World War III – WWWWHW

World War III – Who,What,Where,When,How,Why?

The short answer:

Because God Almighty preordained and foretold us about the end times and the wars and conflicts of those times, and that eventually, after trials and tribulations, those that worship “The One God” with sincerity and without idolatry, and follow the Messengers sent by God the Mighty and Majestic,  will prevail, and that the armies of idolatry, evil, tyranny, and selfish greed, luxury and hedonism, will be utterly destroyed.

Because certain “powers that be” desire, plan, and implement Wars and Massive Violence, since that is how they move and manipulate their agenda, and how they gain ever more power and wealth, in their greed for to endlessly increase power and wealth, and in their desire to implement newer systems of control of the human and natural resources of the world, and in their utter selfishness to sustain their luxurious lifestyles and their self aggrandizement as the self proclaimed ruling elite.

Because war is the greatest interest bearing debt generator known to mankind, and the Banksters use it with brutal efficiency for their purposes.

Because there are many historical indicators, for those that are aware.

World War III – Who,What,Where,When,How,Why?

Some few pieces of information and indicators below, for those that will receive, reflect, plan and act to repent to their One and Only Lord Creator and God, and enter on the path to one of the two victories in this life and eternal salvation in the Hereafter.


I am grateful to Allah the One God of all Mankind and the Lord Sovereign of the Universe, that I mentioned some of these details  in my Doctoral Research in the 1990’s, and these days we are seeing before our eyes what has been foretold and explained.  Of course new information comes to light, and events progress with new contributing factors, and as the Prophet may the salutations of peace and blessings be upon him and his family and faithful followers, said:

“The one who witnesses (firsthand) is not like the one who was informed (secondhand).”

All praise to Allah the Wise and Just, Who is the Ruler, King, Law Giver, Master, and Judge this day, yesterday and tomorrow, but many men will not realize until they stand before Him on the Day of Resurrection, the Day of Retribution, the Day of Judgement, the Day of Final and Absolute Just Judgement,  the Day that leads them to their final eternal abode in either Paradise of Bliss, or Hellfire of Torture.

Some of these articles are of purely secular nature since many people only seek the life of this world, and its signs and proofs:

All words are to and from the authors who are solely responsible, and we only seek to inform and prompt further investigation;



> Oh

so much

to see and read and report

where to begin


maybe here

and there

and so much


so lets start here

some random pieces


Russian military presence in Syria poses challenge to US-led intervention

Advisers deployed with surface-to-air systems bolster President Assad’s defences and complicate outcome of any future strikes

Syria crisis – an Assad regime military vehicle destroyed by rebels

Syria crisis – an Assad regime military vehicle destroyed by rebels during clashes in Bayada neighborhood, Homs province. Photograph: Associated Press

Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria‘s more sophisticated air defences – something that would complicate any future US-led intervention, the Guardian has learned.

The advisers have been deployed with new surface-to-air systems and upgrades of old systems, which Moscow has supplied to the Assad regime since the Syrian revolution broke out 21 months ago.

The depth and complexity of Syria’s anti-aircraft defences mean that any direct western campaign, in support of a no-fly zone or in the form of punitive air strikes against the leadership, would be costly, protracted and risky. The possibility of Russian military casualties in such a campaign could have unpredictable geopolitical consequences.

Meanwhile, near-daily atrocities have kept western governments under pressure to act. A Syrian government air strike on a town near the central city of Hama on Sunday killed dozens of civilians queueing for bread, according to human rights activists.

Amateur footage from Halfaya showed mangled human remains strewn along a street where people had been blown off scooters and out of cars. One video showed a boy with his feet blown off. Piles of corpses could be seen beneath rubble outside a two-storey building the cameraman described as a bakery. It was unclear how many bodies were in the smoking ruins.

Human Rights Watch has previously accused the regime of targeting bakeries. The group warned the Assad regime that such targeted bombing of civilians represented war crimes. However, in the face of a Russian veto at the UN security council, the international criminal court has not had a mandate to investigate the atrocities committed by either side. The UN has put the death toll at more than 40,000 as the war continues to escalate.

Turkish officials, who accurately predicted the Syrian regime would use Scud missiles after several warplanes were shot down by rebels, also believe President Bashar al-Assad has twice come close to using chemical weapons including sarin, the nerve gas. First, after the bombing of the regime’s Damascus security headquarters in July, which killed the president’s brother in law, Assef Shawkat, and then last month, after opposition forces made significant gains.

The Turks and western officials say there are signs Assad sees chemical weapons as another step in the escalation of force, rather than a Rubicon-crossing gamble that could end his regime. The US, UK, France and Turkey have warned Syria that its use of such weapons would trigger military retribution. But any such a response would be fraught with difficulties.

Air strikes against chemical weapon depots would potentially disperse lethal gases over a vast area, triggering a humanitarian disaster. US and allied special forces have been trained to seize the air bases where the warheads are kept, but it is unclear what the next step would be. It would be physically impossible to fly the hundreds of warheads out of the country, while it would take thousands of troops to guard the arsenal for what could be many months. In the interim, those western troops could easily become the target of Islamist groups fighting the government in Damascus.

Any air strikes against regime targets, in response to chemical weapon use, or any attempt to create a no-fly zone to stop further bombing of refugee camps, would require the suppression of Syria’s formidable defences. Those have been bolstered significantly since Israeli strikes on an alleged nuclear reactor site at al-Kibar in 2007 exposed holes, and again since the outbreak of the Syrian uprising in March 2011.

The upgrades were supplied by Moscow, which sees them as a bulwark against western-imposed regime change and protection of a longstanding investment in Syria. The country includes Russia‘s biggest electronic eavesdropping post outside its territory, in Latakia, and its toehold on the Mediterranean, a small naval base at Tartus.

Russian security and defence officials, who are notoriously loth to publicly comment on their operations abroad, have repeatedly denied providing explicit support for the Assad regime.

Over the weekend, the head of Russia’s ground forces air defence, Major General Alexander Leonov, told the Ekho Moskvy radio station: “Syria’s air-defence system is a no-nonsense force. As a result, no one has ever used serious air combat power against it.”

That “no-nonsense” force, the air defence command, comprises two divisions and an estimated 50,000 troops – twice the size of Muammar Gaddafi’s force – with thousands of anti-aircraft guns and more than 130 anti-aircraft missile batteries.

According to Jeremy Binnie, the editor of Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor, recent Russian deliveries include Buk-M2 and Pantsyr-S1 (known to Nato as SA-22) mobile missile launch and radar systems. Reports of the shipment of the modern long-range S-300 have not been confirmed, and the Syrian armed forces did not show off any S-300 missiles in a military display this year. It is possible they have been delivered but are not yet operational.

Guy Ben-Ari, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said: “They don’t just sell the equipment. They also help man the crews and train the crews. Sometimes there is just no domestic capacity to run these systems, and that is the case in Syria where Syrian crews are not capable of using the equipment to its full capacity.”

Sources familiar with the Moscow-Damascus defence relationship confirmed the presence of Russian air-defence crews inside Syria. Their deployment would be a consideration when western contingency plans for Syria were being considered, they said.

Such a dense, layered and overlapping air-defence system would require a huge air campaign, heavily reliant on thousands of precision-guided missiles. The UK, France and other American allies in Europe used up their stocks of such weapons in Libya and although details are classified there have been reports that they have not yet returned to pre-Libya levels.

“We know they pretty much ran out of them at the end of Libya. Given the budgetary constraints the Europeans are operating with, and in an era where every euro spent on defence is very heavily scrutinised, it is a hard sell to restock on this stuff,” Ben-Ari said. “And it would not be enough to be at Libya levels. You would need far more for Syria.”

A Syrian air campaign would also require stealth aircraft and a great amount of signals intelligence, satellite imagery and aerial reconnaissance, all of which are US specialities. For all those reasons, Washington would not be able to “lead from behind” as it did in Libya.

The Obama administration has so far been extremely wary of getting enmeshed in another Middle East war, particularly with the knowledge that the long-running Iranian nuclear crisis could trigger a conflict in the Gulf at any time. With the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus last month, the administration arguably lost its most powerful advocate of Syrian intervention.

John Kerry, the nominee for secretary of state, has advocated greater support for the rebels, but stopped short of calling for direct US or Nato involvement. With no new secretary of defence yet nominated, it could take several months for the new team to recalibrate its approach.

The robust Syrian defences, combined with Damascus’s hand-in-glove relationship with Moscow, and the fragmented nature of the opposition, help explain why a US-led intervention – predicted as imminent for more than a year by advocates and opponents alike – has so far failed to materialise, and why there is little appetite for such a move in Washington and most other western capitals, barring a major, verifiable use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

World War III – The coming Big war of the 21st Century

Monday, April 25, 2011

World War III – The coming Big war of the 21st Century

Total Collapse – The Build up to World War III – Problem Reaction Solution –
even if we do make it through this summer which I highly doubt the crash of the dollar is inevitable just a matter of time it could happen tomorrow next week or next month .Main Stream Media will be the last news source to inform us we’re on a sinking ship! The United States are going to collapse, not just financially, but also politically and societally. This is a mathematical certainty. The life of you and your family depends on the actions that you take now.And because the governments need more distractions they are leading us straight to WWIII . US doesn’t really need Iranian oil. They are just protecting the dollar. Iran is one of the states which is using Euro to sell oil. Iraq was doing the same. You probably know what happened to Iraqi leader.If we could buy oil in Euro, the central banks ww would no longer need to possess dollars.And the US would no longer be able to finance their economy by just issuing paper money.

Total Collapse – The Build up to World War III – Problem Reaction Solution –
Towards a World War III Scenario.
New E-Book from Global Research Publishers
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 30, 2011
– 2011-06-08
2digg 1495Share

The following is a preview from the preface of a newly released E-book by Global Research Publishers

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky

E-Book Series No. 1.0
Global Research Publishers
Montreal, 2011,
ISBN 978-0-9737147-3-9

76 pages (8.5×11)
Tables, color photographs, maps, text boxes.
Active hyperlinks to major references in the text, hyperlinked footnotes.  

Scroll down for Detailed Table of Contents
Order your pdf of this important new book from Global Research here

Introductory offer: $5.00 (plus $1.50 processing fee. Sent directly to your email!)
OR receive this book FREE with your Global Research Annual Membership! Click to learn more.

The World is at a critical crossroads. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of Worldwide nuclear radiation.

Coinciding with the onset of the nuclear crisis in Japan, a new regional war theater has opened up in North Africa, under the disguise of a UN sponsored “humanitarian operation” with the mandate to “protect civilian lives”.

These two seemingly unrelated events are of crucial importance in understanding both the nuclear issue as well as the ongoing US-NATO sponsored war, which has now extended its grip into Libya. The crisis in Japan has been described as “a nuclear war without a war”. Its potential repercussions, which are yet to be fully assessed, are far more serious than the Chernobyl disaster, as acknowledged by several scientists.

The crisis in Japan has also brought into the open the unspoken relationship between nuclear energy and nuclear war. Nuclear energy is not a civilian economic activity. It is an appendage of the nuclear weapons industry which is controlled by the so-called defense contractors. The powerful corporate interests behind nuclear energy and nuclear weapons overlap. In Japan at the height of the disaster, “the nuclear industry and government agencies [were] scrambling to prevent the discovery of atomic-bomb research facilities hidden inside Japan’s civilian nuclear power plants”.[1] The media consensus is that the crisis at Fukushima’s five nuclear power plants has been contained. The realties are otherwise. The Japanese government has been obliged to acknowledge that “the severity rating of its nuclear crisis … matches that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster”. Moreover, the dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination. Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California:

“Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer”.[2]

A New War Theater in North Africa

The War on Libya was launched within days of the Fukushima disaster. As we go to press, a dangerous process of military escalation is ongoing. NATO warplanes are hitting civilian targets in Libya including residential areas and government buildings in violation of international law.

The war on Libya is an integral part of the broader military agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia which until recently consisted of three distinct areas of conflict : Afghanistan and Pakistan (the AfPak War), Iraq, Palestine. A fourth war theater has opened up in North Africa, which raises the issue of escalation over a vast geographical area. These four war theaters are interrelated. They are part of a broader region of conflict, which extends from North Africa and the Middle East, engulfing a large part of the Mediterranean basin, to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan, and Northern Pakistan.

How does the war on Libya relate to this broader US-NATO military agenda?

Is a World War III scenario unfolding?

Is the use of nuclear weapons contemplated in North Africa?

With regard to nuclear doctrine, the concept of a US sponsored pre-emptive nuclear attack applies to a number of countries or “rogue states” including Libya. An all out war against the Qadhafi regime has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 20 years, Moreover, Libya was the first country to be tagged for a preemptive attack using tactical nuclear weapons.[3] The Clinton administration’s plan to nuke Libya had been announced in no uncertain terms in a 1996 Department of Defense press briefing:

“[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya’s alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. ‘We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,’ Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 ‘would be the nuclear weapon of choice,’ he [Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold P. Smith] told Jane Defence Weekly.[4]

Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry had confirmed in a statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries [e.g. Libya] armed with chemical and biological weapons.”[5] The Department of Defense’s objective was to fast track the “testing” of the B61-11 nuclear bomb on an actual country and that country was Libya: “Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target”.[6]

While the 1996 plan to bomb Libya using tactical nuclear weapons was subsequently shelved, Libya was not removed from the “black list”: “The Qadhafi regime” remains to this date a target country for a pre-emptive (“defensive”) nuclear attack. As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, “The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil” Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria.[7]

Operation Odyssey Dawn. Nuclear Weapons against Libya? How Real is the Threat?

Has the project to nuke Libya been definitively shelved or is Libya still being contemplated as a potential target for a nuclear attack? (This preface serves as an update on the potential dangers of a nuclear war against a defenseless non-nuclear State). The air campaign directed against Libya commenced on March 19, 2011. America deployed its Bat-shaped B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers operating out of the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Described as “deadly and effective”, the B-2 was used as an instrument of “humanitarian warfare”.

Barely two weeks after the commencement of the war, the Pentagon announced the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb using the same B-2 Stealth bombers which had been deployed to Libya at the very outset of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the US Air Force’s chosen “carrier” for the delivery of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These timely tests pertained to the installed equipment, functionality and weapon’s components of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. The tests were conducted by the B-2 bombers operating out of the same Air Force base, from which the B-2 bombing raid on Libya were conducted.[8]

Is the timing of these tests in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign?

The U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command was in charge of both the JTA tests of the B61-11 as well as the deployment of three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers to Libya on March 19 under operation Odyssey Dawn. Both the deployment of the B-2s to the Libya war theater as well as the tests of the equipment of the B61-11 (using the B-2 bomber for delivery) were coordinated out of Whiteman Air Force base.

America’s Long War: The Global Military Agenda

The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. The first two chapters of this E-book focus on the “Cult of Death and Destruction” underlying this global military agenda. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”. Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

US nuclear doctrine is intimately related to “America’s War on Terrorism” and the alleged threat of Al Qaeda, which in a bitter irony is considered as an upcoming nuclear power. Under the Obama administration, Islamic terrorists are said to be preparing to attack US cities. Proliferation is tacitly equated with “nuclear terrorism”. Obama’s nuclear doctrine puts particular emphasis on “nuclear terrorism” and on the alleged plans by Al Qaeda to develop and use nuclear weapons.

Chapter III focusses on America’s Holy Crusade and the Battle for Oil. The “Global War on Terrorism” requires going after the terrorists, using advanced weapons systems. US foreign policy upholds a pre-emptive religious-like crusade against evil, which serves to obscure the real objectives of military action. In the inner consciousness of Americans, the attacks of September 11, 2001 justify acts of war and conquest against evil-doers. The Global War on Terrorism is presented as a “clash of civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives. The lies behind 9/11 are known and documented. The American people’s acceptance of this crusade against evil is not based on any rational understanding or analysis of the facts. “The American inquisition” purports to extend Washington’s sphere of influence. Military intervention is justified as part of an international campaign against “Islamic terrorists”. Its ultimate intention, which is never mentioned in press reports, is territorial conquest and control over strategic resources. Ironically, under the Global War on Terrorism, these plans of conquest are instrumented by covertly supporting Islamic paramilitary armies, which are then used to destabilize non-compliant governments and impose Western standards of “governance” and “democracy”.

World War III Scenario

The contours of a World War III scenario are discussed in Chapter IV. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously. Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: “[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”

Chapter V focusses on war preparations pertaining to Iran, including the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Islamic Republic. While Iran remains on the Pentagon’s drawing board, a fundamental shift in the sequencing of military operations has occurred. The US-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that Iran has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. With the onset of the US-NATO led war in North Africa, Washington and its allies have chosen to wage war on countries with lesser military capabilities. This factor in itself has been crucial in the decision by the US and its allies to put “the Iran operation” on hold, while launching a “humanitarian war” on Libya.

How to Reverse the Tide of War

Chapter VI focusses on antiwar actions directed against this diabolical military agenda. Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.” Breaking the “big lie” which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda, the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged. This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

The object of this E-Book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Break the American Inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

Bring home the troops.


1. See Yoichi Shimatsu, Secret Weapons Program Inside Fukushima Nuclear Plant? Global Research, April 12, 2011
2. Helen Caldicott, Fukushima: Nuclear Apologists Play Shoot the Messenger on Radiation, The Age, April 26, 2011
3. See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya, Global Research, March 25, 2011.
4. Federation of American Scientists, The Nuclear Information Project: the B61-11
5. Ibid, See also Greg Mello, The Birth Of a New Bomb; Shades of Dr. Strangelove! Will We Learn to Love the B61-11? The Washington Post, June 1, 1997
6. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – September/ October 1997, p. 27. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya, Global Research, March 25, 2001
7. See William Arkin, “Thinking the Unthinkable”, Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2002.
8. In late March or early April (prior to April 4), the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber from the 509th Bomber Wing operating out of Whiteman Air Force Base, was used in the so-called “Joint Test Assembly” (JTA) of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb.
The announcement of these tests was made public on April 4; the precise date of the tests was not revealed, but one can reasonably assume that it was in the days prior to the April 4 press release by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA. Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, April 4, 2011. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Dangerous Crossroads: Is America Considering the Use of Nuclear Weapons against Libya? Global Research, April 7, 2011

Montreal, May 2011

Order your pdf of this important new book from Global Research here
Introductory offer: $5.00 
(plus $1.50 processing fee. Sent directly to your email!)
 receive this book FREE with your Global Research Annual Membership! Click to learn more.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

This E-Book is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Alice C. Tang, who devoted her life to global peace, the pursuance of truth, military disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war. Alice Tang’s proposal was titled “Two Percent, No First Strike.” The pledge would be that no nation shall spend more than 2 percent of its GDP on military purposes, and no nation would be a “first strike” aggressor with nuclear weapons.


Research for this E-book was conducted over a period of almost ten years. Our sincere thanks to Global Research members and our readers, whose support has enabled us to develop our publishing and educational outreach activities.

I am much indebted to Maja Romano of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG) for her support in the editing process as well for the creative design of the front page graphics. I extend my thanks and appreciation to Réjean Mc Kinnon, for the careful typesetting, layout and production of the E-Book and to Drew McKevitt for her assistance in the copyediting of the manuscript.

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky

E-Book Series No. 1.0
Global Research Publishers
Montreal, 2011

ISBN 978-0-9737147-3-9
76 pages (8.5×11)
Tables, color photographs, maps, text boxes.
Active hyperlinks to major references in the text, hyperlinked footnotes.  

Order your pdf of this important new book from Global Research here

Introductory offer: $5.00 (plus $1.50 processing fee. Sent directly to your email!)
OR receive this book FREE with your Global Research Annual Membership! Click to learn more.



A New War Theater in North Africa
Operation Odyssey Dawn
Nuclear Weapons against Libya? How Real is the Threat?
America’s Long War: The Global Military Agenda
How to Reverse the Tide of War
World War III Scenario


The Cult of Killing and Destruction
America’s Mini-nukes
War and the Economic Crisis
Real versus Fake Crises


Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters
The Privatization of Nuclear War: US Military Contractors Set the Stage
9/11 Military Doctrine: Nuclear Weapons and the “Global War on Terrorism”
Al Qaeda: “Upcoming Nuclear Power”
Obama’s Nuclear Doctrine: The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
Post 9/11 Nuclear Doctrine
“Defensive” and “Offensive” Actions
“Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
The Role of Western Europe
Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power
Pre-emptive Nuclear War: NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept
The World is at a Critical Crossroads


America’s Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle East
“Homegrown Terrorists”
The American Inquisition
Washington’s Extrajudicial Assassination Program
The Battle for Oil
The Oil Lies in Muslim Lands
Globalization and the Conquest of the World’s Energy Resources


Media Disinformation
A “Pre-emptive” Aerial Attack Directed Against Iran would Lead to Escalation
Global Warfare
US “Military Aid”
The Timetable of Military Stockpiling and Deployment
World War III Scenario
The United Nations Security Council
The American Inquisition: Building a Political Consensus for War


Building a Pretext for a Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack
“Theater Iran Near Term”
The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”
Simulated Scenarios of a Global War: The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games
The Role of Israel
Cheney: “Israel Might Do it Without Being Asked”
US Israel Military Coordination
Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran
Radioactive Fallout
“The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used Against Iran
Extensive Destruction of Iran’s Infrastructure
State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”
Electromagnetic Weapons
Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles
Iran’s Ground Forces
US Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran


Revealing the Lie
The Existing Anti-War Movement
Manufacturing Dissent
Jus ad Bellum: 9/11 and the Invasions of Yugoslavia and Afghanistan
Fake Antiwar Activism: Heralding Iran as a Nuclear Threat
The Road Ahead
The Antiwar Movement within the State Structure and the Military
Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight
The Broader Peace Process
What has to be Achieved

Order your pdf of this important new book from Global Research here 

Introductory offer: $5.00 (plus $1.50 processing fee. Sent directly to your email!)
OR receive this book FREE with your Global Research Annual Membership! Click to learn more.

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
Bookmark and Share Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter


Slouching Towards Disaster: America’s Covert War Against Iran

by Tom Burghardt / December 12th, 2011

Legendary investigative journalist I.F. Stone famously observed: “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.”

Amongst Washington elites and the courtier press, it appears that more than a pipe or two has been passed around of late as the political and psychological ground is prepared for a military attack on Iran.

Do ‘All Options’ Mean Nukes?

During a White House press briefing Thursday, President Barack Obama said that “No options off the table means I am considering all options.”

Many of those “options” are already in play. Ranging from a covert program of assassination and industrial sabotage to planting computer malware as “beacons” for future attacks on civilian and defense infrastructure, the United States, NATO and Israel are already engaged in a campaign of violent destabilization inside the Islamic Republic.

As former CIA officer Philip Giraldi pointed out on, “the White House has issued several findings to the intelligence community authorizing stepped-up covert action against both Damascus and Tehran.”

“A ‘finding,’” Giraldi noted, “is top-level approval for secret operations considered to be particularly politically sensitive. Taken together, the recent findings, combined with the evidence of major intelligence operations being run in Lebanon, amount to a secret war against Iran and its allies in the Mideast.”

In 2007, President Bush “authorized attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists and other facilities in Tehran and elsewhere as well as coordination with the Israelis to develop computer viruses to disrupt the Iranian computer network, a program that led to the production of the Stuxnet worm.”

“While the media credits ‘the Israelis’ in the assassination of Iranian scientists,” Giraldi noted “the reality is that no Israeli (or American) intelligence officer could possibly operate effectively inside Iran to carry out a killing.”

“The assassinations, which are acts of war, have actually been carried out by followers of the dissident Iranian Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), the separatist Baluch Jundallah, and the Kurdish PJAK, all acting under direction from American and Israeli intelligence officers,” Giraldi grimly observed.

More ominously however, five years ago The New Yorker revealed that “One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites,” such as the one at Nantaz.

At the time, a “senior intelligence official” familiar with the plans told Seymour Hersh: “‘Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout–we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out’–remove the nuclear option–’they’re shouted down’.”

As Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky warned in Towards a World War III Scenario: “Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, ‘Theater Iran Near Term’, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 ‘when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran’.”

“In 2004,” Chossudovsky wrote, “drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a ‘contingency plan’ of a large-scale military operation directed against Iran ‘to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States’ on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.”

Writing on Iran war plans back in 2005, Philip Giraldi disclosed in The American Conservative magazine, “The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.”

“As in the case of Iraq,” Giraldi wrote, “the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing–that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack–but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.”

While Israel is portrayed as an irrational actor which the United States is powerless to control, this manufactured reality is a smokescreen meant to conceal America’s hidden hand.

According to Chossudovsky, “What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran.”

“In practical military terms,” Chossudovsky averred, “any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US-led coalition.”

With these disturbing facts in hand, and the chilling implications of policies which have been concealed from the American people, one can reasonably inquire: Is this what President Obama means when he says “no options off the table means I am considering all options”?

Given the heated rhetoric employed by the president and his national security team, moves towards economic- and other forms of warfare by Congress, as well as even-more bellicose threats by Republican presidential contenders angling for the Oval Office, the use of a nuclear weapon in any attack upon Iran cannot be ruled out.

‘Sentinel Down’

Much to their consternation, Iran may not be the pushover claimed by the war hawks and their media acolytes.

After decades of regaling the public with lurid tales of U.S. technological prowess, replete with grandiose plans for “full-spectrum dominance,” the Aerospace Division of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) releasedvideo Thursday of the captured RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone brought down last Sunday some 140 miles from the Afghan border, well into Iranian territory.

The incident has become a huge embarrassment to the Pentagon and chest-thumping American politicians who have oversold their oft-repeated claim that the United States is the world’s “sole superpower.”

According to PressTV, a Tehran-based English language media outlet which reflects the views of the Iranian government, Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said: “After the aircraft’s entry into the country’s eastern [air]space, it fell in the electronic ambush of the Iranian Armed Forces and was brought to the ground with minimum damage [caused to it].”

Also on Thursday, DebkaFile, a Jerusalem-based military intelligence web site with close ties to ultra-rightists in Israel and the United States, reported that the RQ-170 captured December 4 in “almost perfect condition confirmed Tehran’s claim that the UAV was downed by a cyber attack, meaning it was not shot down but brought in undamaged by an electronic warfare ambush.”

How did the Iranians bring the Sentinel down? While speculation is rife amongst aviation experts, a plausible theory has emerged.

According to the Israeli defense industry publication, Defense Update, “Russia has transferred a number of Kvant 1L222 Avtobaza Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) systems to Iran in October.” Each “system includes an passive ELINT signals interception system and a jamming module capable of disrupting airborne radars including fire control radars, terrain following radars and ground mapping radars as well as weapon (missile) data links.”

The Russian-supplied system, Defense Update analysts report, is also “capable of intercepting weapon datalink communications operating on similar wavebands. The new gear may have helped the Iranians employ active deception/jamming to intercept and ‘hijack’ the Sentinel’s control link.”

On Saturday, the AviationIntel web site, citing photographic documentation released by Iran that the “evidence is unbelievably conclusive” that Iranian cyberwarriors captured the U.S. spy craft.

In other words, AviationIntel analysts averred, “there is no reason why [that] system [Avtobaza] could not have detected the Sentinel’s electronic trail and either jammed it and/or have alerted fighter aircraft and SAM [surface-to-air missile] installations as to its whereabouts.”

While the RQ-170 “could have operated with limited electronic connectivity, making it less visible,” AviationIntel reported that a “more likely scenario” would be that the Sentinel actively transmitted “live video, detailed radar maps, or electronic intelligence, in real-time,” making detection all-the-more easier when “pinged” by the Russian-designed system.

However you care to spin this story, the Iranian military are no slouches; an attack on the Islamic Republic would hardly be the proverbial “cake-walk” touted by the neocons and other armchair warriors.

In a further sign that the Tehran government take ongoing terror attacks by London, Tel Aviv and Washington very seriously, The Daily Telegraphreported that IRGC commander, General Mohammed Ali Jaafari, “raised the operational readiness status of the country’s forces, initiating preparations for potential external strikes and covert attacks.”

The Telegraph disclosed, citing unnamed “Western intelligence officials,” that Iran’s armed forces “had initiated plans to disperse long-range missiles, high explosives, artillery and guards units to key defensive positions.”

“The Iranian leadership fears the country is being subjected to a carefully co-ordinated attack by Western intelligence and security agencies to destroy key elements of its nuclear infrastructure,” The Telegraph reported.

In response to bellicose threats emanating from Western capitals, a new round of crippling sanctions meant to crater the economy and attacks by intelligence agencies and terrorist assets operating inside Iran, orders were issued “to redistribute Iran’s arsenal of long-range Shahab missiles to secret sites around the country where they would be safe from enemy attack and could be used to launch retaliatory attacks.”

On Friday, The Christian Science Monitor reported that conservative lawmaker Mohammad Kossari warned that “‘Iran will target all US military bases around the world,’ in case of further violations … [and that] Iran’s response would be ‘terrifying’.”

Investigative journalist Scott Peterson, who has done yeoman’s work exposing the propaganda blitz by current and former U.S. intelligence officials and lawmakers to delist the bizarre Iranian political cult, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, disclosed that “the drone flights have apparently not yielded new evidence that would change conclusions by the United States and the United Nations that Iran stopped systematic nuclear weapons-related work in 2003.”

This of course, confirm Iranian assertions that efforts by Western imperialists over Iran’s alleged “nuclear weapons programs” is a pretext for “regime change.”

Defense journalist Robert Densmore, a former Navy electronic countermeasures officer told Peterson that the capture of the RQ-170 drone is “very significant.”

“Strategically,” Densmore told the Monitor, “the US will suffer from the loss of this because … it has radar, a fuselage, and coating that makes it low-observable, and the electronics inside are also very high-tech.”

But perhaps the biggest loss to the Pentagon is not the drone’s bat-wing design nor coatings which render the craft less visible to detection by radar–long known to America’s capitalist rivals China and Russis–but the “cutting-edge cameras and sensors that can ‘listen in’ on cellphone conversations as it soars miles above the ground or ‘smell’ the air and sniff out chemical plumes emanating from a potential underground nuclear laboratory,” as the Los Angeles Times disclosed.

Built by defense giant Lockheed Martin at a cost to taxpayers of some $6 million dollars per unit, the secret state’s drone program, greatly expanded by the Obama regime, may be a boon to Washington’s opaque Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex but it is also something of an Achilles’ heel.

“Ever since it was developed at Lockheed Martin Corp.’s famed Skunk Works facility in Palmdale,” the Los Angeles Times averred, “the Sentinel drone has been cloaked in tight secrecy by the U.S. government. But now the drone that the Iranian military claims to have brought down for invading its airspace might be made far more public than the Pentagon or Lockheed ever intended.”

On this count, along with many other assumptions underpinning the doctrinal constructs of Washington’s technophilic military, they have no one to blame but themselves.

As Antifascist Calling reported back in 2009, Iraqi insurgents deployed $26 off-the-shelf spy kit that enabled them to intercept live video feeds from Predator drones.

According to The Wall Street Journal the Pentagon’s “potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink between the unmanned craft and ground control.” Although this flaw was known to the Pentagon since the 1990s during imperialism’s campaign to dismember socialist Yugoslavia, nothing was done since it might prove too costly to the drone’s prime contractor, General Atomics Inc.

