

False Flag Looking Even More Likely as Israel Warns American Jews of Iranian Strike on US

Source: End The Lie
Madison Ruppert

Recently I covered the statements of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding the possibility of Iranian attacks on the United States; a prospect which I think is so unlikely that if it were to occur it would likely be a false flag attack.

The possibility of such an attack – which would promptly be blamed on Iran just like the September 11, 2001 attacks were blamed on Osama bin Laden before any semblance of an investigation could take place – was reinforced today by a report from ABC News.

According to ABC News, Israel was internally circulating a security document amongst Israeli facilities in North America and around the world which claims that the threat from Iran against Jewish targets will continue to rise.

“We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and ‘soft’ sites,” the letter said, which was circulated by Eliran Avitan, the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States.

For those who are unaware, a “guarded site” is a facility protected by the government, such as an embassy or a consulate, while “soft sites” or “soft targets” are typically unguarded, non-government locations.

Soft sites could include synagogues, schools and community centers, along with more general targets like malls, sporting events, etc.

Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel’s internal security apparatus Shin Bet, reportedly disclosed to an audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv that Iran is trying to strike Israeli targets because Iran believes Israel is attacking their nuclear scientists.

The basis for Iran coming to the conclusion that their nuclear scientists are being taken out by intelligence agencies like the Israeli Mossad or American CIA is quite strong indeed, but apparently Cohen would rather ignore that fact.

We have witnessed a coherent modus operandi consistent throughout all of the targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, something which can be easily linked back to Israel, likely acting in concert with the CIA and British intelligence.

With the Israeli Vice Prime Minister advocating continued support of what he called the “Iranian opposition” which is a not-so-subtle way of advocating continued support of terrorists in Iran, the Iranians have a right to be concerned.

Corbett Report Episode 217 - Against Technocracy

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

We are told that an elite class of experts (or perhaps some benevolent supercomputers) can transform our world of want and despair into a world of milk and honey. But this is not a new idea, and it has always been propounded by the very elites who have put the current system into place. Join us in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report as we go digging up the roots and examining the fruits of elite-sponsored technocracy.

DOCUMENTATION:

Brookings: 'Horrific Provocation' and 'Tehran Sponsored 9/11' Needed To Trigger Iran Invasion

Source: Infowars
Jurriaan Maessen

In a 2009 policy paper, published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia, including such measures as bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering in the shape of an all-out military assault on Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of an unwavering resolve by the Anglo-American establishment to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources at the same time. 

 

The group of authors — a cozy little convergence of globalists — contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but really amounts to little more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded into the trashcan of history. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.

To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran: 

‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’ 

This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):

‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’

But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favorable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.

The Anti-Empire Report: Please Tell Me Again … What is the War in Afghanistan About?!

Source: Boiling Frogs Post
William Blum

With the US war in Iraq supposedly having reached a good conclusion (or halfway decent … or better than nothing … or let’s get the hell out of here while some of us are still in one piece and there are some Iraqis we haven’t yet killed), the best and the brightest in our government and media turn their thoughts to what to do about Afghanistan. It appears that no one seems to remember, if they ever knew, that Afghanistan was not really about 9-11 or fighting terrorists (except the many the US has created by its invasion and occupation), but was about pipelines. 

President Obama declared in August 2009: “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.” 

Never mind that out of the tens of thousands of people the United States and its NATO front have killed in Afghanistan not one has been identified as having had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001. 

Never mind that the “plotting to attack America” in 2001 was devised in Germany and Spain and the United States more than in Afghanistan. Why hasn’t the United States bombed those countries?

Indeed, what actually was needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? A room with some chairs? What does “an even larger safe haven” mean? A larger room with more chairs? Perhaps a blackboard? Terrorists intent upon attacking the United States can meet almost anywhere, with Afghanistan probably being one of the worst places for them, given the American occupation.

The only “necessity” that drew the United States to Afghanistan was the desire to establish a military presence in this land that is next door to the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia — which reportedly contains the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world — and build oil and gas pipelines from that region running through Afghanistan.