"Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn't happened," says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. "And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.' But after you've lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?"1
He's totally right about the predictions, but he completely ignores the plan. The planners going in knew that the critics were right. The point is to redraw the map of the entire Middle East. The advocates of war within the White House knew full well that "winning" in Iraq would never redraw the map. The plan is total, global hegemony. Controlling the oil of the Middle East, including the Caspian Sea region is central to that plan right now.
The neocons are desperate to have a full-scale war in the Middle East so that the US and Israel can control it all. It's called covetousness. It's called greed. It comes out of the evil mindset that either you control them or they'll control you. There's no love in it except for self.
First came the deployment order of U.S. Navy ships to the Persian Gulf. Then came high-level personnel shifts signaling a new focus on naval and air operations rather than the ground combat that predominates in Iraq. In his January 10 speech, Bush announced that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Middle East to defend U.S. allies-presumably from Iran. And he pointedly asserted that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops," a charge that could easily evolve into a casus belli. "It is absolutely parallel," says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist. "They're using the same dance steps-demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." The neoconservatives have had Iran in their sights for more than a decade. On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.
There is absolutely nothing new in this plan. It has been the plan all along. It isn't even the whole plan. The whole plan is to beat everyone on the planet including the rising Chinese.
The plan is to completely control every other nation on the planet. They'll do it through fighting until they sit atop a world government run by bankers and the corporations they control.
What's going on?
"It is absolutely parallel," says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist. "They're using the same dance steps-demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."
"This is like pre-war Iraq all over again," David Albright said in The Washington Post. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."
On December 6, the Iraq Study Group finally released its report, "The Way Forward-A New Approach." ...the report concluded...America's policies in Iraq had failed. It was time for the administration to cut its losses.
Just eight days later, on December 14, Bush found a study that was more to his liking. Not surprisingly, it came from the American Enterprise Institute, the intellectual stronghold of neoconservatism. The author, Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the A.E.I., is the son of Donald Kagan and the brother of Robert Kagan, who signed PNAC's famous 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Kagan's study...suggested that with a massive surge of new troops America could finally succeed. It cites the military's new counter-insurgency manual, which suggests that a nation can be secured with a force of one soldier for every 40 to 50 inhabitants. That calculus would call for stationing more than 150,000 troops in Baghdad alone (there are currently 17,000 there), far more than is politically feasible today. But Kagan skirts this issue by asserting that "it is neither necessary nor wise to try to clear and hold the entire city all at once." Focusing instead on certain areas of Baghdad, he concludes that the deployment of 20,000 additional troops would be enough to pacify significant sections of the city. Even the title of Kagan's report must have been more appealing to Bush: "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq." Soon, it would be announced that Casey and Abizaid were being replaced with more amenable officers: Lieutenant General David Petraeus and Admiral William J. Fallon, respectively. The escalation was on.
Create chaos and then provide the supposed safety and security solution to end the drummed up fear. Regional destabilization was, and remains, the plan. They want chaos and unbalance to drive the situation into total war so they as the ultimate victors will have complete control, both foreign and domestic. They want the US to come out of it as much more powerful and wealthy relative to the rest of the world than it was in the first decade after WWII. They want to do this by locking up the Middle East and Caspian oil and gas while they also make moves on all the other huge carbon energy reserves in the world. This is why they are building a new command structure just to cover Africa and why they are beefing up and building new bases in Latin America.
There will be wars and rumors of wars. Is the proverbial sky red in the morning yet?