The Journal noted “the stolen video feeds also indicate that U.S. adversaries continue to find simple ways of counteracting sophisticated American military technologies.”

In fact, as the Journal disclosed in a subsequent report, the video feed wasn’t encrypted “because military officials have long assumed no one would make the effort to try to intercept it.”

Talk about imperial hubris!

“‘It’s bad–they’ll have everything,’ in terms of the secret technology in the aircraft,” an unnamed U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times. “‘And the Chinese or the Russians will have it too’.”

The Associated Press reported that “Iran will not return a U.S. surveillance drone captured by its armed forces, a senior commander of the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard said Sunday.”

“Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy head of the Guard, said in remarks broadcast on state television that the violation of Iran’s airspace by the U.S. drone was a ‘hostile act’ and warned of a ‘bigger’ response. He did not elaborate on what Tehran might do.”

“‘No one returns the symbol of aggression to the party that sought secret and vital intelligence related to the national security of a country’,” Salami said.

On the diplomatic front, the drone’s capture was a tactical boost for Tehran.

On Thursday, Iran’s UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee complained in a letter to the UN Security Council that the “blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States Government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations.” Khazaee demanded “condemnation of such aggressive acts.” Needless to say, none will be forthcoming.

A One-Two Punch: Iran and China

As Washington seeks to impose a stranglehold over vital petrochemical resources in Central Asian and Middle Eastern energy corridors, efforts to overthrow the Tehran government, as with U.S. machinations against Libya and now Syria, are daggers aimed directly at Washington’s largest creditor and geopolitical rival, China.

Writing in Asia Times Online, analyst Kaveh L. Afrasiabi warned that the “United States government is on the verge of taking its problems with the Islamic Republic of Iran to a whole new and ominous level that portends clashing interests with China and a number of other countries, including in Europe, which receives some half a million barrels of oil from Iran on a daily basis.”

As previously reported, the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, wending its way through Congress will impose new crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and threaten any corporation or financial institution that does business with Iran’s Central Bank with stiff punitive measures.

“Unwilling to compromise, hawkish lawmakers sponsoring the bill and their impressive army of pro-Israel lobbyists have mounted a counter-attack,” Afrasiabi averred, “arguing that the bill is sound and does not require any ‘watering down’ that would weaken its impact on Iran–the hope being that this will bring Tehran to its knees over the nuclear issue.”

Last week, pro-Israel lobby groups, including the the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the American Jewish Committee, “began a loud campaign in favor of the latest US sanctions bill, pressuring Obama to go along and reminding him of his ‘waiver authority’” under terms of the draconian legislation.

“This argument traps the White House into difficult choices, for example, exempting China, which receives 13% of its imported oil from Iran, would ignite a bush fire of political criticism, and not doing so on the other hand would inevitably harm US-China relations,” Afrasiabi wrote.

Indeed, the current legislation is a double-edged sword aimed at both Iran and China because “the bill in effect asks Beijing to forego its energy ties with Iran and look elsewhere, clearly not something the Chinese are prepared to do in today’s age of energy insecurity.”

“That insecurity,” Asia Times reports, “would be exacerbated as a result of an oil embargo on Iran, which relies on its oil exports for some 80% of its foreign income. Oil prices would jack up, perhaps to about US$250 a barrel as warned by Tehran,” and would have a deleterious effect on countries “such as Spain and Greece, which receive 14% of their oil from Iran, some on Iran credit,” directly impacting their already troubled economies.

Reframing Western Propaganda

Underscoring Western unity regarding the terrorist campaign targeting Iran, the director of “Germany’s Institute for Security and International Affairs (SWP), Volker Perthes, and their Iran expert Walter Posch” argued in a secret 2010 diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks that “a policy of covert sabotage (unexplained explosions, accidents, computer hacking etc) would be more effective than a military strike whose effects in the region could be devastating.”

As German Foreign Policy reported last month, the “German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) recently recalled the cause for the renewed escalation of tensions. ‘Since the demise of British colonial rule and the announcement of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine,’ according to the think tank’s recent analysis, the USA has been pursuing the objective of thwarting the rise of any Middle East country to become a regional predominating power–’if necessary by military means’.”

“‘The growth of power and influence of a regional player’ would ‘automatically be equated with loss of US power and influence in that region.’ Washington has always sought, through ‘alliances and inter-alliance policies, to create a regional balance of power’ that guarantees western hegemony in this resource-rich region.”

“Therefore,” GFP’s analyst concludes, “the conflict between the West and Iran–regardless of ideological wrappings–is simply a hegemonic conflict.”

This has been borne out by recent statements by neoconservatives in the United States. Shifting gears, neocons in leading U.S. think tanks are busily manufacturing new reasons why the United States, Israel, or both, need to attack Iran–now.

As journalist MJ Rosenberg pointed out for Media Matters, “suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation.”

Rosenberg reported that “after a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them.”

“Suddenly,” Rosenberg wrote, “the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.”

In late November Danielle Pletka, the head of the American Enterprise Institute’s “foreign policy shop” explained: “The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, ‘See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately.’ … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.”

Never mind the inconvenient fact that Iran has repeatedly stated their nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes, a point clearly established by two National Intelligence Estimates by American secret state agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Indeed, no evidence exists that Iran has diverted enriched uranium towards a secret military program to develop a weapon, despite howls of protest to the contrary by powerful pro-Israel lobby groups and their pets in Congress.

“Earlier this week,” Rosenberg reported, “one of Pletka’s colleagues at AEI said pretty much the same thing. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Donnelly explained that we’ve got the Iran problem all wrong and that we need to ‘understand the nature of the conflict.’”

Donnelly continued: “‘We’re fixated on the Iranian nuclear program while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East’.”

In other words, warmongers on both sides of the rather narrow Washington “divide” view Iran not as a so-called “existential threat” to America’s “stationary aircraft carrier in the Middle East,” Israel, which possesses upwards of 200 nukes, but as a direct competitor for hegemony over the control of the vast petrochemical resources of Central Asia and the Middle East.

As Seumas Milne wrote last week in The Guardian, “a US or Israeli attack on Iran would turn that regional maelstrom into a global firestorm.”

“Iran would certainly retaliate directly and through allies against Israel, the US and US Gulf client states, and block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. Quite apart from death and destruction, the global economic impact would be incalculable.”

As Reuters reported, “the chance of a military strike on Iran has roughly tripled in the past year, the senior geopolitical risk analyst at Barclays Capital said on Thursday.”

“New York-based analyst Helina Croft, writing in a note titled ‘Blowback: Assessing the fallout from the Iranian sanctions’, said even increased sanctions without an all-out military strike was increasing the risk of a spike in oil prices.”

“We still contend that the risk of either an Israeli or US strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities remains low, but it has risen, in our view, from 5-10 percent last year to 25-30% now,” Croft said.

Despite, or possibly because the severe economic fallout an attack on Iran would threaten their global competitors, the crisis-ridden U.S. Empire just might view the risks as “manageable.”

But as the World Socialist Web Site warned, “what is being attempted is no less than redrawing the political map of the entire Middle East. It threatens not only region-wide conflict, but to involve those major powers Washington is trying to exclude from this area of vital geostrategic concern: Russia and China.”

This dangerous and deadly game is fraught with peril. As Michel Chossudovsky warned on Global Research: “If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East-Central Asia region would flare up. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III Scenario.”

Such a scenario, as readers undoubtedly surmise, would be anything but “manageable.”

In this light, it is hardly an accident that the same 2012 Defense Authorization Act which threatens to collapse Iran’s economy also targets dissident Americans with loss of their constitutional rights and indefinite detention under a creeping martial law regime.

One crime begets another.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His articles are published in many venues. He is the editor ofPolice State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK PressRead other articles by Tom, or visit Tom’s website.

This article was posted on Monday, December 12th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Anti-warDronesEmpireImperialismIran,Israel/PalestineMiddle EastMilitary/MilitarismObama.


Imperial overdrive: Red alert over Iran

A handout picture from US Navy dated February 21, 2007, shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis as it conducts operations in the Gulf (AFP Photo / US Navy / Ronald Reeves)

A handout picture from US Navy dated February 21, 2007, shows the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis as it conducts operations in the Gulf (AFP Photo / US Navy / Ronald Reeves)

TAGS: ConflictMilitaryNuclearPoliticsIran,USALibyaWarGlobal economySyria

2011 will be remembered as the year the US, Britain, France and Israel went into Imperial Overdrive in North Africa and the Middle East. Will 2012 be remembered as the year those same Western Allies unleashed World War III?

It is not news anymore to say that the West will soon attack Iran, maybe Syria. They have been threatening to do that for years now, certainly ever since the failed Israeli invasion into Southern Lebanon in mid-2006, when they were routed by Hezbollah.

So what is different today? For starters, general circumstances have changed dramatically in the Region. Genuine popular dissent inside key Muslim countries has been used by the Western Allies to train, fund and arm local criminal and terrorist organizations, dubbed “freedom fighters”, as their proxies.

Country after country has fallen victim to the CIA’s, MI6’s and Mossad’s “dirty tricks departments”, and other Western-style terrorist organizations. Results range from moderate “regime change” in Tunisia and Algeria; via horrendous “violence by our boys” in Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain; all the way to outright military attack, civil war and political assassination. Such as the one in Libya, where Hillary Clinton boisterously laughed when she learned Muammar Gaddafi had been murdered live on TV by “her thugs”.

The whole region has been set on fire. Not that other regions of the world are not on fire too; however the pyrotechnics used by the Global Power Elite vary in nature in each geography. For example, Europe, the US and Britain are being set alight using financial terrorism resembling a neutron bomb, which kills people off while leaving assets and banks standing.

Now in Iran the stage seems set for a final show-down. It has taken so long only because Israeli, British and US planners are not stupid; they know that messing with Iran is not like messing with Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Libya. Messing with Iran will bring Western Allies very dangerously close to messing with Russia and China. If I were in their shoes, I would not do that. Unless…

Unless World War III is what they are looking for. Now, why would they do that?  Perhaps, because they have realized that there is just no peaceful way of achieving their dream of World Government. Perhaps because they have understood that the financial quicksand they have backed themselves into is so devastating that it cannot be cleaned up with purely financial, monetary and “legal” measures, in which case…

Nothing beats a good war! Perhaps, because wildcard Israel is so very much in control (or should I say, out of control) that they are imposing the “Sampson Option” not only on themselves, but also on their controlled Western Allies and the whole planet if need be. “After me, the Flood!”

Things in the Strait of Hormuz are extremely dangerous and volatile. After being systematically threatened with unilateral military attack, invasion, and even nuclear strikes, now the Iranians are showing their muscle too. On 24th December, Iran began a 10-day spate of military maneuvers in the strait that has all but put the US, UK and Israel on red alert. A US aircraft carrier force is now in the area and their helicopters have flown dangerously close to Iranian forces. Any spark could set off a conflagration.

Meanwhile, Syria is falling into meltdown. Meanwhile, Israel is preparing “Cast Lead II” over and inside Gaza. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is ready to strike Israel with tens of thousands of very deadly short-range “Katyushka” rockets.

A key sign of impending war is an article just published in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It carried the ominous title of Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option, by Matthew Kroenig. This man was, until last July, special advisor to the Pentagon for “Defense Strategy on Iran” – Newspeak for “let’s beat the hell out of Iran”.

The CFR is the key Global Power Elite think-tank, founded in 1919 together with its London sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House). Its more than 4500 members are deeply embedded into the uppermost echelons of public and private power in the US, controlling banking, industry, media, academia, the military and government.

Key government posts are always controlled by one of their lot, irrespective of whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power. The CFR is integrated into an intricate network of similar organizations that includes the Trilateral Commission, Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Group, Project for a New American Century, Bilderberg and others. They all operate in streamlined coordination, consistency, synchronization and – most important – with a common purpose.

In his article, Mr Kroenig, assesses how “American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities,” concluding that, “The only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.”

He warns against “skeptics of military action (who) fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to US interests in the Middle East and beyond.”  

This reflects Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent remarks when addressing the Brookings Institution’s pro-Israel “Saban Forum” bringing together US and Israeli military strategists that repeated the usual Baby Bush “all options are on the table” threats.

Mr. Kroenig talks of the “dangers of deterrence” and gives the Obama Administration unequivocal advice: “The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.”

As these pyromaniacs get ready to ignite the regional and global powder keg, one key question looms ever larger: what will Russia do?

Adrian Salbuchi for RT

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and international radio/TV commentator from

Disclaimer: ­The views and opinions expressed in the story are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


hmm …., Syria and then Syria …


The Globalization of War – GRTV Backgrounder

From: GlobalResearchTV  | Dec 23, 2011  |


The Globalization of War – GRTV Backgrounder

From: GlobalResearchTV  | Dec 23, 2011  | 10,251 views

The world’s attention is increasingly focused on Syria and Iran as the region continues to move toward military confrontation. Less noticed, however, is that the pieces are being put into place for a truly global conflict, with military buildup taking place in every region and threatening to draw in all of the world’s major powers.

Find out more in this week’s GRTV Backgrounder.

… (more info)

View comments, related videos, and more

total war ….

WWIII War sparks in extended theater….Syria… Iran…Pakistan …. etc

…. China and Russia part of equation ….

drone attacks in six countries

….. global war machine


Is Islam, and are the Muslims are specifically targeted?


Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces ‘World War IV’

April 03, 2003|Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson CNN

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said “This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War.”

Woolsey has been named in news reports as a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq.

 He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the “fascists” of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.

Woolsey told the audience of about 300, most of whom are students at the University of California at Los Angeles, that all three enemies have waged war against the United States for several years but the United States has just “finally noticed.”

“As we move toward a new Middle East,” Woolsey said, “over the years and, I think, over the decades to come … we will make a lot of people very nervous.”

It will be America’s backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.

“Our response should be, ‘good!'” Woolsey said.

Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, “We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you — the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family — most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.”

Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton, was taking part in a “teach-in” at UCLA, a series of such forums at universities across the nation.

A group calling itself “Americans for Victory Over Terrorism” sponsors the teach-ins, and the Bruin Republicans, UCLA’s campus Republicans organization, co-sponsored Wednesday night’s event.

The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday’s event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.




If you look around what’s really happening in our world today, there’s an inescapable pattern that curiously emerges: Much of what’s going on is simply unsustainable. It can’t go on for much longer, in other words. And it must collapse due to the laws of economics or physics.

Here, I’ve put together a collection of twelve systems that are utterly unsustainable on our planet. Each of these twelve is scheduled for some sort of collapse or shut down in the coming years. They range from economics to medicine, population and the environment. And interestingly, the collapse of just one of these twelve would have devastating consequences across human civilization. What happens when two, three or ten of these things collapse?

This article doesn’t cover the consequences of the collapse of these unsustainable things, but we’ll work on covering that in future articles. Here are the twelve:

1) Debt-based banking and economic systems

There’s little question that our global fractional reserve banking system is headed for a catastrophic collapse. It’s a system based on debt rather than sound money principles, and the laws of economics dictate that the global multiplication of money and debt is entirely unsustainable.

This system will collapse, and when it does, it will be so large that the economic devastation will be global. Governments have actually made this worse, of course, by bailing out the dishonest investment institutions that have made the situation worse. The coming financial collapse will teach humanity some hard lessons about honest money.

When it comes to money, banking and debt, Ron Paul has always been right, after all.

2) Conventional agriculture and “rape the planet” farming

The current agricultural system that feeds the planet is simply unsustainable. It is a “rape the planet” model that clear-cuts forests to grow GMO soybeans that feed factory cattle which are turned into processed meat. Even the plant crops grown through conventional agriculture depend on chemical fertilizers from sources that are running out (fossil fuels, phosphate mines, etc.).

Furthermore, the mass application of chemical pesticides, fungicides and Monsanto’s Roundup chemicals is destroying the viability of soils while polluting the world’s farms, rivers, streams and oceans. This system is unsustainable. When it collapses, humanity will learn (the hard way) that only sustainable agriculture can sustain human life on our planet.

3) Mass-consumption economies based on buy-it-and-trash-it behavior

When children are raised to be good little Americans (or Canadians, or Australians, etc.), they’re taught to consume more stuff. In America, it was even called “patriotic” by former President George Bush. To support your local economy, you’re supposed to go out and buy stuff that you don’t need, then chuck it into the trash after you use it, then go out and buy more!

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That’s what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

4) The accelerating loss of farming soils

There’s a great documentary you need to see on this called Dirt. ( It explains the value of dirt (soil) and why conventional agriculture methods are destroying the dirt upon which our civilization depends. We even wrote about the movie here:…

No dirt = no food. Get it? And the dirt is disappearing at an alarming rate, thanks to the unsustainable practices of conventional agriculture, with all its tilling, soil destruction, poisons and GMOs. I wonder what the people will plant their seeds in when all the cropland dirt is either dead or gone?

5) The mass poisoning of the oceans and aggressive over-fishing

Oceans ecosystems are collapsing. This isn’t some future prediction, it’s happening right now. Ocean acidification is destroying the coral reefs and mollusks all across the globe. At the same time, human civilization treats the oceans as giant planetary toilets into which all the toxic chemicals of modern civilization are flushed: Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, hormone-disrupting chemicals and a whole lot more.

Massive fish die-offs are becoming increasingly common (…), and fish populations are plummeting across several species. We are beginning to see the results of mankind’s ongoing poisoning of the oceans.

6) Mass genetic pollution of the planet through GMOs

It will be the great, dark legacy of our modern civilization: The widespread genetic contamination of the planet through the use of GMOs.

Genetically engineered seeds are spreading their altered genetic code all across the world. The DNA of GMO crops is now detectable in soils, foods and water systems. What’s the upshot of all this? It’s a big unknown, of course, and that’s the frightening part: No one before has ever “played God” with the planet, right out in the open, and then observed what happens after a few years (or decades). Thanks to companies like Monsanto, we are the experiment, and no one know if it might ultimately lead to something like a widespread crop failure or even the alternation of natural web-of-life interactions across multiple ecosystems.

And if genetic pollution causes problems, how do you “clean” that pollution? You can’t! Genetic pollution endures. Once crops become infected with GE seeds, it’s all but impossible to eliminate the DNA contamination.

7) The drugs-and-surgery conventional medical system

Big Pharma’s days are numbered — based on economics if nothing else. The monopolistic pricing, the deadly side effects and the corrupt, criminal operations of the industry make it all utterly non-sustainable.

Big Pharma and the whole chemical approach to medicine is bankrupting companies, cities, states and nations. No nation can economically survive in the long run if it keeps spending its money on Big Pharma sick care schemes. Ultimately, those nations that hope to survive will need to ditch Big Pharma and return to natural medicine and preventive nutrition.

That day is coming. Sooner that you think, probably.

8) Widespread pharmaceutical contamination of the human population and the environment

Until the day comes that Big Pharma collapses into ruin, the pharmaceutical pollution of the planet will continue. Right now, pharmaceutical factories in India (which export their pills back to the states to be sold as brand-name drugs) are dumping untold thousands of gallons of dangerous chemical drugs into the waterways there (…).

In the U.S. and Canada, the water near every major city is heavily contaminated with pharmaceuticals. (

The situation is so bad that Big Pharma’s chemical runoff threatens the future of life on our planet! (…)

Fortunately, this sad chapter in human history will soon come to an end.

9) Runaway human population growth

Here’s the one nobody wants to talk about. But make no mistake: The human population growth we see right now is entirely unsustainable. The available of cheap food and fossil fuels over the last century has contributed to an unprecedented population explosion that is now nearing its end. There are only so many acres of farmland, after all, and only so many acre-feet of water to irrigate it.

Don’t misinterpret this, however, of thinking that I support some sort of population reduction measures a la Bill Gates and his quote about reducing the world population by 10 – 15 percent through the use of vaccines and health care (…).

Unlike some of the truly evil world leaders, I don’t believe in killing off human beings just to reduce global population. Rather, it makes more sense to teach sustainable living practices along with good parenting and well-considered parenthood. Strangely, most of the new children brought into the world today are not the result of stable, well-prepared parents choosing to have children, but rather the unintended consequences of casual copulation.

10) Fossil water consumption for agriculture

We just published a story on this issue, talking about how the Ogallala Aquifer is running dry, threatening the agricultural output of Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and even parts of Colorado and Texas (…).

This is a global issue, affecting India, China, North America, South America and nearly every nation that produces any significant agricultural yields. Fresh water is running out all across the world, and while additional water supplies can always be created through desalination, for example, that’s a very expensive way to replenish the water, and it’s almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels (see below). Even if you could build enough desalination plants to irrigate the world’s croplands, the resulting food prices would still result in mass starvation by those who couldn’t afford the food which might cost ten times the current price.

Imagine paying $20 for a loaf of bread and you get the idea of what’s coming.

11) Fossil fuel consumption

I realize this is a highly contentious issue, with some people claiming that there’s an “unlimited supply of oil” in our planet because it’s replenishing itself all the time. This idea simply doesn’t square with what we know: The Earth is a finite object, occupying finite space. Inside it can only be a finite amount of fossil fuels. The recharge rate of fossil fuels is on the scale of millions of years, meaning we can’t simply wait around for more fuel to reappear if we use up the current reserves.

There is convincing evidence right now that Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, has been lying about its output capacity for at least the last decade. It can’t reach its production targets, and there is reasoned speculation that its own best-producing oil wells are approaching their end. Even if oil remains available for a few more decades, it still becomes increasingly expensive oil, meaning that everything else down the supply chain becomes more expensive, too: Food, fuel, consumer goods, etc.

The era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end. Although fossil fuels will no doubt be around for several decades more, the cheap stuff is long gone, it seems. The citizens of Earth will soon need to find an alternate way to power their cities, cars and businesses in the 21st century.

Oh, and by the way, solar probably isn’t the answer, as solar panels depend on rare earth metals that are entirely dependent on Chinese mining operations (…). Wind energy also hasn’t panned out as it should have. And the governments of the world continue to suppress free energy technologies such as Cold Fusion, which has now been proven to work by even the U.S. Navy (…).

12) The widespread destruction of animal habitat

Here’s one that drives some people nuts. What? We can’t keep clear-cutting the rainforests to plant genetically engineered soybeans?

Not if you want the planet to survive, actually. There’s a delicate web of life on our planet upon which human life ultimately depends. The more animal habitat we destroy, the more it ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Now, I’m not in favor of the insane green police and the UN’s freedom-stealing efforts to pigeon-hole human beings into centrally-controlled behavior boxes. The key here is finding ways for people to live in balance with nature while still maintaining their freedoms.

And that depends on education. We need to continue to teach people how to make sound decisions about where they buy their wood furniture (to avoid the slashing of old-growth forests). We need to teach people who eat meat to buy truly free-range, grass-fed meat rather than factory-farmed meats that depend on soybean mega-farms. And of course, we also need to make people aware of the benefits of getting more plant-based foods into their diets where possible, because when properly prepared, plant foods provide a lot of nutrients with a smaller ecological footprint than most meats.

I’m not against those who eat meat, by the way. I just think that people need to consider where their food comes from no matter what they’re eating, and then take steps to reduce the ecological footprint of the food they’re choosing to consume. The best answer to this is to buy local food. In fact, I would argue that eating some beef steaks from a local farmer is more ecologically sound than juicing up organic fruits and vegetables grown and imported from Chile (unless you live in Chile, of course).

That’s an arguable point, of course, and opinions differ sharply on this, but I believe that we really need to focus on eating local foods just as much as we do on what we’re eating. Personally, I don’t eat cows, but even for the plants I consume, I’m working hard right now on growing more of my own so that I’m acting with integrity — “walking the talk” so to speak — to be aligned with what I’m advocating for others.

While we’re at it, one of the best ways to reduce the destruction of animal habitat is to grow your own food by turning your yard into a garden. Reduce your demand for store-bought food and you unquestionably reduce your ecological footprint on the planet.

And reconsider how much seafood you eat. Most seafood is extremely damaging to ocean ecosystems. I don’t have space to discuss it all right here, but we’ll cover it more on NaturalNews in the near future.

Life is on the line

So those are 12 of the biggest things that are entirely unsustainable on our planet right now. Human life depends on most of them. It makes you wonder: How will humans survive when these systems and resources upon which we depend have run out or collapsed?

That is a question we’d all better be asking ourselves right now. Because the age of cheap fuel, cheap money, cheap water and cheap food is fast ending. The future of life on our planet will require something far more evolved than the infantile, selfish and self-destructive mindset that humanity has so far demonstrated.

Debt-based money systems don’t cut it. Burning up all the fossil fuels is only a fool’s abundance. Medicating the humans and animals with toxic, synthetic pharmaceuticals is a form of medical insanity. These things will all come to an end.

The question is: Who will survive the end of these things and be around to help shape the next society which must operate with far greater humility and wisdom?


Aug. 8, 2011,

Serious People Are Starting To Realize That We May Be Looking At World War III

Serious People Are Starting To Realize That We May Be Looking At World War III

Ricky Kreitner | Aug. 8, 2011, 2:08 PM | 52,687 | 98
Nazi Rally

The statementreleased Friday by Standard & Poor’s explaining its downgrade of the United States’ credit rating expressed greater concern about the inability of the American political system to handle troublesome economic realities than it did about those economic realities themselves. It read:”The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.”

Thus, what directly prompted the historic decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating was worsening political dysfunction, not the “economic challenges” which Standard & Poor’s described as “ongoing.” The political, even geopolitical, repercussions of those challenges can only be expected to grow.

Noting liberal despair over the government’s inability to combat economic depression, and conservative skepticism that traditional tools will be effective, John Judis of The New Republic argues that a global depression far longer and more severe than anyone expected now seems nearly impossible to avoid. Judis believes that the coming “depression” will be accompanied by geopolitical upheaval and institutional collapse.

“As the experience of the 1930s testified, a prolonged global downturn can have profound political and geopolitical repercussions. In the U.S. and Europe, the downturn has already inspired unsavory, right-wing populist movements. It could also bring about trade wars and intense competition over natural resources, and the eventual breakdown of important institutions like European Union and the World Trade Organization. Even a shooting war is possible.”

Daniel Knowles of the Telegraph has noticed a similar trend. In a post titled, “This Really Is Beginning To Look Like 1931,” Knowles argues that we could be witnessing the transition from recession to global depression that last occurred two years after the 1929 market collapse, and eight years before Germany invaded Poland, triggering the Second World War:

“The difference today is that so far, the chain reaction of a default has been avoided by bailouts. Countries are not closing down their borders or arming their soldiers – they can agree on some solution, if not a good solution. But the fundamental problem – the spiral downwards caused by confidence crises and ever rising interest rates – is exactly the same now as it was in 1931. And as Italy and Spain come under attack, we are reaching the limit of how much that sticking plaster can heal. Tensions between European countries unseen in decades are emerging.”

Knowles wrote that post three days ago. Since then it has become abundantly obvious that Europe will soon become unwilling or unable to continue bailing out every country with a debt problem. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continues to chug along, to the extent it is chugging at all, on the false security offered by a collective distaste for one ratings agency and its poor mathematics.

That can’t continue forever. The next few months will show S&P’s downgrade to have been too little and too late, rather than too drastic and too soon. The Eurozone will fall apart. The American political crisis will only worsen; the “super-committee” will utterly fail, true to design. Soon enough, we may all wake up to a “reckoning” truly deserving of the name.

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Ricky Kreitner on Twitter.
Ask Ricky A Question >


YOU are the target in the Third World War. by VOA youtube video

YOU are the target in the Third World War.  (image from VOA youtube video)

World War Three Is Under Way and YOU Are the Enemy

By Rob Kall (about the author)

There is a war that’s been under way against the middle class.

The war has been going on for at least 11 years. It’s a world wide war– a World War funded by multinational corporations and billionaires.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably a war victim, certainly a target, or you’re a right winger scoping out the enemy.

YOU are the target in the Third World War.  (image from VOA youtube video)

There are those who seek wholeness and common ground. I’ve entertained those ideas, in my head and in writing, myself. But there comes a time when one must face reality. The enemy is not nice. The enemy is evil. The enemy is comprised of psychopaths, sociopaths– you pick the term– people who make choices that kill people or let them die. .

The enemy is not that easy to detect though. There are plenty of Democrats masquerading as allies when they are really anything but.  Then there are Democrats who are so spineless, so weak, so inept and incompetent that they might as well be enemies. Every war has leaders like that. But I digress to discuss grayer areas when there are screamingly clear examples of pure enemies– not just of the left, but of the middle class and of the America the founders envisioned. 


Let’s start with the most obvious– the Koch Brothers. They’re the most recent billionaires who are buying legislators and media. But then there’s Robert Murdoch and his media empire. There’s Richard Melon Scaife who’s funded right wing policy promotion organizations to the tune of scores of millions of dollars. There’s the Olin family and the Walton family and, recently come to light, Harlan Crow, who gave six figure funding for Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and who’s spent millions influencing Supreme Scumball Clarence Thomas.   The history of the rise of the right in the US is the history of massive  political spending by wealthy right wing families.

Tthen there are the people in government. Let’s start with Clarence Thomas and then look at the other four Supreme court justices who deserve total contempt for their handing the nation over to transnational corporations, with women, minorities and the middle class paying the price.

There are the leaders of the Republican party who, against the will of  a strong majority of Americans, continue to exacerbate the nation’s economic woes by maintaining fealty to supreme traitor to the US, Grover Norquist. I have no doubt that his influence has already caused the deaths of many Americans and will probably, ultimately cause the deaths of tens of thousands. But not just deaths. He and the politicians who sign loyalty oaths to his anti-tax policies have contributed to the US failing to be among the top nations in terms of lifespan, education, broadband… and a growing list that shows how these traitors have already done potentially mortal damage to the future of America. 

Let’s not forget the Military/Industrial/Medical complex. They depend on this war to keep and grow their power and their freedom from regulation and legal accountability. They are gradually taking over the functions that have long been done by church and state, including diplomatic development. 

And finally, there are the church collaborators. In every war, some religions take sides. In this war, the Christian Zionists are probably the most reliable church allies to the corporatists. There could be as many as 75-100 million of them in the US.


And let’s not forget the tea party. Every war has its useful idiots and traitors who decide to side with the enemy. Some do it to get power or advantage they’d never have otherwise. Some do it because they are afraid. The Vichy French became loyal to the Nazis, but there were always French resisters and De Gaulle challenging Vichy leader Petain. Ultimately, the people of France, once they saw there was hope, when the Allies landed, began to resist, to not cooperate and to fight back. 


Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more…)

Every war depends on communications and this war has used communications as a major weapon. There have already been some skirmishes on this front. Glen Beck, one of the more obvious psychopaths, had so many advertisers pressured into pulling their ads from his show that he lost the show and  is now off Fox.

*  *  *

I’ve enumerated some of the forces and resources of the enemy. The question is, what do you do with enemies who have declared war on you and attacked you?  

First Step:

The first step is to accept that there is a problem. The first step is to accept that you are in a war, under attack. Except for a few individuals, the left has failed to face this fact. Bill Moyers talked about it back in 2003. But if you look at most Democratic and even liberal and progressive leaders, they are not accepting the reality.

Once one accepts the reality that, like or not, one is in a war, one must respond. I’ll be talking more about that in coming articles. But for starters, I’ll reiterate what I’ve written about before– you cut off communications and supplies for the enemy. In the case of the war by corporatists, supplies come for the ultra-wealthy– billionaires, CEOs of multinational corporations and the front groups they fund– think tanks, the national Chamber of commerce, Swift Boat Veteran type groups. When it comes to communications– the right has one of its most powerful weapons– it’s echo chamber and the fealty of the mainstream media. We’ve seen that the boycott can be an effective weapon. There are more weapons and strategies. I’ll be talking about them and how there are other modern wars we can learn from.

PS. Not all conservatives are enemies or bad people  There are rational, logical, conservatives who are as outraged as progressives are about many of the same issues


The Planned World War 3 – A Play in Numerous Acts > HERE


Something about the man called Albert Pike <^>  Watch out  and investigate for yourself, and remember these pages here are a few signs,  just to jump start and begin you on your search <^>—–

Albert Pike (1809-1891)

Albert Pike

Albert Pike also of Newbury Port moved to Arkansas where he became a prominent member of the secessionist movement. He was chosen by Mazzini to head the Illuminati operations in America and moved to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1852. During the war he was made a brigadier general and placed in charge of raising an army of Indians. Pike’s reign of terror was so despicable that foreign governments intervened to put an end to his savagery. Mazzini was not only the head of the Illuminati, he was the leading revolutionist in Europe. He was determined to establish a New World Order on the rubble of the old order and created a plan to accomplish his goal. He detailed his plan for world domination in a letter to Pike on January 22, 1870: “We must allow all the federations to continue just as they are, with their systems, their central authorities and their diverse modes of correspondence between high grades of the same rite, organized as they are at the present, but we must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown. Lady Queensborough, Occult Theocracy, pp. 208-209.

Albert Pike Mason cigar label

This secret rite is called “The New and Reformed Palladian Rite.” It has headquarters in Charleston, S.C., Rome Italy, and Berlin Germany. Pike headed this rite in the Western Hemisphere while Mazzini headed it in the East. Pike wrote about his beliefs and goals in 1871 in “Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.” In this massive volume he explained that the “blind Force of the people is a Force that must be economized, and also managed. . . it must be regulated by intellect. “To attack the citadels (Institutions) built up on all sides against the human race by superstitions (religion), despotisms, and prejudices, the force must have a brain and a law (the Illuminati’s). Then its (Force) deeds of daring produce permanent results, and there is real progress. Then there are sublime conquests. . . When all forces combined, and guided by the Intellect (Illuminati), and regulated by the Rule of Right, and Justice, and of combined and systematic movement and effort, the great revolution prepared for the ages will begin to march. . . It is because Force is ill regulated that revolutions prove failures” Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, 1-2 (Rev. Ed. 1950).

Even though Pike was a confederate general who committed the most heinous atrocities of the war his tomb is located just 13 blocks from the Capitol Building. He was a high ranking member of the Illuminati who is still revered by the New World Order Gang. The god of the Illuminati and the New World Order Gang is Lucifer. “The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. . . Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay (Jesus) is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. . .”The doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay (Jesus); but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of darkness and evil.” A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l’enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, p. 588; Lady Queenborough, Occult Theocracy pp. 220-221.

Guiseppe Mazzini cigar label

Pike designed a plan for world conquest and wrote of it in a letter to Mazzini dated August 15, 1871. He said three future world wars would prepare the world for the New World Order.

Albert Pike’s plan for the Illuminati was as simple as it has proved effective. He required that Communism, Naziism, Political Zionism, and other International movements be organized and used to foment the three global wars and three major revolutions. The First World War was to be fought so as to enable the Illuminati to overthrow the powers of the Tzars in Russia and turn that country into the stronghold of Atheistic-Communism. The differences stirred up by agentur of the Illuminati between the British and German Empires were to be used to foment this war. After the war ended, Communism was to be built up and used to destroy other governments and weaken religions.

World War Two, was to be fomented by using the differences between Fascists and Political Zionists. This war was to be fought so that Naziism would be destroyed and the power of Political Zionism increased so that the sovereign state of Israel could be established in Palestine. During World War Two International Communism was to be built up until it equalled in strength that of united Christendom. At this point it was to be contained and kept in check until required for the final social cataclysm. Can any informed person deny Roosevelt and Churchill did put this policy into effect?

World War Three is to be fomented by using the differences the agentur of the Illuminati stir up between Political Zionists and the leaders of the Moslem world. The war is to be directed in such a manner that Islam (the Arab World including Mohammedanism) and Political Zionism (including the State of Israel) will destroy themselves while at the same time the remaining nations, once more divided against each other on this issue, will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion physically, mentally, spiritually and economically. Can any unbiased and reasoning person deny that the intrigue now going on in the Near, Middle, and Far East is designed to accomplish this devilish purpose?

After World War Three is ended, those who aspire to undisputed world domination will provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known. We quote his own written words taken from the letter catalogued in the British Museum Library, London, England.

“We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass (direction), anxious for an ideal, but with out knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time” (William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. xv-xvi).

This strategy is corroborated by Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy PhD. in The Power Elite’s use of Wars and Crises. pike.htm


This item above was from

And we are Quran and Sunnah Believers, Muslims (those that submit to Allah – The ONE God – and worship Him without idolatry and innovation, by the will of Allah.

And of course you must search for yourself for the truth


Lucifer gave top Masonic Satanist, Albert Pike, a vision of the future of 1870/71 (This is the future he planned, not the future he foresaw, since Satan cannot see the future). In it he described three world wars, each worse than its predecessor and each designed to  change the world so radically that, in the end, he would reign supreme.

He described this demonic vision in a letter he wrote to the Italian Satanist, Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871.  For a short time, this letter was on display in the British Museum Library in London and was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy.
“The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the “agentur” (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions.”
“The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that [Nazism] is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.”
“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”


World War 3» Albert Pike’s Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars

Albert Pike’s Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars

Posted on on July 19, 2010 // 10 Comments



Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place.

Pike’s Letter to Mazzini

It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to me that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr’s book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:

“The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez’s knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925″.

It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled.

To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written. Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion.

Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.

“The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the “agentur” (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions.” 2

Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.

“The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.” 3

After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.

(Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau – as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)

“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion. We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” 4

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.

Also See:

Flashpoints For Global War

Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War?

World War 3: Mountains Of Israel To Be Major Battle Site – An Israeli (Ezekiel) View


March 6, 2010 · 12:53

Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War (With Video)

by Giordano Bruno
Published: Jan. 08, 2010 – NeitherCorp Press

World War III is the most iconic event in American culture that never happened. Since the early 1950’s, generations have been preparing for it, writing books about it, producing films and fictional accounts on it, and even playing video games based on it. The concept of another world war is so ingrained into our popular consciousness that it has become almost mythological. It is a legend, a fantasy story of something far away and incomprehensible, often associated with Tim Lahaye novels and action adventure narratives of religious prophecy and Armageddon. World War III has become “entertainment.”

The cartoon-ization of a “last great global conflict” is due to a natural tendency of human beings to cope with terrifying ideas, often by intellectually trivializing them, and thereby making them easily digestible, much like the proverbial public speaking tactic of imagining the audience with their clothes off.

The problem with this development in our society is that it causes us to become cynical to the point of idiocy when confronted with very real threats. By convincing ourselves that such an event is an impossibility we leave ourselves unguarded and without a conceptual point of reference, because we have not thought about the scenario in a practical levelheaded manner. This is akin to a man who has never even considered the likelihood of being mugged on the street, versus a man who has trained in self defense for just such a situation. When the event occurs, the two men will have totally different psychological reactions; the first man utterly surprised and out of his element with little to no constructive response, and the latter man far less mentally phased and thus more likely to survive.

With this fact in mind, we will endeavor to explore recent world events, along with international agreements and tensions, and how they could be used by Global Elites to trigger a war reaching around the planet.

Most Wars Happen To The Benefit Of Globalists

Elites often attempt to paint a pretty picture, a glossy flower filled love-fest, when it comes to the creation of World Government. The truth however has been and always will be that the road to globalization is paved with the death of innocents and civilizations. Every movement towards the formation of centralized global government has been preceded by unthinkable destruction. This may seem futile and horribly regressive to us, but to Globalists, war is a highly effective and useful tool.

Conflict on a massive scale creates an atmosphere of tension and terror, giving the average man, even men who are nowhere near danger, a sort of perpetual tunnel vision. World War has the ability to trigger the “fight or flight” psychological response and sustain it in an entire society over long periods of time. Maintaining such a mental state in a human being can cause severe exhaustion and emotional imbalance. Imagine the process of interrogation and torture used on a prisoner in places such as Guantanamo Bay, then, apply that to an entire nation of people. War breaks down our psychological defenses as a society, and makes us vulnerable to suggestion.

By creating war, Globalists change not only the political landscape of nations, but also the emotional and rational checks and balances of every individual who has not prepared himself to handle the pressures of fear. In this way, people can be made to forget how things were before, and accept a new world, a world designed around the corrupt appetites of elite minorities, if only to make the fear stop.

I often hear arguments that war is simply a product of temporary mass insanity. That it is often a “blunder,” an “oversight.” Make no mistake, governments and the power brokers behind them WANT war. Indeed, they commonly design wars that never would have happened without their help. Here are only a few of the many examples:

The Spanish American War:

The Spanish American war was one of the first to be a wholly media driven event, created out of thin air and forced on the American public. Elites in Washington, including Theodore Roosevelt, wanted to move the U.S. into an expansionist policy and the realm of empire building. Most American citizen wanted nothing to do with expansionism. Our country had been built in opposition to empires after all. Enter William Randolph Hearst; newspaper mogul and elitist. Hearst papers across the country went on a tabloid spree, reporting on battles between the Spanish government and Cuban guerrilla fighters that were not actually happening, along with exaggerated dramatizations of Spanish government mistreatment of civilians. Of course, the Spanish were certainly not treating the Cuban people well, but the fact that Hearst made stories up in order to paint a grave picture with which to manipulate Americans at home is what is important here.

Upon his arrival in Cuba, Hearst correspondent Fredrick Remington cabled to Hearst: “Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return.” Hearst reportedly replied: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

Hearst’s propaganda though was not quite enough to make the people want to forcefully overtake another country or adopt expansionism. So, on February 15, 1898, an explosion was set on the USS Maine off the coast of Havana, Cuba. 260 out of 355 sailors lost their lives, though strangely, only two ranked as officers were killed. Hearst papers went into overdrive claiming the Spanish had sunk her with a mine or torpedo, and the pretext for war in Cuba was established. Ever since, the U.S. has held an ever more prominent policy of expansionism and empire building.

Interestingly, recent studies, including those of National Geographic, show that the debris from the Maine explosion pointed outward, indicating an explosion from INSIDE the ship, not outside. The government still maintains that this must have been “accidental”:

World War I:

The beginning of WW I is often blamed on a “mindlessly mechanical series of events,” but this is simply nonsense. The embroilment of America in the affairs of Europe was carefully orchestrated and far from accidental.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee’s investigation. The Committee stated: “The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909.”

Once again, Americans had no interest in expansionism or fighting wars along side Monarchies that we with good reason despised. The key to how we were fooled once again into going against our better instincts lay in the sinking of yet another ship; the Lusitania.


The Lusitania was attacked by a German U-boat and sunk on May 7, 1915, killing 1198 passengers and was later used as a pretext for drawing the U.S. into WWI; this is the commonly held view taught in every high school history class. The problem is that it is only half the story. What it does not mention is the fact that the British goaded the Germans into the attack.

In that era, there still existed “rules of war,” one of which was the expectation that German U-boats should surface before destroying any merchant vessel and allow the passengers to flee the ship. The Germans adhered to this standard until the British began arming merchant ships and ordering them to fly the colors of neutral countries. They were then to sink any U-boat that surfaced to deliver a warning. The good faith of the understanding was ruined, and the Germans decided it was safer to sink the ships without warning and be done with it.

The British also began smuggling arms and explosives using regular merchant ships as cover, making them participants in the war, and therefore targets. The Lusitania was no exception.

When the Lusitania was hit by a German torpedo, the initial explosion was certainly destructive, but not as destructive as the massive secondary explosion passengers witnessed as they were fleeing the scene, which ripped the ship apart. For decades the U.S. and British governments denied that the Lusitania was carrying arms, until divers exploring the wreckage discovered cases of nearly 4 million rounds of ammo! Meaning according to the articles of war, the Lusitania was in fact classified as a combatant, not a non-threatening ocean liner:

The most shocking element to this engineered disaster however was the fact the U.S. and British governments were well aware that the ship would be attacked, and ALLOWED it to occur.

The German Embassy took out ads in 50 U.S. newspapers warning that the Lusitania could be made a target. The U.S. State Department in turn contacted each of the newspapers and in a threatening fashion suggested that they refrain from printing the ad. A small portion of the newspapers ignored the State Department and printed anyway, but most of the passengers of the Lusitania never saw it.

Finally, and most importantly, is a fascinating discussion from the book “The Intimate Papers of Colonel House,” between House; an advisor (some would say puppeteer) to Woodrow Wilson, and Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary of England before the attack on the Lusitania occurred. The coldness of the exchange is haunting:

Grey: “What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?”

House: “I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.”

World War II:

World War II was perhaps the first war in which Globalists created an enemy completely from scratch. That’s right; the Nazis were organized and funded by Elites from across the world, including those here in America.

Hitler himself was considered a joke among Germans when he first began his tirades for an “Aryan Empire,” and was shrugged off by the mainstream as a lunatic. But Germany was also in the middle of the worst economic collapse in recent memory, and when Hitler gained support from the Thule Society, a Freemason-like secret society in Europe, and also began receiving investment from Wall Street interests, including the Rockefeller family, the German people started taking notice. Hitler’s new aristocratic friends could bring to Germany what the people desperately wanted; jobs and cold hard cash.

The collusion between the Rockefellers and the Nazis is well documented, and was first exposed by the discovery of the Von Knieriem Documents during the Nuremberg Trials. The documents outline how the Rockefellers, through their company Standard Oil, supplied investment, as well as secret fuel technology, without which Nazi warplanes would have been inoperable:

The Rockefellers also started the first eugenics population control program here in the U.S. in 1909, forcefully sterilizing over 60,000 “genetically inferior” Americans long before Hitler put the idea into practice in Germany:

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

And how about the exposure of George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, as a Nazi collaborator and launderer of Nazi funds:

This is only a small portion of the evidence which proves that the Nazi’s were an elitist creation, and World War II deliberately engineered.

Iraq / Afghanistan War:

I won’t go into the long and sordid background of the 9/11 attacks and how they were used to foment a never-ending war in the Middle East. To do so would take an entirely separate article. What I will say is, the “official story” of that event has been shown on numerous occasions by thousands of researchers, many of whom are architects and engineers, to be riddled with holes and completely unsatisfactory by any measure of logic. The collapses themselves have been left scientifically unexplained by NIST, the government agency tasked with constructing “answers” for the many oddities surrounding the structural failure of WTC 1, 2 and 7. NIST continues to refuse to release the source data for their computer models they claim prove that the towers fell naturally due to burning jet fuel. Without this source data, none of their conclusions hold any validity. They are simply opinions backed by nothing.

Dr. Steven Jones along with eight other scientists around the world have published a peer review paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal proving beyond a doubt that military grade nanothermite (demolitions) is present in large quantities in the rubble of the WTC:

This means that demolitions were placed in the buildings most likely by someone with easy access and were used to aid in their collapse. The suspects for such an operation I leave for you to decide, though I find it highly improbable that “Muslim Extremists” were involved.

After each of these wars was concocted, governments and Globalists around the planet pushed for even greater centralization of authority and consolidation of power. After the Spanish American War, Americans were herded towards accepting the idea of U.S. expansionism. After World War I, we were convinced to hurtle ourselves into European affairs and squander money and resources on unnecessary conflicts. We also witnessed the formation of the League of Nations, a pre-UN global body meant as a beginning foundation for world government. After World War II, Europe was nearly wiped off the map, its people downtrodden and psychologically ripe for centralization. Without WWII, the European Union would have never been possible. The U.S. also joined the United Nations, the body which is now being pushed along with the IMF for oversight of global financial regulation, as well as unified trade law and “harmonization.” After the Iraq / Afghan war began, a new threat was fabricated in the guise of “terrorism,” a faceless enemy with no real nation or border, no identifiable army, and an elusive and sloppily defined ideology. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist, even an American citizen, thus, a war on terrorism can be sustained indefinitely.

This sets the stage for the next possible global conflict which could be used as the final motivator to pressure the masses into an oppressive New World Order.

World War III: A Realistic Assessment

On Christmas Day 2009 a young Nigerian man by the name of Umar Abdulmutallab was lead into an airport in Amsterdam by what witnesses describe as a “well dressed Indian man” who lied about Umar’s status as a Sudanese refugee. Although Umar was already on a terrorist watch list, he was not flagged, and was allowed to board the plane without a passport and without difficulty:

Also according to witnesses, another man on the plane reportedly (and rather oddly) filmed the would-be terrorist during the entire flight. As the plane approached landing in Detroit, Umar proceeded to ignite an explosive substance hidden in his underpants. Only days after, Al-Qaeda agents allegedly based in Yemen took responsibility. Why anyone would take responsibility for a botched underwear bomb attack I leave to your imagination.

And how has the U.S. Government been proceeding in Yemen? Air strikes killing 63 civilians including 28 children:

But lets set aside the obvious false flag attack used to move into Yemen and ask the larger question: why?

Why Yemen? There are a few solid explanations, including the rather suspicious financial dealings of Umar Abdulmutallab’s father, who has been involved heavily with Yemen Government debt:

But this seemingly small affair in this very small country I believe is part of a much larger design.

Yemen Rebels Labeled “Al Qaeda:”

There are most likely little to no “Al Qaeda” fighters in Yemen, but the Yemeni government has been fighting Houthi rebels in its mountain regions for years, and it seems, not doing very well. In response, Saudi Arabia insinuated itself into the fight, perhaps fearing what a revolution might do to their interests in the region. Only days before the Christmas false flag, U.S. officials were leaking their “concerns” over possible Yemeni rebel “connections” to Al Qaeda in the press:

What we are seeing is yet another instance in which our government labels any insurgency group not as rebels with their own particular cause, but as “Al Qaeda,” a global James Bond-ian terrorist conspiracy. Its simple really; if someone stands in the way of your interests, label them as Al Qaeda and a decent sized portion of the American public will look the other way while you bomb their children.

Russia Expanding In the Middle East:

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Many of us have already forgotten the brief war between Russia and Georgia, started when U.S. backed Georgia invaded South Ossetia unprovoked, randomly shooting and bombing civilians, causing Russia to intercede. Not long after this event, Russia began announcing openly plans to expand its navy into the Middle East, including the construction of Navy Bases in Yemen, and Libya, as well as the modernization of a navy base the Russians already control on the coast of Syria:

Yemen’s dealings with Russia also include major arms sales:

Yemen recently announced plans to work closely with Iran in defending its coast from pirates:

What does the U.S. presence in Yemen mean? It means a lot of ruffled feathers (or at least the appearance of such) and the increase of Middle Eastern tension to whole new level, conceivably putting us in a position of clashing with Russian interests.

Enter Israel.

The Israeli Government has said openly and often that it deems Iran a target if they continue to build nuclear power facilities, even going so far as to draw up plans to use low-yield nuclear weapons against them:

This leads us to what may end up being the most important news of last year besides the “Great Recession”; a defense pact signed between Iran and Syria:

So, what elements are we dealing with here?

We have a nuclear armed Israel itching to attack Iran. We have Iran engaged in a defense pact with Syria against Israel. We have Syria with Russian navy bases and weapons on its soil, and we have the U.S. rampaging through the Middle East encroaching on the borders of Pakistan and Yemen, essentially pissing off everyone. What we have is a Globalist made recipe for disaster, using the same ingredients they have used for the last several major wars.

The Trigger:

An Israeli attack on Iran could draw in the U.S., especially if Russia were to intervene through Syria. The likelihood of a large scale false flag attack is also very high over the next couple years, designed to frighten the American people into support for police state conditions at home, as well as greater complicity in an expanded war overseas. The war would not even necessarily have to become a nuclear event as is commonly expected (the elites would rather keep the planet in good condition for themselves), or even develop far beyond the Middle East. Its effects would still be felt everywhere.

The Advantages Of World War (For Globalists):

As we have covered in previous articles, Russia and other BRIC nations are moving to shore up wealth, buying gold and diversifying their currency holdings away from Treasuries and U.S. Dollars. This indicates the probability that they will soon drop the dollar as the world reserve currency if not entirely. Russia has in several instances stated its desire for a “world currency” and even world government, just as political elements of the U.S. and Europe have in the past. I believe what we see unfolding is a scenario much like that of WWII, except this time, the U.S. sits in the position of the Weimar Republic, its currency ready to hyperinflate, it treasury on the edge of insolvency, its debt holders becoming its enemies, and its government looking for any excuse to dilute personal liberties for the “greater good”.

Russia and other eastern nations appear to be forming an opposing economic (and perhaps political) block, yet the ultimate goal of the elites there is the same as it is for elites here. If war were to occur, it would once again be puppet governments set loose upon each other in an illusory conflict in which the real targets are the masses themselves.

The goal is to force the people to take sides, to divide them against each other and make them forget the true enemy; the elites who cultivated the problem in the first place. Under the threat of world conflict or rampant terrorism, the average American could be made to feel “disruptive,” or even “traitorous” for speaking out against the war, while those who point out the dangers of the police state could simply be labeled terrorists themselves. Such an atmosphere could also distract our attentions away from the eminent economic breakdown. It is difficult to imagine this happening here, but think of how many Germans laughed at Hitler in his early days, as opposed to how many eventually followed him when they were faced with absolute desperation.

In the midst of all this of course would stand the EU and the UN. I believe whether a war is triggered or the economy is simply left to disintegrate, it will be the UN and European interests that “dash to the rescue” with a new stabilized currency and unified government when all seems lost. Just as in the past, Globalists want to erase history, rewrite it, and play the part of the hero. With an extra century or more of constant propaganda, who would know to argue otherwise?

The Solution

What we have just covered is a possible state of affairs based on the circumstances of the moment. It is by no means our fate. What this examination is meant to convey is the gravity of the task before us, and the reality that it is we who must halt the machine in its tracks. We cannot leave it to future generations; to our children or theirs. It must stop right here. This is our fight, and if we do not succeed then there may not be a second chance for humanity. By continuing to educate our neighbors on the threats confronting us, and by preparing for the worst, mentally as well as physically, no future is set in stone.

I sometimes hear words like “impossible,” “pointless,” “futile,” in regards to our situation, and the obstacles which we face. “Impossibility” is an empty term driven by doubt, not by concrete reality. There is no “impossibility,” only destiny, and destiny is something we make, not follow. As far as I have seen men fall, I have never in the whole of my life believed there was anything we could not do. As long as we hold by what is true, there is no such thing as the insurmountable.

Regardless of where we are headed, be it moderately troubling times, or the worst of all possible worlds, our job here now is to at once walk through fire and yet stand immovable. This is what we are here to do.




10 false flags operations that shaped our world

An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

Al Qaeda – The Invented Hydra for the New World Order´s False Flag Operations

The Yemen Hidden Agenda: Behind the Al-Qaeda Scenarios, A Strategic Oil Transit Chokepoint

Yemen and The Militarization of Strategic Waterways

The Terror Card: Fear is the Key to Obedience

The Aim of the Financiers: A One-World Government With a One-World Currency

By NEWS JUNKIE POSTFeb 20, 2011 at 10:07 pm

May 1933: Hitler Abolishes Unions

On May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union halls and labor leaders were arrested.  Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective bargaining and the right to strike was abolished.  This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using Himmler’s state police.

Fast forward to America today, particularly Wisconsin.  Governor Walker and the Republican/Tea Party members of the state legislature are attempting to pass a bill that would not only severely punish public unions (with exception for the police, fire, and state trooper unions that supported his campaign), but it would effectively end 50 years to the right of these workers to collectively bargain.

Collective bargaining is a process of voluntary negotiations between employers and trade unions aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. –wiki

First of all, assaulting the rights of workers to collectively bargain has absolutely nothing to do with any immediate budgetary issues.  It does however have everything to do with ending one of the basic rights of labor to organize.

Second, and more importantly, the budget “crisis” in Wisconsin is both exaggerated and created in part by the new Republican power base as a tool to attack political opponents.  Walker decreased state revenue when he enacted tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, who are not surprisingly large campaign donors for his political campaign.

To the extent that there is an imbalance — Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit — it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes — or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues — the “crisis” would not exist. –The Cap Times

Decimating unions has long been an objective of the rich and powerful.  Growing out of trade guilds in Medieval Europe, they were banned starting with the Ordinance of Labourers 1349 and Statute of Labourers in England.  It was not until the Industrial Revolution that labor began to organize again.

Every little gain for the rights of workers was hard fought and bitterly resisted by the rich and powerful.  The photo above shows the Lawrence Textile Strike (also known as the Bread and Roses strike) where mostly immigrant workers rebelled against increasingly harsh work conditions and lowered pay caused by mechanization.  Specifically, state law mandated a reduction in working hours for women and children from 56 to 54 hours, and factory owners responded by cutting salaries, something the poor workers could not afford.

Over time, organized labor managed to abolish child labor all together, as well as institute an 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, mandatory breaks, safety guidelines, grievance procedures, a minimum wage, the concept of a work free weekend, workers comp, pensions, health safeguards, and paid sick days, vacation days, and holidays.  If you enjoy any of these things, thank a union member and support the passage of a strong Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Collective Bargaining in the US was finally legalized for the private sector on a countrywide scale in 1935 with the National Labor Relations Act signed by FDR.  JFK signed an executive order extending this right to the public sector in 1962.  This is the key measure

Governor Walker’s bill being sped through the Wisconsin legislature would mandate health insurance contributions by public employees, force them to pay more for their promised pensions, and remove bargaining rights.  When public employees started protesting, Walker instructed the state National Guard to be “prepared” if any “problems” should arise, in what could be described as a thinly veiled intimidation tactic.

Although this draconian bill will not outlaw unions, it will effectively neuter them, as their CPI adjusted wages will be frozen and all other means cannot be improved as a whole.  Public sector unions will lose their freedom to negotiate against the state together.  This is a deliberate tactic to punish political opponents and to effectively lessen the rights of working Americans everywhere for the benefit of the rich and multinational corporations.

Walker’s plan to eviscerate collective bargaining rights for public employees is right out of the Koch brothers’ playbook. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long taken a very antagonistic view toward public-sector unions. Several of these groups have urged the eradication of these unions.  In Wisconsin, this conservative, anti-union view is being placed into action by lawmakers in sync with the deep-pocketed donors who helped them obtain power. (Walker also opposes the state’s Clean Energy Job Act, which would compel the state to increase its use of alternative energy.) At this moment—even with the Wisconsin uprising unresolved—the Koch brothers’ investment in Walker appears to be paying off. –Mother Jones

In response to this open revolt on at the Wisconsin state capitol, which saw crowds initially in the hundreds quickly swell to tens of thousands, a Tea Party group hastily organized a counter rally on Sunday.  Dozens of free buses were mysteriously available from both inside and outside the state for Tea Partiers, with no mention of who paid for them, leading to speculation that this is blatant corporate astroturfing. At publishing time no camels were being charged into the estimated 70,000 pro-worker/anti-Walker demonstrators [creative humor license].

The Americans for Prosperity group, a Tea Party group that is a Koch Brothers front, has put up a website [for the Tea Party Rally that] attacks all collective bargaining – not just for public employees’ unions. –Forbes

Wisconsin is ground zero in the fight for worker’s rights in America.  Following the ultra-conservative sweep of many state legislatures and governorships in the 2010 midterms, most Republicans are salivating at the opportunity to destroy the last stronghold of organized labor in America: the public sector.

Last year, more working people belonged to a union in the public sector (7.9 million) than in the private (7.4 million), despite the fact that corporate America employs five times the number of wage-earners.  37 percent of government workers belong to a union, compared with just 7 percent of private-sector employees. –Alternet

The percentage of the work force that have been organized has been declining (along with many other things) since Reagan and the conservatives took power, ending the Great Compression and starting an epoch in American history known as the Great Divergence (which culminated in the Great Recession, which we are in today). Pro-corporate, fiscally conservative policies (such as deregulation and underfunding) have severely damaged private sector unions, unions that set the bar for standards and pay for all workers (thus, contributing towards the huge wealth concentration that is taking place).

The one point where this anti-union trend has not taken place is in the public sector.

This is precisely why the conservatives (mostly in the Republican Party) and their corporate masters are now planning the next phase in their strategy: to destroy public sector unions across the country.  Right now, their assault has triggered a massive and growing revolt by not only public sector unions, but students, progressives, and working men and women across the Upper Midwest region of the US.

The corporate front groups are desperately trying to play catchup and unleash their Tea Party legions, who need little convincing as apparent from the We Stand With Walker Facebook page.  The fear and hate caused by disinformation and Fox Propaganda is palpable, and they are only too eager to “fight back” against supposed union transgressions both in the workplace and in demonstrations.

Which brings us back full circle. Union busting measures by Republicans in Wisconsin this week have brought up some disturbing historical parallels to another sad chapter from human history.  This writer is not trying to say that Republicans are Nazis and the Tea Party are their Brownshirts, only that the union busting, corporate control over the government is part of the definition of fascism (along with authoritarian nationalism).

The attacks on unions that are taking place in American society today echoes a very sad chapter in Western history where unions were smashed for the benefit of a far right authoritarian corporate regime.  When Hitler abolished unions in 1933, it was followed by a 25% drop in real wages, and ended the ability of workers to protect living standards, and this is one of those times where history should not be allowed to repeat itself.

Share and Enjoy

Mass Depopulation, Genocide, WW3? Part 1 The link to the New World Order

by Peter Eyre
Published: Apr. 02, 2010 – Pal Telegraph

This heading may appear alarming to some people but is there a hidden master plan? Is it possible that some aspects of this has already started and if so how and who is involved. We hear so many times of the so called “New World Order and the “Illuminati” but does it actually exist? What ever you want to call this elite organisation one can say with some certainty that it does certainly exist. I also find it incredible that this relatively small group can change the course of history and we the millions may have no power to stop it.

So where does this start and who is involved? In my opinion mass depopulation is already well underway with the use of weapons containing uranium components. It all started back in the Balkans and has progressively worked its way via Kuwait – Iraq – Afghanistan – Lebanon – Gaza – Pakistan and soon Yemen and Somalia.

But let’s turn back the clock and see when the aggressive use of “Dirty Weapons” really started. As I said previously the war in Balkans was the initial testing grounds for these weapons but something significant had to happen to allow the New World Order to move forward. Obviously 9/11 kick started a series of events that has now become part of the “New World Orders Master Plan. In my opinion 9/11 was a total conspiracy and a very carefully planned Mossad operation, with of course the full support of certain figures within the US and elsewhere. I will cover this conspiracy in more details later on in the series.

Doesn’t it appear strange that some of the most powerful people in the world are members of the Freemasons and yet I feel that there are others much further up the ladder that pull the strings of these puppets. The ones at the top of the pyramid are the supper rich elite who control the finances of the world and thus have control of the world. You may be surprised to learn who some of these key players are and what this means to the majority of us who live on this planet. I will cover this aspect in another part.

So this “False Flag Conspiracy” called 9/11 gave these evil satanic minded people the justification to go to war whilst at the same time allowed them to spread fear into the hearts and minds of their respective populations. Perhaps, you the public are not totally convinced that 9/11 was a conspiracy, hopefully before the end of this series you will be!

Whilst talking about 9/11 as to who did what or how such a huge structure managed to collapse like a pack of card, let’s just ask the question why have so many emergency teams became acutely sick and may succumb to cancer? Besides the controlled explosions that took place what could cause this ever increasing list of casualties and why is the US Government moving so fast to keep this out of court? Could it be that depleted uranium also became part of this scenario?

A fund has been raised by the Federal Reserve for between 10,000 – 70,000 workers who will be offered a share in the $657 million payout. The deal however does come with an ultimatum that no one takes out a lawsuit. One should also ask the question, how many more people in the New York area have become victims of 9/11?

So to move on, you may ask the question who would want to depopulate in mass and how is it possible to do this without we the people knowing it is taking place? How could this be achieved over a period of time? Has this process already started and when did it start?

To find the answers we have to go back to the original nuclear tests that were carried out at Los Alamos. It must be clearly understand that back in 1943 nuclear experts were discussing the advantages of using fine dust as a weapon. One such document was issued on the 30th of October 1943 which quoted “ It is recommended that a decision be obtained from competent authority authorizing additional work pertaining to the use of radioactive materials in order that this country may be ready to use such materials or be ready to defend itself against the use of such materials”. This same document contained information as follows:

2 As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person’s body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty.

Two factors appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or smoke as a weapon. These are: (1) It cannot be detected by the senses; (2) It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging. This document gave the background to today’s weapons that are not only highly effective in there ability to penetration deep into the target but also the pyrophoric qualities of this product allows it to ignite spontaneously and create a huge cloud of fine DU dust that becomes a lethal airborne aerosol.

The documents relating to the above are held by the Palestine Telegraph and the header of the original memorandum is shown here to prove its authenticity:

Although in more modern times we give reference to its usage in the Balkans the experimental side of using Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons actually stemmed back to the war between Israel and Egypt (Yom Kippur War) in October 1973. The US gave Israel new weapons that contained DU and also sent over their own specialist to train the IDF in the usage of such weapons. Unknown to the IDF at the time this was the start of what would become a progressive contamination of the many areas of conflict and the world.

Coming back to the late 1900’s we can now see the dramatic changes that have taken place in the Balkans with extremely high level of cancer and other symptoms that directly relate to the weapons used containing uranium components. Small villages and towns are running out of burial space as the toll continues to climb.

Iraq is another classic case of a country that has had it genetics possibly altered forever and in some locations the women are now being asked not to have children. But the problem does not remain there. It is on going with dramatic increases in many forms of cancers, diabetes, mental disorders, infertility etc. One could see a dramatic decline in the population of Iraq within a reasonable time frame.

Afghanistan is another major problem area where contamination is manifesting itself on a much larger scale owing to the excessive usage of uranium based weapons. They are currently encountering the same birth defects we have seen in Iraq and it will only be a matter of time before they also are asked not to have children in certain areas. The main problem is that the half life of Depleted Uranium for example is 4.5 billion years and so it is passed down the line from sibling to sibling.

Now we can turn to Gaza, the latest victim of US and IDF dirty weaponry. The IDF used a vast array of weapons with heavy usage of weapons that contained both DU/EU components. This was both before, during and after “Cast Lead.” Birth defects are increasing in Gaza to almost double that of the previous year. Gaza’s Health Minister, Dr Bassem Naim, said the study of the biological samples proved that the Israelis used internationally prohibited weapons against the Palestinians. He warned that the large percentage of toxic uranium in the territory would pose a real threat to future generations.

So what do these evil planners have in mind for the residents of planet Earth? How could this be carried out and who would be the chosen few? It is obvious that the first victims in the current stand off would be Israel and Iran who would form part of the initial stages of their plan. The US encourages conflict between the two and really would prefer Israel to carry out the first strike. Israel would then basically become the sacrificial lamb by launching an attack on Iran (with the assistance of the US). This action would then cause Iran to carry out a reprisal attack, not only on Israel but also possibly on other US Military/Civilian targets in the Middle East, such as Bahrain.

Within a very short period of time the US would then counter attack on a massive scale and very carefully bring NATO onboard (an attack on one is an attack on all) setting the Middle East on fire. One would expect the use of Nuclear Weapons or certainly weapons that have uranium components on a scale not seen before in the Middle East. This would be a contained Nuclear War confined to the Middle East only. However, the radiation fall out from such an event would be catastrophic to the populations of the entire Middle East, including Israel itself and the world beyond. One would assume that China would eventually intervene and back Iran and even possibly Russia which could turn this regional war into a full scale WW3.

Whatever the final outcome it is clear that the genetics of the entire Middle East would fall victim to depleted uranium and we could expect to see a dramatic rise in many forms of cancer, diabetes, infertility, birth deformities and deaths.

There would remain one big problem for the US and the West and that is the question of China and Russia and what new alliances would be formed. China is becoming a formidable super power with a sound economic infrastructure. In actual fact the investment rate by China is extremely impressive with major shares in the US and Western Economies. The potential rise of China into becoming the next super power must send shock waves throughout the US.

As we have already seen during the Chemical and Biological Warfare trials in Rhodesia and then down in South Africa it is possible for these evil satanic people (The New World Order) to design a weapon or introduce some form of Chemical or Biological means of eliminating an entire race. In South Africa they designed the “Black on Bomb” which was intended to stop blacks from having children. With all the current and past technology one could see the US/West promoting something that would target the DNA of only those of Chinese descent. Alternatively they may introduce a virus that would have devastating consequences on such a densely populated country as China.

There is still a distinct lack of trust between the US – Russian and China and one can understand why when the US continues to establish its missile defence systems to what it says is to protect itself from any Iranian attack when it is clearly a defence system against Russia. It is evident that the cold war has never finished. Add to this the struggle by both parties to secure and dominate vital energy markets and one can see that no change is on the horizon.

Whatever the plan you can be rest assured (for those that remain) it will be a world of total subservience to our respective governments. One can clearly see a trend that would allow each country to become a police state with almost every government, local government and there respective partnerships having the ability to monitor and control you. Parking inspectors, rangers and more of those cardboard policemen, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) for instance, would be given greater power with added extensive CCTV coverage to keep you in check.

The New World Order would only allow selected people to receive advanced education leaving the rest to remain uneducated and therefore unable to fight the system. Many would remain unemployable and everyone would be totally dependent on the state for health care and survival. The New World Order would encourage the splitting up of the family unit, thus breaking down a sound social system. It would encourage the use of drugs and alcohol and in allowing this to happen would make us all a population of zombies who would not dare challenge the system and who would do everything that is asked of them.

What makes this whole situation frightening is the fact that the US lost at least three nuclear weapons and the UK lost another three. One would ask the question how is this possible. The answer is very easy….when you obtain such weapons under the table you are not in a position to totally secure them or advertise the fact that you have lost them……they basically do not exist.

I guess you would now ask the question…..”I have heard this story before…how can it possibly be true”? The answer is simple: For every deal there has to be witnesses and middlemen, there has to be those who put in a tender for the movement of such weapons, how to move them, people who become signatory to the deal and someone has to be ultimately responsible for making sure they are safe to transfer, inspected pre departure and inspected prior to releasing the final payment upon delivery etc.

As one can imagine no government is going to openly declare that due to their neglect nuclear weapons went missing. One could also clearly see that to this day the US, UK and Israeli Government are still frantically trying to locate them. Israel alone would be in the forefront of this search knowing that many countries are now against them. I guess one would also assume that if the people in the US knew the truth behind 9/11 they also could become an enemy to Israel. In the same way if they knew that the attack on the USS Liberty was an intentional act of aggression by Israel on a US Military vessel it would certainly cause a rift in US – Israel relations.

The problem here is that so many turmoil’s and false flags are planned by so many different agencies and authorities simultaneously. You have the New World Order who are basically capitalist at the highest level with what some people say are connected to a much higher group called the Illuminati (Jesuits). The elite are then connected down the line with Freemasons, Christian Zionist and Jewish Zionist. Many of these groups have the same initial goal but with a totally different view point on the final outcome. Another issue that has come to light is the fact that many of the Jewish communities living in such places as the US, UK and Australia, who appear to be good citizens of their host country (by swearing allegiance), are in actual fact very much attached to Israel in a powerful nationalistic way i.e. they would rather go and serve their time in the IDF than join the military of the country where they live.

What appears to be the major cause of many conflicts is the insecurity that Israel feels with those that live around them. If at any stage Israel feels threatened by any country in the region they and their lobby groups immediately embark on a campaign to take some sort of action or wage war. The sheer size of their military alone is beyond normal comprehension. One could certainly see why Israel would want to create a false flag in order to justify an action. They currently have operatives in Somalia and Yemen and one would hate to imagine what they have up their sleeve. Lets not forget the Israeli airstrikes that were carried out in Sudan last year in direct breach of sovereignty……but I guess they are a rule unto themselves anyway.

One can also see amongst this complicated array of manipulators an extremely powerful Pro Israeli Lobby Groups who offer vast sums of money to potential political candidates or parties in return for the indirect manipulation of a countries policy that favours Israel. The top of the list must surely be The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the US. These powerful groups almost have the ability to write bills for Congress. They also have the power to squash anything that the Israelis could consider as being against their best interests or that could do damage to their country. On example of this being the Goldstone Report which is now in the balance as a direct result of AIPAC interference and their influence in Congress. The power they wield via the members that they have funded or continue to fund makes them an extremely powerful and dangerous group. They are also supported by the US Friends of Israel, EU Friends of Israel, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats Friends of Israel in the UK. How can one say with sincerity that any political party is truly representative of its people?

One final point before closing Part 1 is the fact that we have a United Nations that basically has no strength whatsoever, despite the number of nations that created it… is a tool by which it’s Security Council decides the fate of any nation. For some time now this Security Council appears to have another member who does not qualify to sit at the table of the elite and yet is consulted on all matters…. That country is Germany.

We started to see this involvement when Obama, Brown and Sarkosy last met in the US and handed out some pretty strong words to Iran…..I refer to this group as the G3.5. Today we see Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s agreeing on sanctions against Iran……can one believe the audacity and arrogance of these people forming alliances and making decisions outside of the United Nations. It becomes clear that the New World Order is showing its fangs and when the time comes it will tell the UN what they had already pre decided……interesting hey?

The next part will look at the New World Order in more detail.

Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 1/4/2010




Mass Depopulation, Genocide, WW3? Part 3 New World Order military plans

Part 1 – The link to the New World Order

Part 2 – The Satanic New World Order

by Peter Eyre
Published: Apr. 8, 2010 – Pal Telegraph

In my previous article I touched base on the historical plans of the New World Order and how they hoped to encircle the world during the “Cold War” years. This article will explain that plan and how in more modern times they are going down the same road again. The first plan failed but will this second surge allow them to re establish their authority in trying to create a one world power.

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949 but for many years maintained a very low profile until the outbreak of the Korean War. It was originally established to maintain the so called “Iron Curtain” which in principle was to keep the communist on one side of the fence and the west on the other. It was also around this time (after WW2) that its other intention was to keep Germany in check. It was finally decided that Germany would be split with the establishment of East and West Germany and the Berlin Wall came into existence.

It was interesting to note that in the early years a rift occurred within NATO itself when France objected to the dominance of the US (sound familiar?) and wanted a more balanced control. Needless to say the US never gives away anything and so France started a progressive withdrawal from many of established areas of NATO and by 1967 had very little activity. An alliance remained with France with the proviso that should hostilities re occur France would re enter the organization.

What many people didn’t know was that during the “Cold War” years other pacts were attempted such as the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) which was originally called the Middle East Treaty Organisation (METO) or Baghdad Pact, and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). This was the first indication (in the global sense) of the attempt or existence of a New World Order and its intended plans.

It became evident to many of the countries involved that this was a US controlled plan with the UK playing an active part. CENTO was doomed from the onset and eventually failed (1958-1979). SEATO started a little earlier (1955 – 1977) and also failed. I myself participated in military exercises in both organisations and ended up working in NATO, the only organization that remains to this day.

Let’s now move forward to the current time and see how the New World Order is trying to re establish itself in much the same way as it did during the “Cold War” but with much more vigour and manipulation. The main thrust behind this global dominance is by what I call the G3.5, US, UK, France and Germany. So what is their current involvement and what are they hoping to achieve.

They themselves stipulate their main areas of concern are Iran, Yemen, Somalia and North Korea. Iran obviously is a thorn in the side for the West, especially in the eyes of the US, who are desperately trying to secure an extremely lucrative deal to construct a pipeline from Turkmenistan – Afghanistan – Pakistan – India (TAPI). This project is worth trillions of dollars during it expected life but is not going to plan. It should have been up and running many years ago but the war has continued to delay its implementation. The success of this project depended on Pakistan and India purchasing the gas.

For a very long time the US has been attempting to stop Pakistan and India from buying into another pipeline which is on offer from Iran – Pakistan – India (IPI). This pipeline is a much more logical and commercial venture and will not pass through the existing war zone of Afghanistan. There is also a strong interest in this pipeline from the Chinese who may ask for a branch pipeline to run into China. One can clearly see that the New World Order want the TAPI pipeline to happen and consequently have this year re enforced the troops numbers to try and secure Southern Afghanistan for the pipeline route (Heart – Helmand – Kandahar).

The New World Order is all about taking control of major natural resources and securing dominance in oil and gas world markets. The war in Afghanistan was only for this purpose and nothing to do with democracy…..obviously the opium trade was also vital to their plans, as are all drugs.

One major set back has now occurred in that Pakistan and India are expected to take the IPI Iranian pipeline and not the US/UK option (TAPI). This must be a major setback for the New World Order and may now cause a major change in their military strategy by pulling out of Afghanistan….time will tell.

As we understand the US want Israel to strike Iran in order to justify bringing the US and NATO into the dog fight. It is clear that the IDF cannot carry out this possible attack alone as they do not have an aircraft that can carry the MOP bomb or do not have the range to make their targets without the assistance of the US. Whatever the outcome the New World Order really do want this to happen in order to weaken the existing regime and at the same time contaminate the country with Depleted/Enriched Uranium Weapons. This would also enhance their plans to contaminate the entire Middle East and thus dramatically attack the genetics of all Islamic countries. Such weapons currently being used in Afghanistan and Gaza directly attack the human DNA.

One could then ask the question why is the US, UK and NATO (New World Order) interested in Yemen and Somalia….the answer is very simple…they want to control the Gulf of Aden in order to control the major shipping lanes that currently passes up the Red Sea and the Suez Canal en route to and from the Mediterranean. Yemen and Somalia sit on either side of this vital supply route. It would also give the US and or NATO an opportunity to set up a major military base to guard and control this passage.
So now we can see a rerun of the old master plan (NATO-CENTO-SEATO) with a significant military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Aden, the Coastline of Somalia with major international military bases scattered in and around the entire Middle East. Over in Southeast Asia we have the same buildup stretching from Singapore – Taiwan – South Korea with a distinct possibility that the US may get back into the Philippines (Mindanao) or if not certainly support that region.

If one looks at an updated map of NATO you can clearly see the progressive advancement in many areas….especially where they may be an Islamic influence. As far as the New World Order is involved the “Cold War” is still in existence to stem the flow of communism or to stop Russia from acquiring more oil/gas dominance on the world market. We also have the New World Order that is suffering from Islamaphoebia, who keep pushing the Al Qaeda/Terrorism False Flag issue in order to carry out their own imperialistic dreams of controlling all major oil/gas reserves or securing the major world markets. Currently the vital markets they are after are Pakistan, India and China but these are fast disappearing!

Part 4 will deal with how the New World Order is attacking the British Constitution and how Britain is progressively being handed over to the EU. This is an on going move by Gordon Brown and is in clear violation of the rules…..lobby groups are more specific when they say this amounts to sedition and treason by the UK Government. One can also see that the other main parties are also interested in following this trend. Many politicians are members of the Freemasons and thus have a lean towards the New World Order, which is at the centre of their activity.

Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 8/4/2010




An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

Part 1

by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Published: Oct. 16, 2009 – Global Research


In the face of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a massive international war are increasing. Historically, periods of imperial decline and economic crisis are marked by increased international violence and war. The decline of the great European empires was marked by World War I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in the intermediary period.

Currently, the world is witnessing the decline of the American empire, itself a product born out of World War II. As the post-war imperial hegemon, America ran the international monetary system and reigned as champion and arbitrator of the global political economy.

To manage the global political economy, the US has created the single largest and most powerful military force in world history. Constant control over the global economy requires constant military presence and action.

Now that both the American empire and global political economy are in decline and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the American imperial age is drastically increasing.

This essay is broken into three separate parts. The first part covers US-NATO geopolitical strategy since the end of the Cold War, at the beginning of the New World Order, outlining the western imperial strategy that led to the war in Yugoslavia and the “War on Terror.” Part 2 analyzes the nature of “soft revolutions” or “colour revolutions” in US imperial strategy, focusing on establishing hegemony over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Part 3 analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with China and Russia.

Defining a New Imperial Strategy

In 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, US-NATO foreign policy had to re-imagine its role in the world. The Cold War served as a means of justifying US imperialist expansion across the globe with the aim of “containing” the Soviet threat. NATO itself was created and existed for the sole purpose of forging an anti-Soviet alliance. With the USSR gone, NATO had no reason to exist, and the US had to find a new purpose for its imperialist strategy in the world.

In 1992, the US Defense Department, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney [later to be George Bush Jr.’s VP], had the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz [later to be George Bush Jr.’s Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank], write up a defense document to guide American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, commonly referred to as the “New World Order.”

The Defense Planning Guidance document was leaked in 1992, and revealed that, “In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union,” and that, “The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.”

Further, “the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders ‘must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’.” Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document “postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea,” and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further “suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf.”[1]

NATO and Yugoslavia

The wars in Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s served as a justification for the continued existence of NATO in the world, and to expand American imperial interests in Eastern Europe.

The World Bank and IMF set the stage for the destabilization of Yugoslavia. After long-time dictator of Yugoslavia, Josip Tito, died in 1980, a leadership crisis developed. In 1982, American foreign policy officials organized a set of IMF and World Bank loans, under the newly created Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), to handle the crisis of the $20 billion US debt. The effect of the loans, under the SAP, was that they “wreaked economic and political havoc… The economic crisis threatened political stability … it also threatened to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions.”[2]

In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic became President of Serbia, the largest and most powerful of all the Yugoslav republics. Also in 1989, Yugoslavia’s Premier traveled to the US to meet President George H.W. Bush in order to negotiate another financial aid package. In 1990, the World Bank/IMF program began, and the Yugoslav state’s expenditures went towards debt repayment. As a result, social programs were dismantled, the currency devalued, wages frozen, and prices rose. The “reforms fueled secessionist tendencies that fed on economic factors as well as ethnic divisions, virtually ensuring the de facto secession of the republic,” leading to Croatia and Slovenia’s succession in 1991.[3]

In 1990, US the intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart, erupt in civil war, and the report then placed blame on Serbian President Milosevic for the coming destabilization.[4]

In 1991, conflict broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia, when it, too, declared independence. A ceasefire was reached in 1992. Yet, the Croats continued small military offensives until 1995, as well as participating in the war in Bosnia. In 1995, Operation Storm was undertaken by Croatia to try to retake the Krajina region. A Croatian general was recently put on trial at The Hague for war crimes during this battle, which was key to driving the Serbs out of Croatia and “cemented Croatian independence.” The US supported the operation and the CIA actively provided intelligence to Croat forces, leading to the displacement of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs, largely through means of murder, plundering, burning villages and ethnic cleansing.[5] The Croatian Army was trained by US advisers, and the general on trial was even personally supported by the CIA.[6]

The Clinton administration gave the “green light” to Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims and “from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia.” Further, “Iran, and other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, ‘holy warriors’ from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan.”

It was “Western intervention in the Balkans [that] exacerbated tensions and helped to sustain hostilities. By recognising the claims of separatist republics and groups in 1990/1991, Western elites – the American, British, French and German – undermined government structures in Yugoslavia, increased insecurities, inflamed conflict and heightened ethnic tensions. And by offering logistical support to various sides during the war, Western intervention sustained the conflict into the mid-1990s. Clinton’s choice of the Bosnian Muslims as a cause to champion on the international stage, and his administration’s demands that the UN arms embargo be lifted so that the Muslims and Croats could be armed against the Serbs, should be viewed in this light.”[7]

During the war in Bosnia, there “was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah.” Further, “the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs.”[8] Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia to fight against the Serbs.[9]

The US had influenced the war in the region in a variety of ways. As the Observer reported in 1995, a major facet of their involvement was through “Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), a Virginia-based American private company of retired generals and intelligence officers. The American embassy in Zagreb admits that MPRI is training the Croats, on licence from the US government.” Further, The Dutch “were convinced that US special forces were involved in training the Bosnian army and the Bosnian Croat Army (HVO).”[10]

As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create “a joint policy to break up Yugoslavia,” and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the “German economic zone.” So, US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as “advisers” and brought in US Special Forces to help.[11] During the nine-month cease-fire in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, six US generals met with Bosnian army leaders to plan the Bosnian offensive that broke the cease-fire.[12]

In 1996, the Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control over the enormous Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was linked to former Afghan Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden.[13]

In 1997, the KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[14] and in 1998, the US State Department removed the KLA from its list of terrorist organizations.[15] Before and after 1998, the KLA was receiving arms, training and support from the US and NATO, and Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, had a close political relationship with KLA leader Hashim Thaci.[16]

Both the CIA and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA terrorists in Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the same period that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[17] KLA members were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in Afghanistan. Even the UN stated that much of the violence that occurred came from KLA members, “especially those allied with Hashim Thaci.”[18]

The March 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense of putting an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which was termed genocide. The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000 Kosovo Albanians were missing and “may have been killed” by the Serbs. Bill Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The US State Department had stated that up to 500,000 Albanians were feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was reduced to 10,000, however, after exhaustive investigations, it was revealed that the death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be attributed to the Serbs. During the NATO bombing campaign, between 400 and 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and NATO committed war crimes, including the bombing of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[19]

In 2000, the US State Department, in cooperation with the American Enterprise Institute, AEI, held a conference on Euro-Atlantic integration in Slovakia. Among the participants were many heads of state, foreign affairs officials and ambassadors of various European states as well as UN and NATO officials.[20] A letter of correspondence between a German politician present at the meeting and the German Chancellor, revealed the true nature of NATO’s campaign in Kosovo. The conference demanded a speedy declaration of independence for Kosovo, and that the war in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia was to be excluded permanently from European development to justify a US military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately designed to contain Russia.[21]

Of great significance was that, “the war created a raison d’être for the continued existence of NATO in a post-Cold War world, as it desperately tried to justify its continued existence and desire for expansion.” Further, “The Russians had assumed NATO would dissolve at the end of the Cold War. Instead, not only has NATO expanded, it went to war over an internal dispute in a Slavic Eastern European country.” This was viewed as a great threat. Thus, “much of the tense relations between the United States and Russia over the past decade can be traced to the 1999 war on Yugoslavia.”[22]

The War on Terror and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

When Bill Clinton became President, the neo-conservative hawks from the George H.W. Bush administration formed a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. In 2000, they published a report called, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. Building upon the Defense Policy Guidance document, they state that, “the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.”[23] Further, there is “need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars,”[24] and that “the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.”[25]

Interestingly, the document stated that, “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”[26] However, in advocating for massive increases in defense spending and expanding the American empire across the globe, including the forceful destruction of multiple countries through major theatre wars, the report stated that, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[27] That event came one year later with the events of 9/11. Many of the authors of the report and members of the Project for the New American Century had become officials in the Bush administration, and were conveniently in place to enact their “Project” after they got their “new Pearl Harbor.”

The plans for war were “already under development by far right Think Tanks in the 1990s, organisations in which cold-war warriors from the inner circle of the secret services, from evangelical churches, from weapons corporations and oil companies forged shocking plans for a new world order.” To do this, “the USA would need to use all means – diplomatic, economic and military, even wars of aggression – to have long term control of the resources of the planet and the ability to keep any possible rival weak.”

Among the people involved in PNAC and the plans for empire, “Dick Cheney – Vice President, Lewis Libby – Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld – Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz – Rumsfeld’s deputy, Peter Rodman – in charge of ‘Matters of Global Security’, John Bolton – State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage – Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle – former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol – head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad,” who became Ambassador to both Afghanistan and Iraq following the regime changes in those countries.[28]

Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”

Arch-hawk strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, former National Security Adviser and key foreign policy architect in Jimmy Carter’s administration, also wrote a book on American geostrategy. Brzezinski is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy think tank.

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski outlined a strategy for America in the world. He wrote, “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power.” Further, “how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination.”[29]

He continued in outlining a strategy for American empire, stating that, “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”[30] He explained that, “Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them: [and] second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above.”[31]

What this means is that is it of primary importance to first identify states that could potentially be a pivot upon which the balance of power in the region exits the US sphere of influence; and secondly, to “offset, co-opt, and/or control” such states and circumstances. An example of this would be Iran; being one of the world’s largest oil producers, and in a strategically significant position in the axis of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Iran could hold the potential to alter the balance of power in Eurasia if it were to closely ally itself with Russia or China, or both – giving those nations a heavy supply of oil as well as a sphere of influence in the Gulf, thus challenging American hegemony in the region.

Brzezinski removed all subtlety from his imperial leanings, and wrote, “To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”[32]

Brzezinski referred to the Central Asian republics as the “Eurasian Balkans,” writing that, “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.”[33] He further wrote that, “It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”[34] This is a clear example of America’s role as an engine of empire; with foreign imperial policy designed to maintain US strategic positions, but primarily and “infinitely more important,” is to secure an “economic prize” for “the global community.” In other words, the United States is an imperial hegemon working for international financial interests.

Brzezinski also warned that, “the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power,”[35] and he, “puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” Thus, “The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.”[36]

The War on Terror and Surplus Imperialism

In 2000, the Pentagon released a document called Joint Vision 2020, which outlined a project to achieve what they termed, “Full Spectrum Dominance,” as the blueprint for the Department of Defense in the future. “Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.” The report “addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief.” Further, “The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.”[37]

As political economist, Ellen Wood, explained, “Boundless domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose or time.”[38] Further, “Imperial dominance in a global capitalist economy requires a delicate and contradictory balance between suppressing competition and maintaining conditions in competing economies that generate markets and profit. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of the new world order.”[39]

Following 9/11, the “Bush doctrine” was put in place, which called for “a unilateral and exclusive right to preemptive attack, any time, anywhere, unfettered by any international agreements, to ensure that ‘[o]ur forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States’.”[40]

NATO undertook its first ground invasion of any nation in its entire history, with the October 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The Afghan war was in fact, planned prior to the events of 9/11, with the breakdown of major pipeline deals between major western oil companies and the Taliban. The war itself was planned over the summer of 2001 with the operational plan to go to war by mid-October.[41]

Afghanistan is extremely significant in geopolitical terms, as, “Transporting all the Caspian basin’s fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia’s political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of ‘diversifying energy supply’ and to penetrate the world’s most lucrative markets.”[42]

As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out a mere two weeks following the 9/11 attacks, “Beyond American determination to hit back against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, beyond the likelihood of longer, drawn-out battles producing more civilian casualties in the months and years ahead, the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil.” Explaining further, “The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world’s principal energy sources in the 21st century. The defense of these energy resources — rather than a simple confrontation between Islam and the West — will be the primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come.”

Among the many notable states where there is a crossover between terrorism and oil and gas reserves of vital importance to the United States and the West, are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain, the Gulf Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Georgia and eastern Turkey. Importantly, “this region accounts for more than 65 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas production.” Further, “It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America’s Chevron, ExxonMobil and Arco; France’s TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region.”[43]

It’s no secret that the Iraq war had much to do with oil. In the summer of 2001, Dick Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, which was a highly secret set of meetings in which energy policy was determined for the United States. In the meetings and in various other means of communication, Cheney and his aides met with top officials and executives of Shell Oil, British Petroleum (BP), Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and Chevron.[44] At the meeting, which took place before 9/11 and before there was any mention of a war on Iraq, documents of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals were presented and discussed, and “Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals.”[45] Both Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum have since received major oil contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields.[46]

The war on Iraq, as well as the war on Afghanistan, also largely serve specifically American, and more broadly, Western imperial-strategic interests in the region. In particular, the wars were strategically designed to eliminate, threaten or contain regional powers, as well as to directly install several dozen military bases in the region, firmly establishing an imperial presence. The purpose of this is largely aimed at other major regional players and specifically, encircling Russia and China and threatening their access to the regions oil and gas reserves. Iran is now surrounded, with Iraq on one side, and Afghanistan on the other.

Concluding Remarks

Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order. The next part to this essay examines the “colour revolutions” throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, continuing the US and NATO policy of containing Russia and China; while controlling access to major natural gas reserves and transportation routes. The “colour revolutions” have been a pivotal force in geopolitical imperial strategy, and analyzing them is key to understanding the New World Order.



[1]        Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March 8, 1992.

[2]        Louis Sell, Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Duke University Press, 2002: Page 2

[3]        Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:

[4]        David Binder, Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon. The New York Times: November 28, 1990

[5]        Ian Traynor, Croat general on trial for war crimes. The Guardian: March 12, 2008:

[6]        Adam LeBor, Croat general Ante Gotovina stands trial for war crimes. The Times Online: March 11, 2008:

[7]        Brendan O’Neill, ‘You are only allowed to see Bosnia in black and white’. Spiked: January 23, 2004:

[8]        Richard J. Aldrich, America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims. The Guardian: April 22, 2002:

[9]        Tim Judah, German spies accused of arming Bosnian Muslims. The Telegraph: April 20, 1997:

[10]      Charlotte Eagar, Invisible US Army defeats Serbs. The Observer: November 5, 1995:

[11]      Gary Wilson, New reports show secret U.S. role in Balkan war. Workers World News Service: 1996:

[12]      IAC, The CIA Role in Bosnia. International Action Center:

[13]      History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1996-1999: Albanian Mafia and KLA Take Control of Balkan Heroin Trafficking Route. The Center for Cooperative Research:

[14]      History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1997: KLA Surfaces to Resist Serbian Persecution of Albanians. The Center for Cooperative Research:

[15]      History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: February 1998: State Department Removes KLA from Terrorism List. The Center for Cooperative Research:

[16]      Marcia Christoff Kurop, Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links. The Wall Street Journal: November 1, 2001:

[17]      Global Research, German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Global Research: February 20, 2005:

[18]      Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo: The US and the EU support a Political Process linked to Organized Crime. Global Research: February 12, 2008:

[19]      Andrew Gavin Marshall, Breaking Yugoslavia. Geopolitical Monitor: July 21, 2008:

[20]      AEI, Is Euro-Atlantic Integration Still on Track? Participant List. American Enterprise Institute: April 28-30, 2000:,projectID.11/default.asp

[21]      Aleksandar Pavi, Correspondence between German Politicians Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo’s “Independence”. Global Research: March 12, 2008:

[22]      Stephen Zunes, The War on Yugoslavia, 10 Years Later. Foreign Policy in Focus: April 6, 2009:

[23]      PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Project for the New American Century: September 2000, page 6:

[24]      Ibid. Page 8

[25]      Ibid. Page 9

[26]      Ibid. Page 18

[27]      Ibid. Page 51

[28]      Margo Kingston, A think tank war: Why old Europe says no. The Sydney Morning Herald: March 7, 2003:

[29]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Pages 30-31

[30]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page xiv

[31]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 41

[32]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 40

[33]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 124

[34]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 148

[35]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 55

[36]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 198

[37]      Jim Garamone, Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance. American Forces Press Service: June 2, 2000:

[38]      Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 144

[39]      Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 157

[40]      Ellen Wood, Empire of Capital. Verso, 2003: page 160

[41]      Andrew G. Marshall, Origins of Afghan War. Geopolitical Monitor: September 14, 2008:

[42]      George Monbiot, America’s pipe dream. The Guardian: October 23, 2001:

[43]      Frank Viviano, Energy future rides on U.S. war. San Francisco Chronicle: September 26, 2001:

[44]      Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force. Washington Post: November 16, 2005:

[45]      Judicial Watch, CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS. Commerce Department: July 17, 2003:

[46]      TERRY MACALISTER, Criticism as Shell signs $4bn Iraq oil deal. Mail and Guardian: September 30, 2008:

Al-Jazeera, BP group wins Iraq oil contract. Al Jazeera Online: June 30, 2009:

 Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.



New World Order I: World Communism, Club of Rome Tells G20

New World Order II. The Ruling Class and World Governance Are Our Nations´ Treason Against Us

History of the New World Order

Documentary – The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror (89 mins.)

US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources

Documentary – The New American Century (94 mins.)

Documentary – Breaking The Silence – Truth and Lies in the War on Terror by John Pilger (51 min.)

VIDEO – The Grand Chessboard

Pentagon Plans For Global Military Supremacy

Escalation of the Afghan War? US-NATO Target Russia, China and Iran

VIDEO – The men behind Obama… (Interview with Webster Tarpley)


6 Reasons To Start World War III If You Are A Globalist

Published: Nov. 28, 2010 – Activist Post

The average person can barely imagine why World War III would be anything but a civilization-ending event.  And, yet, we have heard Neocons ramping up rhetoric that suggests a new world war would be a viable option to correct a dying dollar and economy.  Or, perhaps it is simply a sound investment if you are a Globalist.

RAND Corporation documents point to a desire for total war abroad and at home.  The recent reactivation of North and South Korea tensions could be a potential catalyst in an East-West World War scenario possibly involving nukes.  However, the next World War doesn’t necessarily need to be a conflagration; it could be a steady, slow, coldly calculated design to plunge the globe into austerity and totalitarian control through regulations such as those proposed by Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21.

So, if one puts on the thinking cap of a sociopath, one might find the following 6 reasons are perfect to start World War III, by nukes or by stealth, and further the agenda of world governance.

Distraction: Regional conflicts both military and financial are being exposed as blatant economic looting and divide-and-conquer techniques.  Protests are erupting across the globe as people are waking up to their enslavement en masse.  Simultaneously, the high-tech police state is unfolding; endgame legislation is being passed to criminalize independence and control the Internet; and a reduction in the standard of living is minimizing the ability to purchase even simple distractions like cable TV.  The greatest awakening is that an exponential number of people are beginning to realize that their voice has no meaning in the political arena.  The left-right political paradigm is in grave danger, and has been made even more glaringly obvious by recent actions such as Obama awarding the medal of freedom to Bush, Sr.  Add to this the calls for arresting Bush, Jr. as a war criminal (and the subsequent questioning of why Obama would not support such a trial) and we begin to see indications that people are seeing through The Quigley Formula.  With such a populist uprising against all forms of oppression, the time appears to be ripe for the ultimate distraction.

Boost the Dollar: The first thing that happened when shots were fired between North and South Korea was a flight to the dollar, just like every other crisis.  Russia and China just announced that they quit the dollar, and yet the dollar refuses to collapse despite fundamentals that are truly sickening.  It is almost as if there are too many crises for the Russia-China announcement to even matter.  Perfect timing.  Rather, it would be a fine strategy for the dollar to rebound before being dissolved into a global currency, as the dollar backs the premier world superpower.  We now have a twin storyline of both financial and military wars leading toward the same goal.  This could be the beginning of a monetary and real WWIII strategy set up to coordinate a universal collapse to benefit global interests.  And let’s not forget on which currency it actually reads New World Order.

Global Hegemony:  The elimination of “rogue nations” is at the heart of the Globalist agenda, which seeks consolidation into the hands of a few powerful regions.  In fact, it has been the stated goal of The Trilateral Commission since its inception in 1973 under Rockefeller and Brzezinski.  Brzezinski’s response in 1974 to the question, What is The New World Order? says it all: “We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active, and creative forces — recently developed — should be integrated.”  Since then, integration has been used to great effect by the U.S. to start wars where “terrorist” regimes can be subverted or dismantled, and their flags (resources) captured.  China is in a similar position with the vassal rogue state of North Korea where they can cattle prod it to action when convenient.  China is now being pressured by the global community to rein in the regime.  Perfect, they can consolidate their holdings in a similar fashion to what the U.S. has already done with South Korea.  This new Korean conflict could have the perfect dual effect of the Western world running to the safety of the Anglo-American establishment (and the dollar), while the East seeks the backing of China to correct instability in the region.  And all the while Russia and Iran are there for a potential final solution.

A “Feel Good” War:  For those not attuned to the larger Globalist agenda, America is in dire need of a feel-good war . . . another Nazi Germany-style threat possessing undisputed intentions of global dominance.  Enter China from stage left.  Communist China has not condemned North Korea for their latest actions, and has given early warnings to the U.S. about naval exercises in their “exclusive economic zone.”  If this continues, they only enhance their position as the perfect common enemy of the West.  Those who are naturally opposed to Globalism see China as the prime example of the policies which will lead to global tyranny.  A war with China, or Communism in general, will give the West more than just a bogeyman in a cave, but one that truly is seen as a physical and economic threat to Western civilization.  Mass opposition to the lies that led to wars in the Middle East have all but exhausted the Bin Laden version of Goldstein pushed in that Orwellian storyline.  Time to roll out the real threat, as the Globalist agenda accelerates toward its endgame.

Investment in the Military-Industrial Complex:  54% of the U.S. Federal budget is spent on the military in all of its forms, as it continues to expand at warp speed overseas and on the streets of America.  Traditional weapons of physical destruction, as well as high-tech weaponry and mind-controlled soldiers straight out of science fiction are set to align with the surveillance and tracking capabilities of biometrics and predictive behavior criminology.  New wars are always needed; particularly small-scale regional conflicts such as those suggested over and over again by Zbigniew Brzezinski and other Globalist geo-politicians.  However, their own writings indicate a time when the regional conflicts must morph into a global one in order to fulfill the final agenda of an integrated scientific global dictatorship which comes after the consolidation required by World War III.  The final war won’t have a name because it will be global governance unabashedly unleashed against the people it has systematically enslaved.  This final war has one goal.

Depopulation:  This part of the agenda is still difficult for most people to grasp, but it is imperative to ask the question, What will global governance offer once its objectives of “order out of chaos” are achieved?  We need only look at the results on a country-by-country basis when Globalist organizations like the World Bank and IMF have taken over: more poverty, more sickness, and a decrease in life expectancy.  They already have been operating by stealth with soft-kill weapons designed to weaken resistance and cause sterility.  The Russian geopolitical analyst, Konstantin Sivkov, who believes WWIII has begun already stated that, “History shows that the ‘elite’ of selfish civilizations do not get stopped by human sacrifices if there is a guarantee that they, themselves, will survive in bunkers.”

They have the bunkers.

We may or may not hear WWIII announced on the evening news, but we can look for the signs of global consolidation that defines the agenda of the New World Order.  With every new conflict and every new piece of legislation it seems that those signs are becoming more obvious by the day.




Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations

The Logic of Imperial Insanity and the Road to World War III

The Project for the New American Century

Global Warfare USA: The World is the Pentagon’s Oyster

DOCUMENTARY – The New American Century

A New World War for a New World Order

Mass Depopulation, Genocide, WW3? Part 3 New World Order military plans

Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War (With Video)

An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

Pike’s Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars (With Video)

Pawns in the Game: A Satanic conspiracy to control the world


6 Reasons To Start World War III If You Are A Globalist

Published: Nov. 28, 2010 – Activist Post

The average person can barely imagine why World War III would be anything but a civilization-ending event.  And, yet, we have heard Neocons ramping up rhetoric that suggests a new world war would be a viable option to correct a dying dollar and economy.  Or, perhaps it is simply a sound investment if you are a Globalist.

RAND Corporation documents point to a desire for total war abroad and at home.  The recent reactivation of North and South Korea tensions could be a potential catalyst in an East-West World War scenario possibly involving nukes.  However, the next World War doesn’t necessarily need to be a conflagration; it could be a steady, slow, coldly calculated design to plunge the globe into austerity and totalitarian control through regulations such as those proposed by Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21.

So, if one puts on the thinking cap of a sociopath, one might find the following 6 reasons are perfect to start World War III, by nukes or by stealth, and further the agenda of world governance.

Distraction: Regional conflicts both military and financial are being exposed as blatant economic looting and divide-and-conquer techniques.  Protests are erupting across the globe as people are waking up to their enslavement en masse.  Simultaneously, the high-tech police state is unfolding; endgame legislation is being passed to criminalize independence and control the Internet; and a reduction in the standard of living is minimizing the ability to purchase even simple distractions like cable TV.  The greatest awakening is that an exponential number of people are beginning to realize that their voice has no meaning in the political arena.  The left-right political paradigm is in grave danger, and has been made even more glaringly obvious by recent actions such as Obama awarding the medal of freedom to Bush, Sr.  Add to this the calls for arresting Bush, Jr. as a war criminal (and the subsequent questioning of why Obama would not support such a trial) and we begin to see indications that people are seeing through The Quigley Formula.  With such a populist uprising against all forms of oppression, the time appears to be ripe for the ultimate distraction.

Boost the Dollar: The first thing that happened when shots were fired between North and South Korea was a flight to the dollar, just like every other crisis.  Russia and China just announced that they quit the dollar, and yet the dollar refuses to collapse despite fundamentals that are truly sickening.  It is almost as if there are too many crises for the Russia-China announcement to even matter.  Perfect timing.  Rather, it would be a fine strategy for the dollar to rebound before being dissolved into a global currency, as the dollar backs the premier world superpower.  We now have a twin storyline of both financial and military wars leading toward the same goal.  This could be the beginning of a monetary and real WWIII strategy set up to coordinate a universal collapse to benefit global interests.  And let’s not forget on which currency it actually reads New World Order.

Global Hegemony:  The elimination of “rogue nations” is at the heart of the Globalist agenda, which seeks consolidation into the hands of a few powerful regions.  In fact, it has been the stated goal of The Trilateral Commission since its inception in 1973 under Rockefeller and Brzezinski.  Brzezinski’s response in 1974 to the question, What is The New World Order? says it all: “We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active, and creative forces — recently developed — should be integrated.”  Since then, integration has been used to great effect by the U.S. to start wars where “terrorist” regimes can be subverted or dismantled, and their flags (resources) captured.  China is in a similar position with the vassal rogue state of North Korea where they can cattle prod it to action when convenient.  China is now being pressured by the global community to rein in the regime.  Perfect, they can consolidate their holdings in a similar fashion to what the U.S. has already done with South Korea.  This new Korean conflict could have the perfect dual effect of the Western world running to the safety of the Anglo-American establishment (and the dollar), while the East seeks the backing of China to correct instability in the region.  And all the while Russia and Iran are there for a potential final solution.

A “Feel Good” War:  For those not attuned to the larger Globalist agenda, America is in dire need of a feel-good war . . . another Nazi Germany-style threat possessing undisputed intentions of global dominance.  Enter China from stage left.  Communist China has not condemned North Korea for their latest actions, and has given early warnings to the U.S. about naval exercises in their “exclusive economic zone.”  If this continues, they only enhance their position as the perfect common enemy of the West.  Those who are naturally opposed to Globalism see China as the prime example of the policies which will lead to global tyranny.  A war with China, or Communism in general, will give the West more than just a bogeyman in a cave, but one that truly is seen as a physical and economic threat to Western civilization.  Mass opposition to the lies that led to wars in the Middle East have all but exhausted the Bin Laden version of Goldstein pushed in that Orwellian storyline.  Time to roll out the real threat, as the Globalist agenda accelerates toward its endgame.

Investment in the Military-Industrial Complex:  54% of the U.S. Federal budget is spent on the military in all of its forms, as it continues to expand at warp speed overseas and on the streets of America.  Traditional weapons of physical destruction, as well as high-tech weaponry and mind-controlled soldiers straight out of science fiction are set to align with the surveillance and tracking capabilities of biometrics and predictive behavior criminology.  New wars are always needed; particularly small-scale regional conflicts such as those suggested over and over again by Zbigniew Brzezinski and other Globalist geo-politicians.  However, their own writings indicate a time when the regional conflicts must morph into a global one in order to fulfill the final agenda of an integrated scientific global dictatorship which comes after the consolidation required by World War III.  The final war won’t have a name because it will be global governance unabashedly unleashed against the people it has systematically enslaved.  This final war has one goal.

Depopulation:  This part of the agenda is still difficult for most people to grasp, but it is imperative to ask the question, What will global governance offer once its objectives of “order out of chaos” are achieved?  We need only look at the results on a country-by-country basis when Globalist organizations like the World Bank and IMF have taken over: more poverty, more sickness, and a decrease in life expectancy.  They already have been operating by stealth with soft-kill weapons designed to weaken resistance and cause sterility.  The Russian geopolitical analyst, Konstantin Sivkov, who believes WWIII has begun already stated that, “History shows that the ‘elite’ of selfish civilizations do not get stopped by human sacrifices if there is a guarantee that they, themselves, will survive in bunkers.”

They have the bunkers.

We may or may not hear WWIII announced on the evening news, but we can look for the signs of global consolidation that defines the agenda of the New World Order.  With every new conflict and every new piece of legislation it seems that those signs are becoming more obvious by the day.




Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations

The Logic of Imperial Insanity and the Road to World War III

The Project for the New American Century

Global Warfare USA: The World is the Pentagon’s Oyster

DOCUMENTARY – The New American Century

A New World War for a New World Order

Mass Depopulation, Genocide, WW3? Part 3 New World Order military plans

Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War (With Video)

An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

Pike’s Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars (With Video)

Pawns in the Game: A Satanic conspiracy to control the world



The Elite, the ‘Great Game’ and World War III

by Prof. Mujahid Kamran
First Published: Jun. 2011 – New Dawn Special Issue 16

The control of the US, and of global politics, by the wealthiest families of the planet is exercised in a powerful, profound and clandestine manner. This control began in Europe and has a continuity that can be traced back to the time when the bankers discovered it was more profitable to give loans to governments than to needy individuals.

These banking families and their subservient beneficiaries have come to own most major businesses over the two centuries during which they have secretly and increasingly organised themselves as controllers of governments worldwide and as arbiters of war and peace.

Unless we understand this we will be unable to understand the real reasons for the two world wars and the impending Third World War, a war that is almost certain to begin as a consequence of the US attempt to seize and control Central Asia. The only way out is for the US to back off – something the people of the US and the world want, but the elite does not.

The US is a country controlled through the privately owned Federal Reserve, which in turn is controlled by the handful of banking families that established it by deception in the first place.

In his interesting book The Secret Team, Col. Fletcher Prouty, briefing officer of the US President from 1955-63, narrates a remarkable incident in which Winston Churchill made a most revealing utterance during World War II: “On this particular night there had been a heavy raid on Rotterdam. He sat there, meditating, and then, as if to himself, he said, ‘Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing – this is total war.’ He continued sitting there, gazing at a large map, and then said, ‘Time and the Ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are’.”

Prouty further states: “This was a most memorable scene and a revelation of reality that is infrequent, at best. If for the great Winston Churchill, there is a ‘High Cabal’ that has made us what we are, our definition is complete. Who could know better than Churchill himself during the darkest days of World War II, that there exists, beyond doubt, an international High Cabal? This was true then. It is true today, especially in these times of the One World Order. This all-powerful group has remained superior because it had learned the value of anonymity.” This “High Cabal” is the “One World Cabal” of today, also called the elite by various writers.

The High Cabal and What They Control

The elite owns the media, banks, defence and oil industry. In his book Who’s Who of the Elite Robert Gaylon Ross Sr. states: “It is my opinion that they own the US military, NATO, the Secret Service, the CIA, the Supreme Court, and many of the lower courts. They appear to control, either directly or indirectly, most of the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies.”

The elite is intent on conquering the world through the use of the abilities of the people of the United States. It was as far back as 1774 that Amschel Mayer Rothschild stated at a gathering of the twelve richest men of Prussia in Frankfurt: “Wars should be directed so that the nations on both sides should be further in our debt.” He further enunciated at the same meeting: “Panics and financial depressions would ultimately result in World Government, a new order of one world government.”

The elite owns numerous “think tanks” that work for expanding, consolidating and perpetuating its hold on the globe. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and many other similar organisations are all funded by the elite and work for it. These think tanks publish journals, such as Foreign Affairs, in which these imperialist and anti-mankind ideas are edified as publications, and then, if need be, expanded in the form of books that are given wide publicity.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger et al, as well as the neo-con “thinkers,” owe their positions and good living standards to the largesse of the elite. This is an important point that must be kept in full view at all times. These thinkers and writers are on the payroll of the elite and work for them. In case someone has any doubts about such a statement, it might help to read the following quotes from Professor Peter Dale Scott’s comprehensively researched book The Road to 9/11 – Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (University of California Press, 2007):
…Bundy’s Harvard protégé Kissinger was named to be national security adviser after having chaired an important “study group” at the Council on Foreign Relations. As a former assistant to Nelson Rockefeller, Kissinger had been paid by Rockefeller to write a book on limited warfare for the CFR. He had also campaigned hard in Rockefeller’s losing campaign for the Presidential nomination in 1968. Thus Rockefeller and the CFR might have been excluded from control of the Republican Party, but not from the Republican White House. (Page 22)

The following quote from page 38 of the book is also very revealing:
The Kissinger-Rockefeller relationship was complex and certainly intense. As investigative reporter Jim Hougan wrote: “Kissinger, married to a former Rockefeller aide, owner of a Georgetown mansion whose purchase was enabled only by Rockefeller gifts and loans, was always a protégé of his patron Nelson Rockefeller, even when he wasn’t directly employed by him.”

Professor Scott adds:
Nixon’s and Kissinger’s arrival in the White House in 1969 coincided with David Rockefeller’s becoming CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. The Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy of detente was highly congruous with Rockefeller’s push to internationalise Chase Manhattan banking operations. Thus in 1973 Chase Manhattan became the first American bank to open an office in Moscow. A few months later, thanks to an invitation arranged by Kissinger, Rockefeller became the first US banker to talk with Chinese Communist leaders in Beijing.

How They Manipulate Public Opinion

In addition to these strategic “think tanks” the elite has set up a chain of research institutes devoted to manipulating public opinion in a manner the elite desires. As pointed out by John Coleman in his eye opening book The Tavistock Institute on Human Relations – Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of the United States of America, it was in 1913 that an institute was established at Wellington House, London for manipulation of public opinion. According to Coleman:
The modern science of mass manipulation was born at Wellington House London, the lusty infant being midwifed by Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothmere. The British monarchy, Lord Rothschild, and the Rockefellers were responsible for funding the venture… the purpose of those at Wellington House was to effect a change in the opinions of British people who were adamantly opposed to war with Germany, a formidable task that was accomplished by “opinion making” through polling. The staff consisted of Arnold Toynbee, a future director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Lord Northcliffe, and the Americans, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. Lord Northcliffe was related to the Rothschilds through marriage.

Bernays was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, a fact never mentioned, and developed the technique of “engineering consent.” When Sigmund Freud moved to Britain he also, secretly, became associated with this institute through the Tavistock Institute. According to Coleman, Bernays “pioneered the use of psychology and other social sciences to shape and form public opinion so that the public thought such manufactured opinions were their own.”

The Tavistock Institute has a 6 billion dollar fund and 400 subsidiary organisations are under its control along with 3,000 think tanks, mostly in the USA. The Stanford Research Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Aspen Institute of Colorado, and many others, devoted to manipulation of US as well as global public opinion, are Tavistock offshoots. This helps explain why the US public, by and large, is so mesmerised as to be unable to see things clearly and to react.

Bilderberg researcher Daniel Estulin quotes from Mary Scobey’s book To Nurture Humanness a statement attributed to Professor Raymond Houghton, that the CFR has been clear for a very long time that “absolute behaviour control is imminent… without mankind’s self realisation that a crisis is at hand.”

Also keep in mind that currently 80% of US electronic and print media is owned by only six large corporations. This development has taken place in the past two decades. These corporations are elite owned. It is almost impossible for anyone who is acquainted with what is going on at the global level to watch, even for a few minutes, the distortions, lies and fabrications, incessantly pouring out of this media, a propaganda and brainwashing organ of the elite.

Once your picture is clear it is also easy to notice the criminal silence of the media on crimes being perpetrated against humanity at the behest of the elite. How many people know that the cancer rates in Fallujah, Iraq are higher than those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the use of depleted uranium, and maybe other secret nuclear devices, by US forces? Fallujah was punished for its heroic resistance against the American forces.

The Importance of Eurasia

Why is the US in Central Asia? In order to understand this, one has to look at the writings of the stooges of the elite – Brzezinski, Kissinger, Samuel P Huntington, and their likes. It is important to note that members of these elite paid think tanks publish books as part of a strategy to give respectability to subsequent illegal, immoral and predatory actions that are to be taken at the behest of the elite. The views are not necessarily their own – they are the views of the think tanks. These stooges formulate and pronounce policies and plans at the behest of their masters, through bodies like the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, etc.

In his infinitely arrogant book The Grand Chessboard, published in 1997, Brzezinski spelled out the philosophy behind the current US military eruption. He starts by quoting the well-known views of the British geographer Sir Halford J Mackinder (1861–1947), another worker for the elite. Mackinder was a member of the ‘Coefficients Dining Club’ established by members of the Fabian Society in 1902. The continuity of the policies of the elite is indicated by the fact Brzezinski starts from Mackinder’s thesis first propounded in 1904: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: who commands the World-Island commands the world.”

Brzezinski argues that for the first time in human history a non-Eurasian power has become preeminent and it must hold sway over the Eurasian continent if it is to remain the preeminent global power: “For America the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia… Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”

It is not just the geostrategic location of this region – it is also its wealth, “both in its enterprises and beneath its soil,” that holds such attraction for the elite whose greed for money, and lust for power, remain insatiable, as if there was a sickness afflicting it.

Brzezinski writes: “But it is on the globe’s most important playing field – Eurasia – that a potential rival to America might at some point arise. This focusing on the key players and properly assessing the terrain has to be a point of departure for the formulation of American geostrategy for the long-term management of America’s Eurasian geopolitical interests.”

These lines were published in 1997. Millions of people have died in the past two decades and millions have been rendered homeless in this region but it remains a “playing” field for Brzezinski and his likes! In his book Brzezinski has drawn two very interesting maps – one of these has the caption The Global Zone of Percolating Violence (page 53) and the other (page 124) is captioned The Eurasian Balkans. The first of these encircles a region which includes the following countries: Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, all Central Asian states, Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Russia as well as India. The second one has two circles, an inner circle and a wider circle – the outer circle encloses the same countries as in the first map but the inner circle covers Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Turkey and the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia.

“This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbours, is likely to be a major battlefield…” writes Brzezinski. He further writes: “A possible challenge to American primacy from Islamic fundamentalism could be part of the problem of this unstable region.” These lines were written at a time when this kind of fundamentalism was not a problem – subsequently the US manipulated things and chose to make it one by its provocative and deceptive tactics. According to its strategic thinkers, the US might face a serious challenge from a coalition of China, Russia and Iran and must do whatever it can to prevent such a coalition from forming.

For Brzezinski, “terrorism” – a Tavistock-type concept – is just a well planned and well thought out strategy, a lie and a deception, to provide cover for a military presence in the Central Eurasian region and elsewhere. It is being used to keep the US public in a state of fear, to keep Russia in a state of insecurity about further breakup (the US has trained and supported Chechen fighters, “terrorists,” throughout) and to justify presence of US troops in and around Central Asia.

The Concocted War on Terrorism

Terrorism provides justification for transforming the United States into a police state. According to the Washington Post of 20 & 21 December 2010, the US now has 4,058 anti-terrorism organisations! These are certainly not meant for those so-called terrorists who operate in Central Asia – the number far exceeds the number of so-called terrorists in the entire world. Unbridled domestic spying by US agencies is now a fact of life and the US public, as always, has accepted this because of the collusion of media and Tavistock type institutes owned by the elite.

The US historian Howard Zinn puts it very well: “The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war against innocent people in other countries, but also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the superrich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House.” Actually the thieves control the White House and have been doing so for a very long time.

In his outstanding book Crossing the Rubicon, Michael Ruppert points out that much of the violence in the Central Asian region as well as in Pakistan, which has been encircled in two maps in Brzezinski’s book, was “initiated by the US proxies.” “Given that these maps were published a full four years before the first plane hit the World Trade Centre, they would fall in a category of evidence I learned about at LAPD [Los Angeles Police Department]. We called them ‘clues’.” This means that the eruption of US militarism after 9/11, and the event itself, were part of a pre-planned and coherent strategy of global domination in which the people of the US were also “conquered” through totalitarian legislation carried out in the wake of 9/11.

As Brzezinski puts it:
America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a popular democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being… The economic self-denial (that is, defence spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation.

Certainly post 9/11 legislation, the extraordinary expansion of agencies and surveillance of the US public is a cause of great satisfaction for the elite – the US can hardly be called a democracy now. As reported by the Washington Post, the National Security Agency intercepts over 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other communications every day and stores them. No wonder Bush called 9/11 “a great opportunity” and Rumsfeld saw it analogous to World War II to “refashion the world.”

In order to achieve the objectives of the elite, the US destroyed Yugoslavia while Russia stood by mesmerised and impotent, carried out regime changes in Central Asia, set up military bases in East Europe and Central Asia, and staged highly provocative military exercises testing Russia’s and China’s will. It set up a military base in Kyrgyzstan that has a 500 mile or so border with China. When the Chinese protested recent naval exercises with South Korea were too close to Chinese territory, a US spokesman responded: “Those determinations are made by us, and us alone… Where we exercise, when we exercise, with whom and how, with what assets and so forth are determinations that are made by the United States Navy, by the Department of Defence, by the United States government.” As journalist Rick Rozoff notes: “There is no way such confrontational, arrogant and vulgar language was not understood at its proper value in Beijing.”

The US has acquired bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Czech Republic – and set up the largest military base ever built in the region, Camp Bondsteel, in Kosovo. According to a report in the Russian Kommersant newspaper on 3 March 2011, a four-phase plan for deployment of a US missile system in Europe is to be fully implemented by the end of 2020. The US is also busy setting up bilateral military ties in Russia’s backyard with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and is pursuing the goal of a “Greater Central Asia” from Afghanistan right up to the Middle East, a great corridor from where the oil, gas, and great mineral wealth of this region will flow to the coffers of the US elite, at bloody expense to the local people.

As remarked by the Indian career diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar: “The time is not far off before they begin to sense that ‘the war on terror’ is providing a convenient rubric under which the US is incrementally securing for itself a permanent abode in the highlands of Hindu Kush, the Pamirs, Central Asian steppes and the Caucasus that form the strategic hub overlooking Russia, China, India and Iran.” The scene for a great war involving the great powers of the time – US, Russia and China – is now set, by design of the elite. It is just a matter of time.

Time and again the US elite has taken its good people into great wars through documented and proven deceptions – the sinking of the Lusitania during World War I, Pearl Harbour in World War II, and so on. The elite considers us “human garbage” – a term first used by the French in Indo-China. It is also generating a good deal of “human garbage” in the US. A World Bank report points out that in 2005, 28 million Americans were “insecure” – in 2007 the number had risen to 46 million! One in every five Americans is faced with the possibility of becoming “destitute” – 38 million people receive food coupons!

Michael Ruppert laments:
My country is dead. Its people have surrendered to tyranny and in so doing, they have become tyranny’s primary support group; its base; its defender. Every day they offer their endorsement of tyranny by banking in its banks and spending their borrowed money with the corporations that run it. The great Neocon strategy of George H.W. Bush has triumphed. Convince the America people that they can’t live without the ‘good things’, then sit back and watch as they endorse the progressively more outrageous crimes you commit as you throw them bones with ever less meat on them. All the while lock them into debt. Destroy the middle class, the only political base that need be feared. Make them accept, because of their shared guilt, ever-more repressive police state measures. Do whatever you want.

A global economic system erected on inhuman and predatory values, where a few possess more wealth than the billions of hungry put together, will end, but the end will be painful and bloody. It is a system in which the elite thrives on war and widespread human misery, on death and destruction by design. As Einstein said, “I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth – sticks and stones!”

Prof. Mujahid Kamran is Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and his book The Grand Deception – Corporate America and Perpetual War has just been published (April 2011) by Sang e Meel Publications, Lahore, Pakistan.



The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

Rothschilds & Rockefellers: Trillionaires Of The World

DOCUMENTARY – The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America

VIDEO – The Rothschilds Exposed

A New World War for a New World Order

A Rothschild Plan for World Government

An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth

The Logic of Imperial Insanity and the Road to World War III

Tavistock Institute: The Best Kept Secret in America

VIDEO – Global Mind Control Through Crisis Creation – TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE

Mind Control Theories and Techniques used by Mass Media

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Evil Spirit of 5 US Presidents – And Biggest Threat to World Peace

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order

The Project for the New American Century

DOCUMENTARY – The New American Century

“War without Borders”: Obama’s “Long War”

Be the first to like this post.


December 5, 2007 3:22 PM

Bush Likens War On Terror To WWII

(CBS/AP)  President Bush compared the fight against terrorists to the struggle against tyranny that forced World War II, telling new Air Force officers Wednesday that the United States and its allies can win the battle by bringing freedom and reform to the Middle East.”Our goal, the goal of this generation, is the same” as it was in World War II, Mr. Bush said. “We will secure our nation and defend the peace through the forward march of freedom.”The speech to the 981 Air Force Academy graduates was part of a stepped-up White House effort to shore up domestic and international support for Iraq and anti-terror policies, reports CBS News Correspondent Peter Maer.The graduates wore dress uniforms of white pants, blue tunics and gold sashes around their waists. Mr. Bush spoke in the academy’s football stadium — at more than 7,000 feet above sea level — under partly cloudy and breezy skies.He told the graduates they will be joining a war whose central front is Iraq and the broader Middle East.”Just as events in Europe determined the outcome of the Cold War,” he said, “events in the Middle East will set the course of our current struggle.””If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations,” Mr. Bush said. “If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business.”Attorney General John Ashcroft and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., an Air Force Academy graduate, were among the officials who joined the president on stage.Bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, Mr. Bush has argued, will undercut the stagnation and despair that feeds the extremist ideologies of al Qaeda and its terrorist allies.In Washington, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed a “Middle East 21st-century trust” as an alternative to Mr. Bush’s Mideast initiative. The trust would use donations from wealthy countries to make grants aimed at economic and political reform in the Mideast. Lugar said the trust would be modeled on programs like the Global Aids Fund, the G-8 Africa Action Plan and the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account.Lugar said his proposal incorporates many of the principles of Mr. Bush’s Mideast initiative but emphasizes the participation of many nations, including wealthy Mideast countries like Saudi Arabia. And, the recipient nations themselves would develop specific programs so as to bring about a “restructuring of the region from within,” Lugar said.Defending his focus, Mr. Bush said, “Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”The president’s trip to Colorado came after he voiced his support Tuesday for the interim Iraqi government taking shape before the scheduled June 30 transfer of political power from the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority. Mr. Bush praised the newly chosen prime minister, Iyad Allawi, and president, Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, as part of democracy’s vanguard in Iraq.The new Air Force officers will enter a military strained by an occupation of Iraq that has become increasingly violent in the past two months. The president and other administration officials say they expect the violence to continue, even after the caretaker government takes over in July.Plans call for elections in Iraq by January to form a fully independent Iraqi government. The U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq will remain largely in control of Iraqi security until then, and Pentagon officials say they expect to keep about 135,000 American troops in Iraq until at least the end of 2005.Mr. Bush this week is repeating his pledges to stay the course in Iraq despite the surging violence and the failure so far to neutralize anti-American fighters ranging from Sunni extremists around Baghdad to followers of a radical Shiite cleric in southern Iraq.Colorado is important to Mr. Bush for more than the Air Force Academy. He wants the nine electoral votes from a state he won four years ago, 51 percent to 42 percent for Al Gore. Republicans also want to keep the Senate seat of retiring Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

© 2007 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Congress To Vote On Declaration Of World War 3 — An Endless War With No Borders, No Clear Enemies

  Posted by – May 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm – Permalink Source via Alexander Higgins Blog

Atomic Mushroom Cloud Associated With World War 3
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (16 votes, average: 4.63 out of 5)
  • 10.7K




The United States Congress is set to vote on legislation that authorizes the official start of World War 3.

The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and persons, both domestically and abroad, who are alleged to be currently or who have in the past supported or engaged in hostilities or who have provided aid in support of hostilities against the United States or any of its coalition allies.

The legislation removes the requirement of congressional approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for an indefinite period of time.

It even gives the President the authority to launch attacks against American Citizens inside the United States with no congressional oversight whatsoever.

Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:

  • Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
  • No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
  • Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
  • No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
  • Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “know” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.

The Hill writes:

House Dems protest GOP’s plans for permanent war against terror

Nearly three dozen House Democrats are calling on Republicans to withdraw a section of the 2012 defense authorization bill that they say would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.

A Tuesday letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and 32 other Democrats argues that affirming continued war against terrorist forces goes too far, giving too much authority to the president without debate in Congress.

Their letter cites language in the authorization bill that incorporates the Detainee Security Act, which affirms continued armed conflict against terrorists overseas.

“By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations and nations ‘associated’ with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the president near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval,” Democrats wrote. “Such authority must not be ceded to the president without careful deliberation from Congress.”

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is “engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain “certain belligerents” until the armed conflict is over.

“Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security,” the bill says. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.”

The America Civil Liberties Union writes:

New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?

Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.

President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.

Coalition Memo to the House Committee on Armed Services Regarding a Proposed New Declaration of War

Comparison of 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and Proposed Expanded Authorization

The offending text (Here In The Full Text Of H.R. 1540 – section 1034) uses doublespeak to declare World War 3. Specifically, the text uses the phrase “affirms” “armed conflict” which is the terminology used by congress declare war in every war since World War 2.

Congress affirms that —

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

A joint letter regarding the proposed legislation has been sent to congress condemning the proposed legislation.



All Members of the House Committee on Armed Services


American Civil Liberties Union
Appeal for Justice
Brave New Foundation
Center for Constitutional Rights
CREDO Action
Defending Dissent Foundation
High Road for Human Rights
Human Rights First
International Justice Network
Just Foreign Policy
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Muslim Public Affairs Council
New Security Action
Pax Christi USA
Peace Action
Physicians for Human Rights
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Shalom Center
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Win Without War


May 9th, 2010


Oppose Section 1034 and Any Similar New Declaration of War or New Authorization for Use of Military Force in the National Defense Authorization Act

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose the new Declaration of War, which is in Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). We urge you to oppose the provision and any other similar new Declaration of War or new Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) in the NDAA.

While we have written separately, and met with many of you and your military legislative assistants, on our concerns with other provisions of the Chairman’s mark, we are writing on this new Declaration of War specifically because it is a provision that has received almost no review, despite its likely tremendous effect on almost every facet of United States national security policy. At minimum, Congress should hold hearings andfollow regular order before even considering such sweeping legislation.

This monumental legislation–with a large-scale and practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the President–could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries (the use of military force within the United States could be permitted), and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved. Unlike the AUMF that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new Declaration of War does not cite any specific harm, such as the 9/11 attacks, or specific threat of harm to the United States. It appears to be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects reside, regardless of whether there is any danger to the United States.

Under the guise of a “reaffirmation” of authority, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA would give the President unchecked authority–and if the section constitutes a declared “war,”1 possibly the unchecked duty2 –to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside. The proposed new Declaration of War would be without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by Congress to the President:

  • The President would be able to use this authority–or might be required to use this authority–regardless of whether there has been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States.
  • There is no geographical limitation–the new Declaration of War has no specification of countries against which military force could be used, and no specification of countries where U.S. armed forces could be deployed with or without the permission of the host country. Military force could even be used within the United States and against American citizens.
  • There is no specific objective for the new Declaration of War, which means that there is no clear criteria after which the President’s authority to use military force would expire. Although the proposed new Declaration of War lists “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces” as the “threat,” there is no definition for any of these entities, which historically have been amorphous, with shifting names, memberships, and organizational relationships.
  • If Congress broadly turns over to the President the power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare war, it very likely will never get the power back. The broad terms of the proposed new Declaration of War could last for decades.
  • Whether Congress realizes it or not, the proposed new Declaration of War would authorize the President to use the United States military against countries such as Somalia, Iran, or Yemen, or send the American military into any of the scores of countries where suspected terrorists reside, which include not only nearly all Middle East, African, and Asian countries, but also European countries and Canada–and of course, the United States itself. Under the expansive terms used for organizations in the proposed new Declaration of War, targets could include suspects having no connection to the 9/11 attacks or to any other specific harm or threat to the United States. The President would have the power to go to war almost anywhere, at any time, and based on the presence of suspects who do not have to pose any threat to the national security of the United States.
  • If Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA constitutes a declaration of war–which Congress has not declared since 1942–the declaration would trigger various exemptions from federal statutes and even broader authority for the President to control more aspects of both government and private businesses. The March 17, 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service, “Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications,” lists all of the statutory provisions, ranging from exemptions from budgetary limitations to new government claims over oil and mineral resources, that are triggered by a declaration of war.
  • Of course, if Congress believes that there is a significant new threat to the national security of the United States that requires significant military force as a response, it can declare war or enact a new AUMF, but Congress should, at minimum, follow what it did in 2002 with the AUMF for the Iraq War, where it held fifteen hearings on the proposed war and passed an AUMF that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would effectively terminate the AUMF. A specific declaration of war or a specific AUMF would better preserve the system of checks and balances and make an endless, worldwide war less likely.

To be clear, President Obama has not sought enactment of the proposed new Declaration of War. To the contrary, his Administration has made clear its position that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism. But if the proposed new Declaration of War becomes law, President Obama and all of his successors, until and unless a future Congress and future President repeal it, will have the sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere.

Of all of the powers that Article I of the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” We urge you to use this power carefully, and to oppose this wholesale turnover of war power, without any checks–and without even holding a single hearing. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff to discuss our concerns further.

1 The most critical sentence of section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA is “Congress affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad.” If “affirms” is replaced with the synonym “declares” and “armed conflict” is replaced with the synonym “war,” the result is “Congress declares that the United States is in a war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces . . . “, which is very similar to the declaration of war clauses of the eleven declarations of war made by Congress, from the War of 1812 through World War II. Since 1942, Congress has passed several authorizations for use of military force, but has not made any declarations of war.

2 Although the question of whether a declaration of war imposes a duty on the President to carry out the war has only rarely come up in court decisions, at least one federal court, in comparing the legal consequences of a declaration of war with an authorization for use of military force, stated, “If war existed why empower the President to apprehend foreign enemies? War itself placed that duty upon him as a necessary and inherent incident of military command.” Gray v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 340, 373 (1886) (emphasis added).

The bill has many other shocking elements as well, such as the requirement that all arrests related to terrorism be treated as military arrests (section 4), thus circumventing the constitution. Furthermore, legislation introduce under the McCain bill would make it illegal for military prisoners in US overseas torture prisons to be returned to US Facilities.

Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us as the Congress meddles giving the President absolute power over the military, including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States against U.S. Citizens. With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan soil many of were naïve in believing that the War on Terror would come to an end.

Instead,  the reported success of the raid is being used as a crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills up for vote before congress which literally authorize World War 3, which will be declared as an endless war with no defined enemies and no borders. Short of committing genocide the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will never come to end.

We have already learned that officials falsified reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the “prize” of oil. If a whole government of top officials can not be trusted then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.

We have seen the U.S Government turn Nazi and buy and burn every copy of a book that had evidence of a 9/11 coverup. The Department of Justice has already published a memo calling constitutionalists and survivalist as potential terrorists.

Is it not bad enough that the U.S courts have already legalized the abduction of U.S Citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in overseas prison camps? Or that the U.S Government openly admits to gunning down, kidnapping and torturing American college students?

Under the definition of the legislation, the President could authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported the “terrorists” by arguing for their civil rights.

It will not be long before they are assassinating activists. The have already labeled conspiracy theories as “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence” and have even specifically called The Intel Hub, which routinely publishes my articles, as an echo chamber pushing out these “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence”.

Uncle Sam openly admits to turning its multi-billion dollar espionage network against U.S Citizens which has produced such great fruits as innocent activists exercising their first amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and DHS.

Seriously, this is so out of control and it is only a time that the World War 3 is being fought against you and me. Just remember as long as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have them. Even then, they can declare you as a terrorist, enemy combatant or a threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights anyway. Then they can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their allegations.

All around this is rotten and the first step to getting our rights back is to end the perpetual wars.

Contact your congressman and tell them No Way To this egregious bill!

Update – Here is some corporate media coverage of this story, since some people like to see it in the mainstream media to believe it.


Critics: GOP bill a declaration of constant war

House Republicans want to reaffirm war against al-Qaida, the Taliban — and anyone else — with controversial bill

Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, R-Calif., revealed The National Defense Authorization Act on Monday, which includes a bill renewing an act passed just days after 9/11, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF gave then-President George W. Bush carte blanche to hunt down the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. The renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers and some critics have called it “the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II,” since it makes no reference to the capturing of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the section of The National Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of War.

According to POLITICO:

The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.

The argument from proponents of the Republican-backed bill is that, in the decade since AUMF was enacted, terror groups with no connection to 9/11 have come into the picture. Critics say such terror suspects should be dealt with using law enforcement and that we should not be affirming a commitment to war without specific aims or boundaries. The bill would also give the president the ability to attack an individual, group, or nation without Congressional approval.

The Daily Paul:

ALERT: Congress is About to Vote on Worldwide War Authority

The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn’t just unnecessary — it’s truly dangerous.

They have to be kidding. Congress is about to vote on worldwide war authority. This was long on the Bush administration’s wish list. Now, a few top congressional insiders see an opportunity to sneak it in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.

This expanded war authority would give the president — any president — the power to use military force, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.

It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.

ACLU Petition

Oppose New Worldwide War Authority

A few top congressional insiders are aiming to sneak new worldwide war authority in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.

This new war authority would give the president — any president — the power to unilaterally take our country to war wherever, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.

It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.

Take action! Tell your representative to oppose new worldwide war authority.


GOP seeks to redefine war on terror

A little over a week after the United States finally succeeded in its long-sought goal of killing Osama bin Laden, Congress is set to engage in a debate over whether to extend the war on terror indefinitely or leave in place legislation that could eventually wind it down.

Enacted over a lone dissenting vote just three days after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” or AUMF, authorized President George W. Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those involved in the 9/11 attacks as well as anyone who harbored the perpetrators.

The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.

But critics say the Republican-sponsored measure amounts to the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II – at a moment when counter-terrorism efforts are succeeding, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq, and about to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. And, they say, it gives Obama and any successor carte blanche to attack any individual or any nation without further approval from Congress.

The Wall Street Journal.

Defense Bill Would ‘Affirm’ War With al Qaeda

Even though Osama bin Laden is dead, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) wants to remind Washington: The war on terror ain’t over.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard McKeon (R., Calif.) (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

And with that in mind, Rep. McKeon, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, is pushing for Congress to renew the 2001 authorization to use military force against terrorists.

The chairman on Monday revealed his version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2012, and his mark of the bill includes a provision that “would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.”

Critics say provisions in the bill are tantamount to a congressional declaration of war that could give the president broad new powers over private business and government spending.

One provision seeks to bolster the Authorization for Military Force, passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which the Bush and Obama administration have used as legal authority to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan and other countries where al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up.

The American Civil Liberties Union and more than a dozen mostly left leaning groups wrote a letter to members of the House Armed Services Committee to oppose the “reaffirmation” saying that it essentially declares war and gives broad powers to the president that normally belong to Congress.



Now sign the ACLU Petition and share this post to get the word out so we can stop this before it happens.


World War III?

‘We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War, and, frankly…we don’t have the right attitude.’ — Newt Gingrich, on NBC’s Meet the Press, July 16, 2006

LUIZA CH. SAVAGE | Jul 25, 2006

In the Clinton era, Newt Gingrich was the most powerful Republican in the United States, leading his party to a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. He’s been out of office for the better part of a decade now, but he still packs a punch. The former House Speaker sits on the influential Defense Policy Board, which advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He’s even flirting with a run for president. And so it was that Gingrich was chatting with Tim Russert on Meet the Press last weekend about the escalating conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. It’s more than a squabble, he said. It’s much more ominous. In fact, it’s the next world war.

“We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War,” Gingrich declared. “And frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this.” Missile launches by North Korea, bombs in Mumbai, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq “funded largely by Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran,” terrorist plots in Britain, Miami, Toronto and New York — are all connected, in Gingrich’s view. “I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III. You’ve got to understand these dictatorships all talk to each other,” he continued. “There’s public footage from North Korean television of the Iranians visiting with Kim Jong Il the dictator, and a North Korean missile manufacturing facility. The Iranians have now unveiled a statue of Simón Bolívar in Tehran to prove their solidarity with Venezuela. I mean, these folks think on a global basis.”

For adherents of this view, calling it a world war is not just a matter of taxonomy. It implies a course of action for the United States, if not all the West. If, for example, the current fighting between Hezbollah and Israel leads to an attack on Israel by Syria or Iran, Gingrich asserted, it should be considered an attack on the United States. “I’m saying the first step has to be to understand, this is an alliance — Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas — and you can’t deal with it in isolation.”

Perhaps testing to see whether this was merely one controversialist’s off-the-cuff remark, CNN’s Larry King tried the quote out on another Republican presidential contender, Arizona Senator John McCain, who serves on the armed services committee and spent years as a POW in Vietnam. McCain said he agreed with Gingrich “to some extent. I think it’s important to recognize that we have terrorist organizations who are dangerous by themselves, and are now being supported by radical Islamic governments.”

Gingrich and McCain were only the highest profile voices in a flurry of discussion about whether a third world war is indeed underway. “This is like Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia. That’s the stage we’re at right now,” former CIA officer Robert Baer told CNN Headline News last week.(Baer was the inspiration for George Clooney’s character in the Oscar-winning film Syriana.)American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen told Fox News on July 10 that we are in World War IV(the third having been the Cold War)and that it began with the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. The world war talk proliferated to the point that the liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, began keeping a tally on their website.

But the discussion has not been confined to talk-show sabre-rattling. Serious players in the unfolding crisis have been talking this way since long before this latest round of violence in the Middle East. Speaking to The Economist magazine in 2004, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, Efraim Halevy, said of former CIA director George Tenet: “Mr. Tenet was in office for seven years and his many successes cannot be publicly revealed. But there is one achievement of which one can speak: the rare knack he had of pulling together a genuine international effort in this third world war against Islamic terror and the proliferation of WMD.”

More recently, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, told the Security Council on May 30: “Today we must sadly and emphatically state that terrorism is indeed the third world war. This is World War Three. As this is a world war, the allies should fight this axis of terror, just as 60 years ago the Allies fought the Axis.” He singled out Iran, Syria and “the terror organizations they finance, harbour, nurture and support,” accusing them of targeting “innocents wherever they are.” The Syrian diplomat, Ahmed Alhariri, countered that if it was a world war, Israel was to blame. “The constitution of UNESCO tells us that ‘wars begin in the minds of men,’ and it appears that this is what is in the mind of Israel,” he said.

Even U.S. President George W. Bush, who has emphasized diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, has himself used the phrase. In May, referring to the passenger revolt on hijacked Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, he said, “I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.”(The President was commenting on a Wall Street Journal essay by David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, and who called the act “our first successful counterattack in our homeland in this new global war — World War III.”)

While the WWIII discussion seems to have sprung up suddenly in the post-9/11 world of conflict and threat, the notion has a longer pedigree. During the Cold War, there was much worry that any number of proxy wars could escalate into a mutually destructive Armageddon between the superpowers. Some historians, in fact, consider the Cold War to have been the third world war. One of these was the senior French intelligence officer and author Count Alexandre de Marenches, who is also believed to have been first to suggest that international terrorism and rogue states were about to unleash the next world war. In 1992, he published The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism with the journalist David Andelman. It called for a “Decent People’s Club” of nations to adopt a doctrine of certain destruction of extremists and dictators. The authoritative magazine Foreign Affairs felt his “extreme views” cast doubt on his judgment while running French intelligence.

It wasn’t until after the attacks of Sept. 11, however, that the idea of a new world war began to receive serious consideration. Eliot Cohen, the director of strategic studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, declared in the Wall Street Journal, a little more than a month after the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, that the struggle against terrorism was more than a law-enforcement operation, and would require military conflict beyond the invasion of Afghanistan. Cohen, like Marenches, considered World War III to be history. “A less palatable but more accurate name is World War IV,” he wrote. “The Cold War was World War III, which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of multi-million-man armies, or conventional front lines on a map.”

Cohen was no mere ivory tower spectator. Like Gingrich, he was a member of the Defense Policy Board, and also a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group that successfully pushed for the toppling of Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq War.(Cohen, who has a son serving in Iraq, has since criticized the way the war has been carried out.)

The coming war resembles the Cold War, Cohen wrote, in that “It is, in fact, global; that it will involve a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.” The invasion of Afghanistan, he said, would be “just one front in World War IV.” The U.S. would have to continue to “target regimes that sponsor terrorism,” beginning with the invasion of Iraq.

Cohen’s use of the World War IV label was soon endorsed by James Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Clinton administration, who had urged the ouster of Saddam. He compared the war on terror to the struggle against Nazism, and warned that it would be longer than either world war that came before it. “I rather imagine it’s going to be measured, I’m afraid, in decades,” he said in a 2002 speech. He added: “I don’t believe this terror war is ever really going to go away until we change the face of the Middle East.”

Even the French leftist philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, adopted the expression to describe the war on terror, although he used it his own unique way: “There is no longer a front, no demarcation line, the enemy sits in the heart of the culture that fights it,” he told the German magazine Der Spiegel. “That is, if you like, the fourth world war: no longer between peoples, states, systems and ideologies, but, rather, of the human species against itself.”

Perhaps the most comprehensive take on the world war thesis has come from Norman Podhoretz, an influential author on the American right and former editor of Commentary magazine, on whom Bush bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honour the U.S. government can bestow on a civilian. In “World War IV: How It Started, What it Means, and Why We Have to Win,” Podhoretz traces the global conflict back to the 1970s and the beginnings of Islamic fundamentalist terror. A succession of American presidents avoided military retaliation, he argues, only emboldening their enemies. The clash between militant Islamists and the West, which had been underway for years, only became clear with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in which Americans were attacked on their own soil — “a feat neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia ever managed to pull off.”

“The great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV,” Podhoretz wrote in the September 2004 edition of Commentary. “We are only in the very early stages of what promises to be a very long war, and Iraq is only the second front to have been opened in that war: the second scene, so to speak, of the first act of a five-act play.”

Podhoretz was reprising Cohen’s theme at a time when the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq had surpassed 1,000, and public opinion polls showed that more than half of Americans considered the war to have been “not worth it.” In the face of these doldrums, Podhoretz invoked the patience and fortitude that were necessary to win past global conflicts. “In World War II and then in World War III, we persisted in spite of impatience, discouragement, and opposition for as long as it took to win,” he wrote. “And this is exactly what we have been called upon to do today in World War IV.”

He reminded Americans that the Cold War also had its moments where it looked like the other side was winning, and there were “plenty of missteps — most notably involving Vietnam — along the way to victory.”

Podhoretz also used the world war characterization to defend various tactics being used by the Bush administration. He argued that each war brought with it institutional changes on the world scene: World War II led to the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Court of Justice. The Cold War spawned NATO. Likewise, he wrote, World War IV necessitated the controversial Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, among others.

The believers in the world war view have argued that it demands everything from much greater military spending and readiness, to a commitment to “regime change” in Iran and a more confrontational stance on North Korea. In Gingrich’s view, in the nearer term, it means supporting Israel’s attacks on Lebanon until every last Hezbollalh rocket has been removed from the country.

It’s a move of some consequence to recast a fight against terrorists and rogue dictators into a global conflict. The very term “world war” conjures up a conflict that required enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure by many nations over long periods of time. It entails sweeping changes in both domestic and international priorities. It suggests that the time for extraordinary measures has arrived.

As a result of these arguments moving out of scholarly journals and think tanks and onto cable news, critics have begun to question the wisdom and motives of the world war theorists. “It’s too simplistic. I think it’s done primarily for political reasons and has no real strategic validity,” said P.J. Crowley, who served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. It’s also dangerous, he said. “Conceptualizing the war on terror as World War III potentially feeds the false perception that the West is at war with Islam, which is the way it is being perceived even though it is not the case,” said Crowley, the director of national defence and homeland security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.

At a time when America is already struggling with a two-front war, “President Bush is right to advance that we must resolve challenges like Iran and North Korea diplomatically. Number one, they do not lend themselves to military solutions, and number two, even the U.S. does not have the military capability to make this a four-front war around the world,” he said.

Critics also reject the parallels between the Cold War and the struggle against international terrorists. “There is strong U.S. support for having fought and won the Cold War. It was a long struggle, it was difficult and it was costly, but in the end the U.S. prevailed, hurray! There is a comfortable and popular narrative to tell,” said Christopher Preble, the director of foreign policy studies, at the libertarian Cato Institute. “The problem is that the frame is almost entirely wrong because the kind of threat we’re dealing with in terms of terrorism is much, much smaller than the dangers of many thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the U.S., the Soviet Union and everywhere else. It is an order of magnitude at least different,” he said.

Moreover, state sponsorship is not necessary for major terrorist attacks like those of Sept. 11, which cost only a few hundred thousand dollars, he said. “We know from the London, Madrid and Mumbai attacks that groups that have no affiliations to al-Qaeda or to a state sponsor are capable of killing a large number of civilians. But that doesn’t fit in the frame,” he said. The struggle against international terrorism is better thought of as an intelligence and law enforcement operation “that occasionally but rarely requires the traditional kind of war where you do knock off a state and engage in regime change. The case of Afghanistan is rare,” he said.

And while the conversation about World War III or IV has been going on for half a decade, critics see the latest flare-up as having to do less with recent events around the globe, and more with the impending congressional elections in November, in which Republicans will face an electorate skeptical about the war in Iraq. “I think Mr. Gingrich is perhaps recasting this so that if it’s perceived as something larger than Iraq, then the specific failures in Iraq become a detail,” said Crowley.

Indeed, the Seattle Times reported that Gingrich told the newspaper in an interview that he is “very worried” about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the “nerve” to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush’s record. The Times quotes him as saying that while Americans may be critical of the Iraq war, public opinion can change “the minute you use the language” of World War III. The message should be, “Okay, if we’re in the Third World War, which side do you think should win?” Gingrich said.

Gingrich denies that he is playing politics. “I think we need a national dialogue as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats,” he told Fox News. “But precisely in the experience of a world war, to say, what do we do as a people to defeat the terrorist alliance worldwide?”

Read Luiza Ch. Savage’s weblog, Savage Washington

To comment, email


Pakistan Collapse Could Trigger Global Great Depression and World War III

Politics / PakistanJan 16, 2010 – 08:47 PM

By: Nadeem_Walayat


Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleDuring 2009 the 2600 terrorist attacks resulted in the number of deaths soaring to more than 12,000 casualties in Pakistan, compared to the number killed in Iraq falling to 2,800 from the 2008 total of 5,900. The U.S. War in Afghanistan pushed the Taliban and Al-Qeeda over the border into Pakistan that has sparked an escalating insurgency and Pakistan’s own U.S. backed un-popular “War on Terror” which is going just as badly as that in Afghanistan, only without the deep financial pockets to embark up on an never ending war that is increasingly sapping what little strength the Pakistan Economy had out of it and now seriously risks the collapse of the state due to the stress of the conflict on the economy and society.

The world appears to be sleep walking towards a mega-crisis during 2010 and beyond resulting from that of continuing and escalating terrorist insurgency fed by U.S. policy, that is spreading like a cancer across Pakistan resulting in the disintegration of the Pakistani economy and by consequence the disintegration of many areas of the state into lawless areas despite the size of the Pakistani Army, this would result in fallout across the whole region and the wider world on a scale of several magnitudes greater than that which followed the collapse of Iraq following the 2003 invasion.

Pakistan populated by more than 170 million people could turn into a black hole that could swallow many more trillions of dollars in an escalating but ultimately unwinnable war on terror that would disrupt not only the economies of the west with hundreds of thousands more boots on the ground, but also the economies of the neighbouring states, especially India, Iran and China much as the war in Afghanistan had increasingly impacted on the Pakistani state and economy over the past few years.

Not only is Pakistan’s vast military industrial complex and arms stock piles at risk, but far more deadly than the IED’s or klashnikovs are Pakistan’s nuclear and chemical weapons that could greatly increase the risks of a series of dirty bombs emerging from within a failed state even if the nuclear weapons themselves remained secure.

Therefore the Pakistan crisis has the potential for becoming a very significant factor when determining the direction of the global economy over the coming years due to both a mega refugee crisis that would emerge from a failed state and the conflagration of conflict across the region, unless action is taken to stabilise the situation in Pakistan towards which the following could form part of:

1. First world military technology such as drone air-craft and satellite surveillance made available to the Pakistan army to enable it to fight a more precise war against the Taliban Leadership without unpopular blanket warfare across regions of the country that only results in the conflict spreading and new recruits for the insurgency.

Therefore Pakistan’s War Against Terror needs to be greatly de-escalated rather than escalated, basically a strategy of containment of the Taliban in the Pushtoon areas rather invite more Pushtoon’s to join the Taliban as a consequence of Pakistani Army actions. This would allow the rest of a more ethnically and culturally diverse Pakistan to stabilise rather than become sucked into an ever widening conflict.

2. To financially support and reform the Pakistan Government and economy into a self sustaining secular growth machine and as a far less corrupt entity than at present, much as the United States succeeded in turning the collapsed economies of Germany and Japan around following the second world war that would seek to pull Pakistan’s people out of poverty and illiteracy, especially aimed at the impoverished youth that are increasingly falling pray to the Taliban ideology of holy war.

The alternative of remaining on the present path risks the already debt saddled western worlds economies sowing the seeds of a Pakistan Collapse triggered Great Depression, much as many aspects of today’s economic and financial crisis have their roots in both Afghanistan and Iraq and with even far worse consequences for the neighbouring states of Iran, India, China and perhaps Russia as the conflict falls out of Pakistan’s borders.

However at present U.S. and Western focus is primarily focused on bombing the Taliban and Al-Qeeda from the air and enticing the Pakistani army to embark on huge military expeditions against large regions of Pakistan, therefore not learning a single lesson from either Iraq or Afghanistan that the real solution is to win hearts and minds which cannot be done through carpet bombing of towns and cities but rather through building civil society and infrastructure.

Unless action is taken now to change course then we may look back at the present in a few years time and say why did we not do something when we had the chance to prevent the Great Hyper-Inflationary Depression and resulting Global War much as the 1930’s Great Deflationary Depression ultimately resulted in the Second World War.


By Nadeem Walayat

Copyright © 2005-10 (Market Oracle Ltd). All rights reserved.

Nadeem Walayat has over 20 years experience of trading derivatives, portfolio management and analysing the financial markets, including one of few who both anticipated and Beat the 1987 Crash. Nadeem’s forward looking analysis specialises on UK inflationeconomy, interest rates and the housing market . Nadeem is the Editor of The Market Oracle, a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication. We present in-depth analysis from over 500 experienced analysts on a range of views of the probable direction of the financial markets. Thus enabling our readers to arrive at an informed opinion on future market direction.

Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any trading losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors before engaging in any trading activities.

Nadeem Walayat Archive

© 2005-2011 – The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


“Right-wing media divided: Is U.S. now in World War III, IV, or V?”.

Media Matters for America. 14 July 2006. Retrieved 28 February 2011.

“On the July 10 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said: “Some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III.” But Ledeen responded: “It’s more like World War IV because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war…Probably the start of [World War IV] was the Iranian revolution of 1979.” Similarly, on the 24 May edition of CNBC’s Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy Under-secretary of Defense Jed Babbin, said: “World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V.”


Right-wing media divided: Is U.S. now in World War III, IV, or V?

July 14, 2006 7:16 pm ET
This content requires the QuickTime Plugin. Download QuickTime Player.Already have QuickTime Player? Click here.Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV


With the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East and a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, the right-wing media have declared a new “world war” but have not agreed upon which world war the United States now faces: World War III, IV, or V.

  • World War III?

Most recently, on the July 13 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly said “World War III … I think we’re in it.” Similarly, on the July 13 edition of MSNBC’s Tucker, a graphic read: “On the verge of World War III?” As Media Matters for America has noted, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck began his program on July 12 with a discussion with former CIA officer Robert Baer by saying “we’ve got World War III to fight,” while also warning of “the impending apocalypse.” Beck and Baer had a similar discussion on July 13, in which Beck said: “I absolutely know that we need to prepare ourselves for World War III. It is here.”

  • World War IV?

On the July 10 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said “some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III.” But Ledeen responded that “it’s more like World War IV because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war.” Ledeen added that “probably the start of it [World War IV] was the Iranian revolution of 1979.” Similarly, on the May 24 edition of CNBC’s Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin, said “World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V.”

Other conservatives have previously suggested the “war on terror” as “World War IV.” In a September 2004 article, Commentary editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz noted “World War III (that is, the cold war)” and that “the great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV.” And in January 2005, hosted a symposium called “Ukraine and World War IV.”

  • World War V?

On the July 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity declared: “we are loaded up today, as the Middle East on the brink of World War V, here.” Hannity did not explain what he regarded as World Wars III and IV. But earlier in the show, Hannity suggested the current conflict is World War III, stating: “[I]s World War III breaking out in the Middle [East]? It may very well be.”

From the July 13 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Why should you care about the violence in Israel and Lebanon? That is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo.”

The answer to that question is because it affects your life. Every time stuff like this happens, the price of oil goes up and the worldwide economy totters.

It’s exactly what Iran wants. And Iran is behind the terror attacks on Israeli forces. The whole thing is part of World War III, ladies and gentlemen. Islamic fascism against the West. That global conflict, unfortunately, is here for the foreseeable future.


O’REILLY: Yeah. Last question, Mr. Cook. Military action, you know, look, here’s what Iran’s going to do. It’s going to push us as far as it can. It’s going to do as much damage to the world as it can. And then it’ll draw back, if it thinks military action is coming its way, correct?

STEVEN COOK (fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations): I think that’s precisely the case. And there won’t be much upside for the United States to take military action directly against Iran. They have too many cards that they can play against us. They have cards to play against us in Afghanistan, cards to play — continue to make our lives miserable in Iraq. And obviously as we’ve seen, they’ve continued — they’ve heated up the border between Israel and Lebanon.

O’REILLY: All right, World War III, right?

COOK: Possibly.

O’REILLY: I think we’re in it. I absolutely think we’re in it.

From the July 10 edition of Fox News’ The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: From Kim Jong Il’s missile testing to the Iranian president ranting that he’ll wipe Israel off the map, and the fight to weed terrorists out of Iraq, some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III. Here now, Michael Ledeen, a columnist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a public-policy research institute. Michael, it was a columnist in the New York Daily News today saying this is World War III, and it’s on. Do you agree with him?

LEDEEN: Well, it’s certainly on. It’s more like World War IV, because there was a Cold War, which was certainly a world war. But sure, it’s global, and it’s on.

GIBSON: Where do we count the start of it?

LEDEEN: Well, that’s always difficult to do. Probably the start of it was the Iranian revolution of 1979, when you had the first fanatical Islamic regime declare war on us, and that was explicit in the fall of 1979.

GIBSON: What would be the hallmarks of this? I mean, we know there’s a war on terror. But the proposition put forward is that if you look at all of this stuff, what the Iranians are threatening to do, what the North Koreans are threatening to do, what the Japanese are threatening to do, what we are prepared to do and have done, that there really is one large world war under way. Does that concept hold together?

LEDEEN: Yeah, I think so. I think the president had it right at the beginning, and he seems to have forgotten about it, when he said that we’re not going to distinguish between terrorist organizations and countries that support and feed and house and train and arm them. And so if you help terrorists, we’re going to treat you as if you are a terrorist yourself. Well, there are many terrorist regimes around the world right now, and we’re going to have to try to cope with them.

GIBSON: Michael, if the — there is World War IV and it’s under way, if that’s a correct assumption —

LEDEEN: It is.

GIBSON: — what should we be doing right now that we’re not doing?

LEDEEN: We should be doing what we did most effectively in World War III. The way we won World War III was not by invading and bombing primarily, it was by bringing down regimes that were palpably failures, like the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire in general. If you look at the terrorist sponsors, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and so forth, all of whom work very closely together and so forth, these are all failed regimes. Their people hate them. They’re not even feeding their people, even though some of them are drowning in oil revenues. So we should be supporting revolution in those countries against them, exactly as we did in Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union itself. It worked in World War III, I don’t see why it shouldn’t work in World War IV.

GIBSON: Well, what if you throw into the mix the obvious, that we’re not operating against states, we’re not operating against governments in all cases, but what we call terrorists?

LEDEEN: It’s exactly the same case. We are operating against states like Iran and Syria and North Korea. And in World War III, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union certainly supported terrorism around the world, as did allies of theirs like the Cubans and the Chinese and the North Koreans.

GIBSON: All right, Michael Ledeen, columnist, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Michael, thanks.

From the July 13 edition ABC Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: Welcome aboard, glad you’re with us. Well, is World War III breaking out in the Middle? It may very well be. And we’re gonna go for full, complete, comprehensive analysis that you’re not going to get in the mainstream media.


We are loaded up today, as the Middle East on the brink of World War V, here.

From the May 24 edition of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company:

KUDLOW: Now, all right. Jed Babbin is talking about some kind of World War IV, I guess. Actually, World War V. We have World War I and II and the Cold War as World War III, according to Norman Podhoretz. World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V. How likely, John? What would trigger such a thing?

From the July 12 edition of CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck:

BECK: Hey, everybody. Hurry up; we’ve got World War III to fight. Yes, it is the end of days, isn’t it?


Here’s what I do know about World War III and the impending apocalypse. One, we can’t coexist with people who want to blow up trains and subways and bring down buildings. If somebody has a death wish, not really the best negotiating partner.

I also know that whether you like it or not, this is a religious war. Radical Muslims want to wipe everybody else off the face of the earth. And let me tell you something: Hollywood, clean the ears out and listen up. You are the first in line for the gas chambers if they ever win. You’re the one who are producing a lot of the trash that’s spilling out into their cave that’s hacking them off.

Also, I know that people don’t want to believe the worst. That’s why more people aren’t on the bandwagon. People are in denial. They don’t want to think that we’re facing something horrible. They want it to go away so we can all get back to our lives.

But listen to me, it is bad. And it’s not just us. It’s the whole Western way of life that is in trouble. That’s why we need to get on that World War III bandwagon.

Now, here’s what I don’t know. I don’t know if there are enough world leaders out there that actually have a spine anymore. Where are the real leaders? Not a lot of people are leading. That’s not a real good place to be. Where’s Churchill? Where’s — where’s FDR?

You know — I know we have, I know we have George Bush. He’s doing it by himself. I mean, Tony Blair is doing good, too, but is that enough?

I also don’t know what it’s going to take to get people to wake up. My gosh, we were wide awake after 9-11. We’ve all gone back to sleep. We almost lost World War II because of apathy and denial. Please, let’s not let it happen again.


BECK: Would you agree with me that World War III — that we’re here?

BAER: Oh, we’ve already, we’ve already started it.

BECK: Yeah, well I think we’re 1938, World War II. It hasn’t, it hasn’t really hit yet where people are like, “Oh, I get it, we’ve got to fight.” Would you agree?

BAER: This is like Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia. That’s the stage we’re at right now.

BECK: Right, right. OK. Do you believe — please say yes — do you believe it can be avoided?

BAER: No, we’re going into a war. We have to brace ourself. It’s coming.

From the July 13 edition of CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck:

BECK: I absolutely know that we need to prepare ourselves for World War III. It is here.


Now for World War Three…

By | Friday, January 21, 2011 at 12:09 am | 4 Comments

The Third World War has already started, writes eco-designer J.C. Scott, and it’s all around us — in our air, our water, our land.

Ever since I could think adult thoughts, I’ve worried about war — World War. Who doesn’t? Maybe it was because my grandfather was in the army in World War One, and my father was in the air force in World War Two. As a student I studied and read history, and determined that the inevitability of conflict as part of the human condition is undeniable.

I wondered what my conflict would be: could I live in peace or would I also experience a World War? When I was introduced to the environment and the challenges facing my world, I realized that this could be the global war that my generation would face. Even then, the war did not seem very winnable, and although there has been a growing mobilization, we have lost many battles since the Silent Spring of our awareness.

Canada's Tar Sands in Fort McMurray

At least in the retelling, wars always involve good and evil, bravery and cowardice, bravado and espionage. Perhaps that is why so many stories are told. The war going on today all over our world has all of these elements and, just as in previous wars, our survival depends on winning. To win World War Three we will need bravery and every tool at our disposal against the evil that threatens the planet and our lives.

If you don’t believe me, read anything by anyone who you consider to be intelligent and who has absolutely nothing to gain from lying to you about the future of the globe. The forces of good (just as in most stories) are smaller but they have the people on their side; the forces of evil are big (they always are) and they have profit and power on their side. The brave are standing up for the environment, making personal sacrifice and acting on their beliefs.  The cowards are hiding behind screens of misinformation and controlled media.

China Water Pollution

World War Three is real. It is economic, environmental and militaristic all at the same time. Leaders of the Chinese government told Richard Nixon when they welcomed him to China in the 70s for the first time that they were doing so because they had realized decades earlier that the Third World War would be economic, and that they had put enough financial wheels into motion that they could see they had already won the global war for economic world domination. Decades later, we are seeing that victory dance unfolding as we watch from the sidelines.

Gwynne Dyer, one of the world’s leading military analysts, is now an environmental activist because he has seen how the changes already happening to the global climate are precipitating military conflicts. See his book Climate Wars or listen to his radio lectures.

Putting your head in the closet about running out of water or running out of food is going to be about as good for your survival as going to the basement would be for your actual survival in a nuclear conflict.

The fact that old rich men who don’t care at all about future generations can deny climate change, that they can own and control enough media outlets so that disinformation and doubt can soften reason and resolve, is simply a corollary of the lead-ups to the last two World Wars. Have you read or seen anything about the complacency and denial that Hitler faced? How about the same denials that preceded World War I?

The canaries in my coal mine are a male naval architect who works in the North Atlantic and a female artist who just returned from Antarctica. The naval architect has seen drastic climate change which is making him face up to our impact; the artist has seen changes to the ice and environment that some of us hear about but, because we can’t see them and no-one can profit from, we are not able to gain a clear view. For me, these people are like spies who have just returned from “the other side” with information that could save my life if I act in time and know what to do.  They are both scared of the evil we are allowing.

So if you can deny all of this and decide that I have no facts upon which to base my case — that there simply is no World War III and that you are safe under the protection of your government — simply ask yourself, “Are you willing to bet the lives and health of your kids on me being wrong?”  Do you think that the Chinese government, the one with the human rights track record you don’t want to be part of, will be the best stewards of the environment when enough of your WalMart dollars tip the global scales in their favour?

World War III is doing evil to our planet. Your weapon in this war is your wallet and how you put it to use.


World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism [Hardcover]

Norman Podhoretz (Author)

3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (73 customer reviews) | Like (0)

Available from these sellers.
38 new from $2.79 97 used from $0.01 1 collectible from $7.00


Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover $2.79 $0.01
Paperback $10.98 $3.65 $0.01

Customers Viewing This Page May Be Interested in These Sponsored Links

(What’s this?)

Looking for 4 Book? Find exactly what you want today.

See a problem with these advertisements? Let us know

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

One of the few proud neoconservatives remaining, Podhoretz offers an impassioned defense of President Bush’s foreign policy, gleefully attacking those on the left and the right who harbor suspicions that Bush fils is less than infallible. Convinced that we are in the middle of the fourth world war (the Cold War was the third), he attempts to steel us for the years of conflict to come. But Podhoretz’s argument falls flat because of his refusal to face difficult realities in Iraq. He insists that the media has resolutely tried to ignore any and all signs of progress and repeatedly asserts that those with whom he disagrees are committed to seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq in order to enhance their professional reputations. Even in describing how the events of September 11 drew America together, Podhoretz cannot resist partisan sniping: [E]ven on the old flag-burning Left, a few prominent personalities were painfully wrenching their unaccustomed arms into something vaguely resembling a salute. Podhoretz’s take-no-prisoners writing style will delight his partisans while infuriating his ideological opponents, whom he brands as members of a domestic insurgency against the Bush Doctrine. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

Podhoretz has been an intellectual combatant in the neoconservative ranks for decades, and here he engages critics of America’s current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stoutly defending President George W. Bush, Podhoretz covers every avenue of attack on Bush’s strategy of responding militarily to Islamic terrorists rather than continuing the law-enforcement approach that had been the tendency prior to 9/11. The so-called Bush Doctrine of regime change, preemptive war, and propagation of democracies in the Middle East, Podhoretz argues, is comparable to the Truman Doctrine at the start of the cold war and is strategically and morally sound in light of the aims and methods of radical Islamic terrorists. However, Podhoretz is pessimistic about the successful application of the Bush Doctrine. He asserts that a nearly unanimous anti-Bush phalanx in academia, in the Democratic Party, and in mass media has been successful in influencing public opinion toward an antiwar direction. Quoting and debating criticisms of Bush from such precincts, and from conservative corners as well, Podhoretz stands as a beleaguered but unwavering voice in the controversy over American foreign policy. Taylor, Gilbert

Product Details

    • Hardcover: 240 pages
    • Publisher: Doubleday; 1ST edition (September 11, 2007)
    • Language: English
    • ISBN-10: 0385522215
    • ISBN-13: 978-0385522212
    • Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
    • Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
    • Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (73 customer reviews)
    • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #269,039 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more. Visit Amazon’s Norman Podhoretz Page

Customer Reviews

73 Reviews
5 star:  (32)
4 star:  (16)
3 star:  (6)
2 star:  (5)
1 star:  (14)
Average Customer Review
3.6 out of 5 stars (73 customer reviews)
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

276 of 330 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A provocative thesis about the very real threat,September 11, 2007
This review is from: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Hardcover)

The thesis of this book is that the United States and the free world are now engaged in a fourth world- war, this one against radical Islam. The ‘third world war’ ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, and now according to Podhoretz the West faces another long- term struggle which will be decided not in a year or two but in the decades ahead. The point – man of this war at present is President Bush who Podhoretz sees as continually defamed and slandered by anti- American elements in the far – too- liberal for his taste Western media.
While I am fundamentally in sympathy with his approach and believe that he rightfully sees the insidious intentions of a radical revolutionary fundamentalist Islam , I have reservations about his approach. One reason for this is that when we think of War we tend to think of great military forces in direct collision. True, the United States and the Soviet Union did not come to the ultimate face off, as the Allies did against the Axis but there were two massive military and political empires in direct contention.
Here there is , as Podhoretz is well aware of, an assymetrical situation. Therefore he sees it as a new kind of war, a new kind of struggle which is especially demanding in the propaganda and media spheres. As I understand it he reads the intentions of Radical Islam rightly. Whether it be the Sunni Salafi Wahhabite strains or the Shiite Messianic strains there is an ideology whose ultimate goal is putting all of Mankind under the flag of Islam. The rise in this regard of a radical Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons is at this moment a key and most threatening development in the overall struggle.
In regard to Iran Podhoretz is most forthright and persuasive. He outlines the dangers of a nuclear Iran, and he rightly characterizes the regime as an Islamofascist one. He understands Gulf Oil, America’s allies in the Middle East would all be put in great jeopardy by a nuclear Iran. And he strongly advocates as major step in the war the preempting of the Iranian nuclear threat.
Iran also plays a part in another aspect of the Islamic threat, the element of Muslim penetration into Europe. There is by this time a whole literature suggesting that in a few decades post- Christian Europe my well be Islamic.
But there are great weaknesses in the world of Islam, including the major failure to within their own societies confront the modern world and properly adapt to it. The Islamic world is by and large a backward world not simply in its political structure but in its command of the knowledge, and technique of modernity.
So my own understanding is that in the civilizational confrontations of the future it is not really poised for mastery and conquest. Its forces are too scattered, divided, and weak. Consider the chaos in Iraq with not simply Sunnite- Shiite conflicts but with internal Shiite conflicts. To my mind the danger of radical Islam and Islam’s anti- American stand is in its power to weaken the U.S. isolate it from its allies, and generally serve as auxillary to the forces which present a greater real threat in the future, a renascent Russia, and far more importantly ,an ambitious rapidly developing China.
On the whole I believe Podhoretz rightly points to an ongoing, and increasing danger presented to the U.S. and the West by radical Islam. I believe he is right in seeing that this danger will not go away soon. And that the U.S. struggle will be a long term and global one. The historian Michael Oren in surveying two – hundred years of American involvement in the Middle East showed many of the U.S. involvement in that part of the world has been deeper and longer than we knew. It may be that the struggle of the kind Podhoretz rightly indicates the U.S. to be in will be going on in another one hundred years from now.
On the whole this is an informative and rich work which anyone who takes true interest in the present world- situation would do well to read.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

151 of 198 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Should Be Required Reading,September 17, 2007
Amazon Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Hardcover)

Outstanding analysis of the five years post 911. Podoretz places The War on Terror (or what he calls WW IV) in the context of the last sixty years of U.S. foreign policy. Drawing valid parallels between the response of the media, academia, and political leaders to WW 2, and the Cold War (or what he calls WWIII) Podhoretz has a clear vision of the dangers of the world today. He compares Bush favorably to Truman and asserts that history will prove the President to be a great president in the foreign policy arena. However, what Podhoretz fails to do is to point out explicitly the dangers of pulling out of Iraq before achieving success. Should be required reading.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

131 of 173 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars The Truth Hurts,September 18, 2007
This review is from: World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Hardcover)

Must reading for liberals and conservatives alike. In fact, every voter should be given a copy for mandatory reading. This was a concise and insightful review of the history of US foreign policy, from the post-WW II “Truman Doctrine,” which formulated the plan to fight WW III, known as the Cold War, to the Bush Doctrine, designed as a road map to fight Islamofacism in WW IV.

Hopefully, our Presidential candidates are reading similar books to avoid the grave and costly mistakes of their predecessors as detailed in this interesting, and highly readable foreign affairs book.

Some may bristle at the defense of Bush’s foreign policy initiative, including his doctrine of preemptive defense. That aside, it provides a cogent and readable explanation for its underpinnings rather than the puerile name-calling that the left is prone to engage in.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review


World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win

Norman Podhoretz — September 2004

A Note to the Reader

This past spring, when it seemed that everything that could go wrong in Iraq was going wrong, a plague of amnesia began sweeping through the country. Caught up in the particulars with which we were being assaulted 24 hours a day, we seemed to have lost sight of the context in which such details could be measured and understood and related to one another. Small things became large, large things became invisible, and hysteria filled the air.

Since then, of course, and especially after the hand over of authority on June 30 to an interim Iraqi government, matters have become more complicated. But the relentless pressure of events, and the continuing onslaught both of details and of their often tendentious or partisan interpretation, have hardly let up at all. It is for this reason that, in what follows, I have tried to step back from the daily barrage and to piece together the story of what this nation has been fighting to accomplish since September 11, 2001.

In doing this, I have drawn freely from my own past writings on the subject, and especially from three articles that appeared in these pages two or more years ago.1 In some instances, I have woven sections of these articles into a new setting; other passages I have adapted and updated.

Telling the story properly has required more than a straight narrative leading from 9/11 to the time of writing. For one thing, I have had to interrupt the narrative repeatedly in order to confront and clear away the many misconceptions, distortions, and outright falsifications that have been perpetrated. In addition, I have had to broaden the perspective so as to make it possible to see why the great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War I​V.

My hope is that telling the story from this perspective and in these ways will demonstrate that the road we have taken since 9/11 is the only safe course for us to follow. As we proceed along this course, questions will inevitably arise as to whether this or that move was necessary or right; and such questions will breed hesitations and even demands that we withdraw from the field. Some of this happened even in World War II, perhaps the most popular war the United States has ever fought, and much more of it in World War III (that is, the cold war); and now it is happening again, notably with respect to Iraq.

But as I will attempt to show, we are only in the very early stages of what promises to be a very long war, and Iraq is only the second front to have been opened in that war: the second scene, so to speak, of the first act of a five-act play. In World War II and then in World War III, we persisted in spite of impatience, discouragement, and opposition for as long as it took to win, and this is exactly what we have been called upon to do today in World War IV.

For today, no less than in those titanic conflicts, we are up against a truly malignant force in radical Islamism and in the states breeding, sheltering, or financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy has already attacked us on our own soil—a feat neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia ever managed to pull off—and openly announces his intention to hit us again, only this time with weapons of infinitely greater and deadlier power than those used on 9/11. His objective is not merely to murder as many of us as possible and to conquer our land. Like the Nazis and Communists before him, he is dedicated to the destruction of everything good for which America stands. It is this, then, that (to paraphrase George W. Bush and a long string of his predecessors, Republican and Democratic alike) we in our turn, no less than the “greatest generation” of the 1940’s and its spiritual progeny of the 1950’s and after, have a responsibility to uphold and are privileged to defend.


Out of the Blue

The attack came, both literally and metaphorically, like a bolt out of the blue. Literally, in that the hijacked planes that crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001 had been flying in a cloudless sky so blue that it seemed unreal. I happened to be on jury duty that day, in a courthouse only a half-mile from what would soon be known as Ground Zero. Some time after the planes reached their targets, we all poured into the street—just as the second tower collapsed. And this sight, as if it were not impossible to believe in itself, was made all the more incredible by the perfection of the sky stretching so beautifully over it. I felt as though I had been deposited into a scene in one of those disaster movies being filmed (as they used to say) in glorious technicolor.

But the attack came out of the blue in a metaphorical sense as well. About a year later, in November 2002, a commission would be set up to investigate how and why such a huge event could have taken us by surprise and whether it might have been prevented. Because the commission’s public hearings were not held until the middle of this year’s exceptionally poisonous presidential election campaign, they quickly degenerated into an attempt by the Democrats on the panel to demonstrate that the administration of George W. Bush had been given adequate warnings but had failed to act on them.

Reinforcing this attempt was the testimony of Richard A. Clarke, who had been in charge of the counterterrorist operation in the National Security Council under Bill Clinton and then under Bush before resigning in the aftermath of 9/11. What Clarke for all practical purposes did—both at the hearings and in his hot-off-the-press book, Against All Enemies—was to blame Bush, who had been in office for a mere eight months when the attack occurred, while exonerating Clinton, who had spent eight long years doing little of any significance in response to the series of terrorist assaults on American targets in various parts of the world that were launched on his watch.

The point I wish to stress is not that Clarke was exaggerating or lying.2 It is that the attack on 9/11 did indeed come out of the blue in the sense that no one ever took such a possibility seriously enough to figure out what to do about it. Even Clarke, who did stake a dubious claim to prescience, had to admit under questioning by one of the 9/11 commissioners that if all his recommendations had been acted upon, the attack still could not have been prevented. And in its final report, released on July 22 of this year, the commission, while digging up no fewer than ten episodes that with hindsight could be seen as missed “operational opportunities,” thought that these opportunities could not have been acted on effectively enough to frustrate the attack. Indeed not—not, that is, in the real America as it existed at the time: an America in which hobbling constraints had been placed on both the CIA and the FBI; in which a “wall of separation” had been erected to obstruct communication or cooperation between law-enforcement and national-security agents; and in which politicians and the general public alike were still unable and/or unwilling to believe that terrorism might actually represent a genuine threat.

Slightly contradicting itself, the commission said that “the 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise.” Maybe so; and yet there was no one, either in government or out, to whom they did not come as a surprise, either in general or in the particular form they took. The commission also spoke of a “failure of imagination.” Maybe so again; and yet the word “failure” seems inappropriate, implying as it does that success was possible. Surely a failure so widespread deserves to be considered inevitable.


To the New York Times, however, the failure was not at all inevitable. In a front-page editorial disguised as a “report,” the Times credited the commission’s final report with finding that “an attack described as unimaginable had in fact been imagined, repeatedly.” But not a shred of the documentary evidence cited by the Times for this categorical statement actually predicted that al Qaeda would hijack commercial airliners and crash them into buildings in New York and Washington. Moreover, all of the evidence, such as it was, came from the 1990’s. Nevertheless, the Times “report” contrived to convey the impression that in the fall of 2000 the Bush administration—then not yet in office—had received fair warning of an imminent attack. To bolster this impression, the Times went on to quote from a briefing given to Bush a month before 9/11. But the document in question was vague about details, and in any case was only one of many intelligence briefings with no special claim to credibility over conflicting assessments.

Thus the Bush administration, which had just been excoriated in hearings held by the Senate Intelligence Committee for having invaded Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, was now excoriated by some of the 9/11 commissioners for not having acted on the basis of even sketchier intelligence to head off 9/11 itself. This contradiction elicited a mordant comment from Charles Hill, a former government official who had been a regular “consumer” of intelligence:

Intelligence collection and analysis is a very imperfect business. Refusal to face this reality has produced the almost laughable contradiction of the Senate Intelligence Committee criticizing the Bush administration for acting on third-rate intelligence, even as the 9/11 commission criticizes it for not acting on third-rate intelligence.3

However, the point I most wish to stress is that there was something unwholesome, not to say unholy, about the recriminations on this issue that befouled the commission’s public hearings and some of the interim reports by the staff. It therefore came, so to speak, both as a shock and as a surprise that this same unholy spirit was almost entirely exorcised from the final report. In the end the commission agreed that no American President and no American policy could be held responsible in any degree for the aggression against the United States unleashed on 9/11.

Amen to that. For the plain truth is that the sole and entire responsibility rests with al Qaeda, along with the regimes that provided it with protection and support. Furthermore, to the extent that American passivity and inaction opened the door to 9/11, neither Democrats nor Republicans, and neither liberals nor conservatives, are in a position to derive any partisan or ideological advantage. The reason, quite simply, is that much the same methods for dealing with terrorism were employed by the administrations of both parties, stretching as far back as Richard Nixon​ in 1970 and proceeding through Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter​, Ronald Reagan (yes, Ronald Reagan), George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and right up to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush.


A “Paper Tiger”

The record speaks dismally for itself. From 1970 to 1975, during the administrations of Nixon and Ford, several American diplomats were murdered in Sudan and Lebanon while others were kidnapped. The perpetrators were all agents of one or another faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In Israel, too, many American citizens were killed by the PLO, though, except for the rockets fired at our embassy and other American facilities in Beirut by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), these attacks were not directly aimed at the United States. In any case, there were no American military reprisals.

Our diplomats, then, were for some years already being murdered with impunity by Muslim terrorists when, in 1979, with Carter now in the White House, Iranian students—with either the advance or subsequent blessing of the country’s clerical ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini—broke into the American embassy in Tehran and seized 52 Americans as hostages. For a full five months, Carter dithered. At last, steeling himself, he authorized a military rescue operation which had to be aborted after a series of mishaps that would have fit well into a Marx Brothers movie like Duck Soup if they had not been more humiliating than comic. After 444 days, and just hours after Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981, the hostages were finally released by the Iranians, evidently because they feared that the hawkish new President might actually launch a military strike against them.

Yet if they could have foreseen what was coming under Reagan, they would not have been so fearful. In April 1983, Hizbullah—an Islamic terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria—sent a suicide bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.

Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger​, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.

Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982 and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity).


These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan, who had sworn that he would never negotiate with terrorists, to make an unacknowledged deal with Iran, involving the trading of arms for hostages. But whereas the Iranians were paid off handsomely in the coin of nearly 1,500 antitank missiles (some of them sent at our request through Israel), all we got in exchange were three American hostages—not to mention the disruptive and damaging Iran-contra scandal.

In September 1984, six months after the murder of Buckley, the U.S. embassy annex near Beirut was hit by yet another truck bomb (also traced to Hizbullah). Again Reagan sat still. Or rather, after giving the green light to covert proxy retaliations by Lebanese intelligence agents, he put a stop to them when one such operation, directed against the cleric thought to be the head of Hizbullah, failed to get its main target while unintentionally killing 80 other people.

It took only another two months for Hizbullah to strike once more. In December 1984, a Kuwaiti airliner was hijacked and two American passengers employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development were murdered. The Iranians, who had stormed the plane after it landed in Tehran, promised to try the hijackers themselves, but instead allowed them to leave the country. At this point, all the Reagan administration could come up with was the offer of a $250,000 reward for information that might lead to the arrest of the hijackers. There were no takers.

The following June, Hizbullah operatives hijacked still another airliner, an American one (TWA flight 847), and then forced it to fly to Beirut, where it was held for more than two weeks. During those weeks, an American naval officer aboard the plane was shot, and his body was ignominiously hurled onto the tarmac. For this the hijackers were rewarded with the freeing of hundreds of terrorists held by Israel in exchange for the release of the other passengers. Both the United States and Israel denied that they were violating their own policy of never bargaining with terrorists, but as with the arms-for-hostages deal, and with equally good reason, no one believed them, and it was almost universally assumed that Israel had acted under pressure from Washington. Later, four of the hijackers were caught but only one wound up being tried and jailed (by Germany, not the United States).

The sickening beat went on. In October 1985, the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, was hijacked by a group under the leadership of the PLO’s Abu Abbas, working with the support of Libya. One of the hijackers threw an elderly wheelchair-bound American passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, overboard. When the hijackers attempted to escape in a plane, the United States sent Navy fighters to intercept it and force it down. Klinghoffer’s murderer was eventually apprehended and sent to prison in Italy, but the Italian authorities let Abu Abbas himself go. Washington—evidently having exhausted its repertoire of military reprisals—now confined itself to protesting the release of Abu Abbas. To no avail.

Libya’s involvement in the Achille Lauro hijacking was, though, the last free pass that country’s dictator, Muammar Qaddafi​, was destined to get from the United States under Reagan. In December 1985, five Americans were among the 20 people killed when the Rome and Vienna airports were bombed, and then in April 1986 another bomb exploded in a discotheque in West Berlin that was a hangout for American servicemen. U.S. intelligence tied Libya to both of these bombings, and the eventual outcome was an American air attack in which one of the residences of Qaddafi was hit.

In retaliation, the Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal​ executed three U.S. citizens who worked at the American University in Beirut. But Qaddafi himself—no doubt surprised and shaken by the American reprisal—went into a brief period of retirement as a sponsor of terrorism. So far as we know, it took nearly three years (until December 1988) before he could pull himself together to the point of undertaking another operation: the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which a total of 270 people lost their lives. Of the two Libyan intelligence agents who were tried for planting the bomb, one was convicted (though not until the year 2001) and the other acquitted. Qaddafi himself suffered no further punishment from American warplanes.

In January 1989, Reagan was succeeded by the elder George Bush, who, in handling the fallout from the destruction of Pan Am 103​, was content to adopt the approach to terrorism taken by all his predecessors. During the elder Bush’s four-year period in the White House, there were several attacks on Americans in Turkey by Islamic terrorist organizations, and there were others in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. None of these was as bloody as previous incidents, and none provoked any military response from the United States.


In January 1993, Bill Clinton became President. Over the span of his two terms in office, American citizens continued to be injured or killed in Israel and other countries by terrorists who were not aiming specifically at the United States. But several spectacular terrorist operations occurred on Clinton’s watch of which the U.S. was most emphatically the target.

The first, on February 26, 1993, only 38 days after his inauguration, was the explosion of a truck bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York. As compared with what would happen on September 11, 2001, this was a minor incident in which “only” six people were killed and over 1,000 injured. The six Muslim terrorists responsible were caught, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for long terms.

But in following the by-now traditional pattern of treating such attacks as common crimes, or the work of rogue groups acting on their own, the Clinton administration willfully turned a deaf ear to outside experts like Steven Emerson and even the director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey​, who strongly suspected that behind the individual culprits was a terrorist Islamic network with (at that time) its headquarters in Sudan. This network, then scarcely known to the general public, was called al Qaeda, and its leader was a former Saudi national who had fought on our side against the Soviets in Afghanistan but had since turned against us as fiercely as he had been against the Russians. His name was Osama bin Laden.

The next major episode was not long in trailing the bombing of the World Trade Center. In April 1993, less than two months after that attack, former President Bush visited Kuwait, where an attempt was made to assassinate him by—as our own investigators were able to determine—Iraqi intelligence agents. The Clinton administration spent two more months seeking approval from the UN and the “international community” to retaliate for this egregious assault on the United States. In the end, a few cruise missiles were fired into the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, where they fell harmlessly onto empty buildings in the middle of the night.

In the years immediately ahead, there were many Islamic terrorist operations (in Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, and Israel) that were not specifically aimed at the United States but in which Americans were nevertheless murdered or kidnapped. In March 1995, however, a van belonging to the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, was hit by gunfire, killing two American diplomats and injuring a third. In November of the same year, five Americans died when a car bomb exploded in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, near a building in which a U.S. military advisory group lived.


All this was trumped in June 1996 when another building in which American military personnel lived—the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia—was blasted by a truck bomb. Nineteen of our airmen were killed, and 240 other Americans on the premises were wounded.

In 1993, Clinton had been so intent on treating the World Trade Center bombing as a common crime that for some time afterward he refused even to meet with his own CIA director. Perhaps he anticipated that he would be told things by Woolsey—about terrorist networks and the states sponsoring them—that he did not wish to hear, because he had no intention of embarking on the military action that such knowledge might force upon him. Now, in the wake of the bombing of the Khobar Towers, Clinton again handed the matter over to the police; but the man in charge, his FBI director, Louis Freeh, who had intimations of an Iranian connection, could no more get through to him than Woolsey before. There were a few arrests, and the action then moved into the courts.

In June 1998, grenades were unsuccessfully hurled at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. A little later, our embassies in the capitals of Kenya (Nairobi) and Tanzania (Dar es Salaam) were not so lucky. On a single day—August 7, 1998—car bombs went off in both places, leaving more than 200 people dead, of whom twelve were Americans. Credit for this coordinated operation was claimed by al Qaeda. In what, whether fairly or not, was widely interpreted, especially abroad, as a move to distract attention from his legal troubles over the Monica Lewinsky​ affair, Clinton fired cruise missiles at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was supposed to be at that moment, and at a building in Sudan, where al Qaeda also had a base. But bin Laden escaped harm, while it remained uncertain whether the targeted factory in Sudan was actually manufacturing chemical weapons or was just a normal pharmaceutical plant.

This fiasco—so we have learned from former members of his administration—discouraged any further such action by Clinton against bin Laden, though we have also learned from various sources that he did authorize a number of covert counterterrorist operations and diplomatic initiatives leading to arrests in foreign countries. But according to Dick Morris, who was then Clinton’s political adviser:

The weekly strategy meetings at the White House throughout 1995 and 1996 featured an escalating drumbeat of advice to President Clinton​ to take decisive steps to crack down on terrorism. The polls gave these ideas a green light. But Clinton hesitated and failed to act, always finding a reason why some other concern was more important.

In the period after Morris left, more began going on behind the scenes, but most of it remained in the realm of talk or planning that went nowhere. In contrast to the flattering picture of Clinton that Richard Clarke would subsequently draw, Woolsey (who after a brief tenure resigned from the CIA out of sheer frustration) would offer a devastating retrospective summary of the President’s overall approach:

Do something to show you’re concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down field.

Bin Laden, picking up that ball on October 12, 2000, when the destroyer USS Cole had docked for refueling in Yemen, dispatched a team of suicide bombers. The bombers did not succeed in sinking the ship, but they inflicted severe damage upon it, while managing to kill seventeen American sailors and wounding another 39.

Clarke, along with a few intelligence analysts, had no doubt that the culprit was al Qaeda. But the heads neither of the CIA nor of the FBI thought the case was conclusive. Hence the United States did not so much as lift a military finger against bin Laden or the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where he was now ensconced and being protected. As for Clinton, so obsessively was he then wrapped up in a futile attempt to broker a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians that all he could see in this attack on an American warship was an effort “to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East.” The terrorists, he resoundingly vowed, would “fail utterly” in this objective.

Never mind that not the slightest indication existed that bin Laden was in the least concerned over Clinton’s negotiations with the Israelis and the Palestinians at Camp David, or even that the Palestinian issue was of primary importance to him as compared with other grievances. In any event, it was Clinton who failed, not bin Laden. The Palestinians under Yasir Arafat, spurning an unprecedentedly generous offer that had been made by the Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak with Clinton’s enthusiastic endorsement, unleashed a new round of terrorism. And bin Laden would soon succeed all too well in his actual intention of striking another brazen blow at the United States.


The sheer audacity of what bin Laden went on to do on September 11 was unquestionably a product of his contempt for American power. Our persistent refusal for so long to use that power against him and his terrorist brethren—or to do so effectively whenever we tried—reinforced his conviction that we were a nation on the way down, destined to be defeated by the resurgence of the same Islamic militancy that had once conquered and converted large parts of the world by the sword.

As bin Laden saw it, thousands or even millions of his followers and sympathizers all over the Muslim world were willing, and even eager, to die a martyr’s death in the jihad, the holy war, against the “Great Satan,” as the Ayatollah Khomeini had called us. But, in bin Laden’s view, we in the West, and especially in America, were all so afraid to die that we lacked the will even to stand up for ourselves and defend our degenerate way of life.

Bin Laden was never reticent or coy in laying out this assessment of the United States. In an interview on CNN in 1997, he declared that “the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims” when the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan. That the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan would almost certainly have failed if not for the arms supplied to them by the United States did not seem to enter into the lesson he drew from the Soviet defeat. In fact, in an interview a year earlier he had belittled the United States as compared with the Soviet Union. “The Russian soldier is more courageous and patient than the U.S. soldier,” he said then. Hence, “Our battle with the United States is easy compared with the battles in which we engaged in Afghanistan.”

Becoming still more explicit, bin Laden wrote off the Americans as cowards. Had Reagan not taken to his heels in Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983? And had not Clinton done the same a decade later when only a few American Rangers were killed in Somalia, where they had been sent to participate in a “peacekeeping” mission? Bin Laden did not boast of this as one of his victories, but a State Department dossier charged that al Qaeda had trained the terrorists who ambushed the American servicemen. (The ugly story of what happened to us in Somalia was told in the film version of Mark Bowden​’s Black Hawk Down, which reportedly became Saddam Hussein’s favorite movie.)

Bin Laden summed it all up in a third interview he gave in 1998:

After leaving Afghanistan the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.



Bin Laden was not the first enemy of a democratic regime to have been emboldened by such impressions. In the 1930’s, Adolf Hitler was convinced by the failure of the British to arm themselves against the threat he posed, as well as by the policy of appeasement they adopted toward him, that they were decadent and would never fight no matter how many countries he invaded.

Similarly with Joseph Stalin in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Encouraged by the rapid demobilization of the United States, which to him meant that we were unprepared and unwilling to resist him with military force, Stalin broke the pledges he had made at Yalta to hold free elections in the countries of Eastern Europe he had occupied at the end of the war. Instead, he consolidated his hold over those countries, and made menacing gestures toward Greece and Turkey.

After Stalin’s death, his successors repeatedly played the same game whenever they sensed a weakening of the American resolve to hold them back. Sometimes this took the form of maneuvers aimed at establishing a balance of military power in their favor. Sometimes it took the form of using local Communist parties or other proxies as their instrument. But thanks to the decline of American power following our withdrawal from Vietnam—a decline reflected in the spread during the late 1970’s of isolationist and pacifist sentiment, which was in turn reflected in severely reduced military spending—Leonid Brezhnev felt safe in sending his own troops into Afghanistan in 1979.

It was the same decline of American power, so uncannily personified by Jimmy Carter, that, less than two months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, had emboldened the Ayatollah Khomeini to seize and hold American hostages. To be sure, there were those who denied that this daring action had anything to do with Khomeini’s belief that the United States under Carter had become impotent. But this denial was impossible to sustain in the face of the contrast between the attack on our embassy in Tehran and the protection the Khomeini regime extended to the Soviet embassy there when a group of protesters tried to storm it after the invasion of Afghanistan. The radical Muslim fundamentalists ruling Iran hated Communism and the Soviet Union at least as much as they hated us—especially now that the Soviets had invaded a Muslim country. Therefore the difference in Khomeini’s treatment of the two embassies could not be explained by ideological or political factors. What could and did explain it was his fear of Soviet retaliation as against his expectation that the United States, having lost its nerve, would go to any lengths to avoid the use of force.

And so it was with Saddam Hussein. In 1990, with the first George Bush sitting in the White House, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in what was widely, and accurately, seen as a first step in a bid to seize control of the oil fields of the Middle East. The elder Bush, fortified by the determination of Margaret Thatcher​, who was then prime minister of England, declared that the invasion would not stand, and he put together a coalition that sent a great military force into the region. This alone might well have frightened Saddam Hussein into pulling out of Kuwait if not for the wave of hysteria in the United States about the tens of thousands of “body bags” that it was predicted would be flown home if we actually went to war with Iraq. Not unreasonably, Saddam concluded that, if he held firm, it was we who would blink and back down.

The fact that Saddam miscalculated, and that in the end we made good on our threat, did not overly impress Osama bin Laden. After all—dreading the casualties we would suffer if we went into Baghdad after liberating Kuwait and defeating the Iraqi army on the battlefield—we had allowed Saddam to remain in power. To bin Laden, this could only have looked like further evidence of the weakness we had shown in the ineffectual policy toward terrorism adopted by a long string of American Presidents. No wonder he was persuaded that he could strike us massively on our own soil and get away with it.

Yet just as Saddam had miscalculated in 1990-91, and would again in 2002, bin Laden misread how the Americans would react to being hit where, literally, they lived. In all likelihood he expected a collapse into despair and demoralization; what he elicited instead was an outpouring of rage and an upsurge of patriotic sentiment such as younger Americans had never witnessed except in the movies, and had most assuredly never experienced in their own hearts and souls, or, for those who enlisted in the military, on their own flesh.


In that sense, bin Laden did for this country what the Ayatollah Khomeini had done before him. In seizing the American hostages in 1979, and escaping retaliation, Khomeini inflicted a great humiliation on the United States. But at the same time, he also exposed the foolishness of Jimmy Carter’s view of the world. The foolishness did not lie in Carter’s recognition that American power—military, economic, political, and moral—had been on a steep decline at least since Vietnam. This was all too true. What was foolish was the conclusion Carter drew from it. Rather than proposing policies aimed at halting and then reversing the decline, he took the position that the cause was the play of historical forces we could do nothing to stop or even slow down. As he saw it, instead of complaining or flailing about in a vain and dangerous effort to recapture our lost place in the sun, we needed first to acknowledge, accept, and adjust to this inexorable historical development, and then to act upon it with “mature restraint.”

In one fell swoop, the Ayatollah Khomeini made nonsense of Carter’s delusionary philosophy in the eyes of very large numbers of Americans, including many who had previously entertained it. Correlatively, new heart was given to those who, rejecting the idea that American decline was inevitable, had argued that the cause was bad policies and that the decline could be turned around by returning to the better policies that had made us so powerful in the first place.

The entire episode thereby became one of the forces behind an already burgeoning determination to rebuild American power that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan, who had campaigned on the promise to do just that. For all the shortcomings of his own handling of terrorism, Reagan did in fact keep his promise to rebuild American power. And it was this that set the stage for victory in the multifaceted cold war we had been waging since 1947, when the United States under President Harry Truman (aroused by Stalin’s miscalculation) decided to resist any further advance of the Soviet empire.

Few, if any, of Truman’s contemporaries would have dreamed that this product of a Kansas City political machine, who as a reputedly run-of-the-mill U.S. Senator had spent most of his time on taxes and railroads, would rise so resolutely and so brilliantly to the threat represented by Soviet imperialism. Just so, 54 years later in 2001, another politician with a small reputation and little previous interest in foreign affairs would be confronted with a challenge perhaps even greater than the one faced by Truman; and he too astonished his own contemporaries by the way he rose to it.


Enter the Bush Doctrine

In “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” (1947), the theoretical defense he constructed of the strategy Truman adopted for fighting the war ahead, George F. Kennan (then the director of the State Department’s policy planning staff, and writing under the pseudonym “X”) described that strategy as

a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.

In other words (though Kennan himself did not use those words), we were faced with the prospect of nothing less than another world war; and (though in later years, against the plain sense of the words that he himself did use, he tried to claim that the “coun-terforce” he had in mind was not military) it would not be an entirely “cold” one, either. Before it was over, more than 100,000 Americans would die on the far-off battlefields of Korea and Vietnam, and the blood of many others allied with us in the political and ideological struggle against the Soviet Union would be spilled on those same battlefields, and in many other places as well.

For these reasons, I agree with one of our leading contemporary students of military strategy, Eliot A. Cohen, who thinks that what is generally called the “cold war” (a term, incidentally, coined by Soviet propagandists) should be given a new name. “The cold war,” Cohen writes, was actually “World War III, which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of multimillion-man armies, or conventional front lines on a map.” I also agree that the nature of the conflict in which we are now engaged can only be fully appreciated if we look upon it as World War IV. To justify giving it this name—rather than, say, the “war on terrorism”—Cohen lists “some key features” that it shares with World War III:

that it is, in fact, global; that it will involve a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.

There is one more feature that World War IV shares with World War III and that Cohen does not mention: both were declared through the enunciation of a presidential doctrine.

The Truman Doctrine of 1947 was born with the announcement that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.” Beginning with a special program of aid to Greece and Turkey, which were then threatened by Communist takeovers, the strategy was broadened within a few months by the launching of a much larger and more significant program of economic aid that came to be called the Marshall Plan. The purpose of the Marshall Plan was to hasten the reconstruction of the war-torn economies of Western Europe: not only because this was a good thing in itself, and not only because it would serve American interests, but also because it could help eliminate the grievances on which Communism fed. But then came a Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. Following as it had upon the installation by the Soviet Union of puppet regimes in the occupied countries of East Europe, the Czech coup demonstrated that economic measures would not be enough by themselves to ward off a comparable danger posed to Italy and France by huge local Communist parties entirely subservient to Moscow. Out of this realization—and out of a parallel worry about an actual Soviet invasion of Western Europe—there emerged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Containment, then, was a three-sided strategy made up of economic, political, and military components. All three would be deployed in a shifting relative balance over the four decades it took to win World War III.4

If the Truman Doctrine unfolded gradually, revealing its entire meaning only in stages, the Bush Doctrine was pretty fully enunciated in a single speech, delivered to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001. It was then clarified and elaborated in three subsequent statements: Bush’s first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002; his speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 1, 2002; and the remarks on the Middle East he delivered three weeks later, on June 24. This difference aside, his contemporaries were at least as startled as Truman’s had been, both by the substance of the new doctrine and by the transformation it bespoke in its author. For here was George W. Bush, who in foreign affairs had been a more or less passive disciple of his father, talking for all the world like a fiery follower of Ronald Reagan.

In sharp contrast to Reagan, generally considered a dangerous ideologue, the first President Bush—who had been Reagan’s Vice President and had then succeeded him in the White House—was often accused of being deficient in what he himself inelegantly dismissed as “the vision thing.” The charge was fair in that the elder Bush had no guiding sense of what role the United States might play in reshaping the post-cold-war world. A strong adherent of the “realist” perspective on world affairs, he believed that the maintenance of stability was the proper purpose of American foreign policy, and the only wise and prudential course to follow. Therefore, when Saddam Hussein upset the balance of power in the Middle East by invading Kuwait in 1991, the elder Bush went to war not to create a new configuration in the region but to restore the status quo ante. And it was precisely out of the same overriding concern for stability that, having achieved this objective by driving Saddam out of Kuwait, Bush then allowed him to remain in power.


As for the second President Bush, before 9/11 he was, to all appearances, as deficient in the “vision thing” as his father before him. If he entertained any doubts about the soundness of the “realist” approach, he showed no sign of it. Nothing he said or did gave any indication that he might be dissatisfied with the idea that his main job in foreign affairs was to keep things on an even keel. Nor was there any visible indication that he might be drawn to Ronald Reagan’s more “idealistic” ambition to change the world, especially with the “Wilsonian” aim of making it “safe for democracy” by encouraging the spread to as many other countries as possible of the liberties we Americans enjoyed.

Which is why Bush’s address of September 20, 2001 came as so great a surprise. Delivered only nine days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and officially declaring that the United States was now at war, the September 20 speech put this nation, and all others, on notice that whether or not George W. Bush had been a strictly conventional realist in the mold of his father, he was now politically born again as a passionate democratic idealist of the Reaganite stamp.

It was also this speech that marked the emergence of the Bush Doctrine, and that pointed just as clearly to World War IV as the Truman Doctrine had to War World III. Bush did not explicitly give the name World War IV to the struggle ahead, but he did characterize it as a direct successor to the two world wars that had immediately preceded it. Thus, of the “global terrorist network” that had attacked us on our own soil, he said:

We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.

As this passage, coming toward the beginning of the speech, linked the Bush Doctrine to the Truman Doctrine and to the great struggle led by Franklin D. Roosevelt before it, the wind-up section demonstrated that if the second President Bush had previously lacked “the vision thing,” his eyes were blazing with it now. “Great harm has been done to us,” he intoned toward the end. “We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment.” Then he went on to spell out the substance of that mission and that moment:

The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

Finally, in his peroration, drawing on some of the same language he had been applying to the nation as a whole, Bush shifted into the first person, pledging his own commitment to the great mission we were all charged with accomplishing:

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Not even Ronald Reagan, the “Great Communicator” himself, had ever been so eloquent in expressing the “idealistic” impetus behind his conception of the American role in the world.5

This was not the last time Bush would sound these themes. Two-and-a-half years later, at a moment when things seemed to be going badly in the war, it was with the same ideas he had originally put forward on September 20, 2001 that he sought to reassure the nation. The occasion would be a commencement address at the Air Force Academy on June 2, 2004, where he would repeatedly place the “war against terrorism” in direct succession to World War II and World War III. He would also be unusually undiplomatic in making no bones about his rejection of realism:

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.

And again, even less diplomatically:

Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

To top it all off, he would go out of his way to assert that his own policy, which he properly justified in the first place as a better way to protect American interests than the alternative favored by the realists, also bore the stamp of the Reaganite version of Wilsonian idealism:

This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan’s words that “the future belongs to the free.”


The first pillar of the Bush Doctrine, then, was built on a repudiation of moral relativism and an entirely unapologetic assertion of the need for and the possibility of moral judgment in the realm of world affairs. And just to make sure that the point he had first made on September 20, 2001 had hit home, Bush returned to it even more outspokenly and in greater detail in the State of the Union address of January 29, 2002.

Bush had won enthusiastic plaudits from many for the “moral clarity” of his September 20 speech, but he had also provoked even greater dismay and disgust among “advanced” thinkers and “sophisticated” commentators and diplomats both at home and abroad. Now he intensified and exacerbated their outrage by becoming more specific. Having spoken in September only in general terms about the enemy in World War IV, Bush proceeded in his second major wartime pronouncement to single out three such nations—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—which he described as forming an “axis of evil.”

Here again he was following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, who had denounced the Soviet Union, our principal enemy in World War III, as an “evil empire,” and who had been answered with a veritably hysterical outcry from chancelleries and campuses and editorial pages all over the world. Evil? What place did a word like that have in the lexicon of international affairs, assuming it would ever occur to an enlightened person to exhume it from the grave of obsolete concepts in any connection whatsoever? But in the eyes of the “experts,” Reagan was not an enlightened person. Instead, he was a “cowboy,” a B-movie actor, who had by some freak of democratic perversity landed in the White House. In denouncing the Soviet empire, he was accused either of signaling an intention to trigger a nuclear war or of being too stupid to understand that his wildly provocative rhetoric might do so inadvertently.

The reaction to Bush was perhaps less hysterical and more scornful than the outcry against Reagan, since this time there was no carrying-on about a nuclear war. But the air was just as thick with the old sneers and jeers. Who but an ignoramus and a simpleton—or a fanatical religious fundamentalist, of the very type on whom Bush was declaring war—would resort to archaic moral absolutes like “good” and “evil”? On the one hand, it was egregiously simple-minded to brand a whole nation as evil, and on the other, only a fool could bring himself to believe, as Bush (once more like Reagan) had evidently done in complete and ingenuous sincerity, that the United States, of all countries, represented the good. Surely only a know-nothing illiterate could be oblivious of the innumerable crimes committed by America both at home and abroad—crimes that the country’s own leading intellectuals had so richly documented in the by-now standard academic view of its history.

Here is how Gore Vidal, one of those intellectuals, stated the case:

I mean, to watch Bush doing his little war dance in Congress . . . about “evildoers” and this “axis of evil” . . . I thought, he doesn’t even know what the word axis means. Somebody just gave it to him. . . . This is about as mindless a statement as you could make. Then he comes up with about a dozen other countries that have “evil” people in them, who might commit “terrorist acts.” What is a terrorist act? Whatever he thinks is a terrorist act. And we are going to go after them. Because we are good and they are evil. And we’re “gonna git ’em.”

This was rougher and cruder than the language issuing from editorial pages and think tanks and foreign ministries and even most other intellectuals, but it was no different from what nearly all of them thought and how many of them talked in private.6


As soon became clear, however, Bush was not deterred. In subsequent statements he continued to uphold the first pillar of his new doctrine and to affirm the universality of the moral purposes animating this new war:

Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. . . . We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name.

Then, in a fascinating leap into the great theoretical debate of the post-cold-war era (though without identifying the main participants), Bush came down squarely on the side of Francis Fukuyama​’s much-misunderstood view of “the end of history,” according to which the demise of Communism had eliminated the only serious competitor to our own political system7:

The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance.

Having endorsed Fukuyama, Bush now brushed off the political scientist Samuel Huntington, whose rival theory postulated a “clash of civilizations” arising from the supposedly incompatible values prevailing in different parts of the world:

When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.


The Second Pillar

If the first of the four pillars on which the Bush Doctrine stood was a new moral attitude, the second was an equally dramatic shift in the conception of terrorism as it had come to be defined in standard academic and intellectual discourse.

Under this new understanding—confirmed over and over again by the fact that most of the terrorists about whom we were learning came from prosperous families—terrorism was no longer considered a product of economic factors. The “swamps” in which this murderous plague bred were swamps not of poverty and hunger but of political oppression. It was only by “draining” them, through a strategy of “regime change,” that we would be making ourselves safe from the threat of terrorism and simultaneously giving the peoples of “the entire Islamic world” the freedoms “they want and deserve.”

In the new understanding, furthermore, terrorists, with rare exceptions, were not individual psychotics acting on their own but agents of organizations that depended on the sponsorship of various governments. Our aim, therefore, could not be merely to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and wipe out the al Qaeda terrorists under his direct leadership. Bush vowed that we would also uproot and destroy the entire network of interconnected terrorist organizations and cells “with global reach” that existed in as many as 50 or 60 countries. No longer would we treat the members of these groups as criminals to be arrested by the police, read their Miranda rights, and brought to trial. From now on, they were to be regarded as the irregular troops of a military alliance at war with the United States, and indeed the civilized world as a whole.

Not that this analysis of terrorism had exactly been a secret. The State Department itself had a list of seven state sponsors of terrorism (all but two of which, Cuba and North Korea, were predominantly Muslim), and it regularly issued reports on terrorist incidents throughout the world. But aside from such things as the lobbing of a cruise missile or two, diplomatic and/or economic sanctions that were inconsistently and even perfunctorily enforced, and a number of covert operations, the law-enforcement approach still prevailed.

September 11 changed much—if not yet all—of that; still in use were atavistic phrases like “bringing the terrorists to justice.” But no one could any longer dream that the American answer to what had been done to us in New York and Washington would begin with an FBI investigation and end with a series of ordinary criminal trials. War had been declared on the United States, and to war we were going to go.

But against whom? Since it was certain that Osama bin Laden had masterminded September 11, and since he and the top leadership of al Qaeda were holed up in Afghanistan, the first target, and thus the first testing ground of this second pillar of the Bush Doctrine, chose itself.


Before resorting to military force, however, Bush issued an ultimatum to the extreme Islamic radicals of the Taliban who were then ruling Afghanistan. The ultimatum demanded that they turn Osama bin Laden and his people over to us and that they shut down all terrorist training camps there. By rejecting this ultimatum, the Taliban not only asked for an invasion but, under the Bush Doctrine, also asked to be overthrown. And so, on October 7, 2001, the United States—joined by Great Britain and about a dozen other countries—launched a military campaign against both al Qaeda and the regime that was providing it with “aid and safe haven.”

As compared with what would come later, there was relatively little opposition either at home or abroad to the opening of this first front of World War IV. The reason was that the Afghan campaign could easily be justified as a retaliatory strike against the terrorists who had attacked us. And while there was a good deal of murmuring about the dangers of pursuing a policy of “regime change,” there was very little sympathy in practice (outside the Muslim world, that is) for the Taliban.

Whatever opposition was mounted to the battle of Afghanistan mainly took the form of skepticism over the chances of winning it. True, such skepticism was in some quarters a mask for outright opposition to American military power in general. But once the Afghan campaign got under way, the main focus shifted to everything that seemed to be going awry on the battlefield.

For example, only a couple of weeks into the campaign, when there were missteps involving the use of the Afghan fighters of the Northern Alliance​, observers like R.W. Apple of the New York Times immediately rushed to conjure up the ghost of Vietnam. This restless spirit, having been called forth from the vasty deep, henceforth refused to be exorcised, and would go on to elbow its way into every detail of the debates over all the early battles of World War IV. On this occasion, its message was that we were falling victim to the illusion that we could rely on an incompetent local force to do the fighting on the ground while we supplied advice and air support. This strategy would inevitably fail, and would suck us into the same “quagmire” into which we had been dragged in Vietnam. After all, as Apple and others argued, the Soviet Union had suffered its own “Vietnam” in Afghanistan—and unlike us, it had not been hampered by the logistical problems of projecting power over a great distance. How could we expect to do better?


When, however, the B-52’s and the 15,000-pound “Daisy Cutter” bombs were unleashed, they temporarily banished the ghost of Vietnam and undercut the fears of some and the hopes of others that we were heading into a quagmire. Far from being good for nothing but “pounding the rubble,” as the critics had sarcastically charged, the Daisy Cutters exerted, as even a New York Times report was forced to concede, “a terrifying psychological impact as they exploded just above ground, wiping out everything for hundreds of yards.”

But the Daisy Cutters were only the half of it. As we were all to discover, our “smart-bomb” technology had advanced far beyond the stage it had reached when first introduced in 1991. In Afghanistan in 2001, such bombs—guided by “spotters” on the ground equipped with radios, laptops, and lasers, and often riding on horseback, and also aided by unmanned satellite drones and other systems in the air—were both incredibly precise in avoiding civilian casualties and absolutely lethal in destroying the enemy. It was this “new kind of American power,” added the New York Times report, that “enabled a ragtag opposition” (i.e., the same Northern Alliance supposedly dragging us into a quagmire) to rout the “battle-hardened troops” of the Taliban regime in less than three months, and with the loss of very few American troops.

In the event, Osama bin Laden was not captured and al Qaeda was not totally destroyed. But it was certainly damaged by the campaign in Afghanistan. As for the Taliban regime, it was overthrown and replaced by a government that would no longer give aid and comfort to terrorists. Moreover, while Afghanistan under the new government may not have been exactly democratic, it was infinitely less oppressive than its totalitarian predecessor. And thanks to the clearing of political ground that had been covered over by the radical Islamic extremism of the Taliban, the seeds of free institutions were being sown and given a fighting chance to sprout and grow.

The campaign in Afghanistan demonstrated in the most unmistakable terms what followed from the new understanding of terrorism that formed the second pillar of the Bush Doctrine: countries that gave safe haven to terrorists and refused to clean them out were asking the United States to do it for them, and the regimes ruling these countries were also asking to be overthrown in favor of new leaders with democratic aspirations. Of course, as circumstances permitted and prudence dictated, other instruments of power, whether economic or diplomatic, would be deployed. But Afghanistan showed that the military option was open, available for use, and lethally effective.


The Third Pillar

The third pillar on which the Bush Doctrine rested was the assertion of our right to preempt. Bush had already pretty clearly indicated on September 20, 2001 that he had no intention of waiting around to be attacked again (“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism”). But in the State of the Union speech in January 2002, he became much more explicit on this point too:

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

To those with ears to hear, the January speech should have made it abundantly clear that Bush was now proposing to go beyond the fundamentally retaliatory strike against Afghanistan and to take preemptive action. Yet at first it went largely unnoticed that this right to strike, not in retaliation for but in anticipation of an attack, was a logical extension of the general outline Bush had provided on September 20. Nor did the new position attract much attention even when it was reiterated in the plainest of words on January 29. It was not until the third in the series of major speeches elaborating the Bush Doctrine—the one delivered on June 1, 2002 at West Point to the graduating class of newly commissioned officers of the United States Army—that the message got through at last.

Perhaps the reason the preemption pillar finally became clearly visible at West Point was that, for the first time, Bush placed his new ideas in historical context:

For much of the last century, America’s defense relied on the cold-war doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence—the promise of massive retaliation against nations—means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.

This covered al Qaeda and similar groups. But Bush then proceeded to explain, in addition, why the old doctrines could not work with a regime like Saddam Hussein’s in Iraq:

Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons or missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

Refusing to flinch from the implications of this analysis, Bush repudiated the previously sacred dogmas of arms control and treaties against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a means of dealing with the dangers now facing us from Iraq and other members of the axis of evil:

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties, and then systematically break them.

Hence, Bush inexorably continued,

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. . . . [T]he war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

At this early stage, the Bush administration was still denying that it had reached any definite decision about Saddam Hussein; but everyone knew that, in promising to act, Bush was talking about him. The immediate purpose was to topple the Iraqi dictator before he had a chance to supply weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. But this was by no means the only or—surprising though it would seem in retrospect—even the decisive consideration either for Bush or his supporters (or, for that matter, his opponents).8 And in any case, the long-range strategic rationale went beyond the proximate causes of the invasion. Bush’s idea was to extend the enterprise of “draining the swamps” begun in Afghanistan and then to set the entire region on a course toward democratization. For if Afghanistan under the Taliban represented the religious face of Middle Eastern terrorism, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was its most powerful secular partner. It was to deal with this two-headed beast that a two-pronged strategy was designed.

Unlike the plan to go after Afghanistan, however, the idea of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein provoked a firestorm hardly less intense than the one that was still raging over Bush’s insistence on using the words “good” and “evil.”


Even before the debate on Iraq in particular, there had been strong objection to the whole idea of preemptive action by the United States. Some maintained that such action would be a violation of international law, while others contended that it would set a dangerous precedent under which, say, Pakistan might attack India or vice-versa. But once the discussion shifted from the Bush Doctrine in general to the question of Iraq, the objections became more specific.

Most of these were brought together in early August 2002 (only about two months after Bush’s speech at West Point) in a piece entitled “Don’t Attack Iraq.” The author was Brent Scowcroft​, who had been National Security Adviser to the elder President Bush. Scowcroft asserted, first, that there was

scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the September 11 attacks. Indeed, Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

That being the case, Scowcroft continued, “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken,” the campaign that must remain “our preeminent security priority.”

But this was not the only “priority” that to Scowcroft was “preeminent”:

Possibly the most dire consequences [of attacking Saddam] would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Showing little regard for the American “obsession,” Scowcroft was very solicitous of the regional one:

If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict . . . in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

This, added Scowcroft, “could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region,” than which, to a quintessential realist like him, nothing could be worse.

In coming out publicly, and in these terms, against the second President Bush’s policy, Scow-croft underscored the extent to which the son had diverged from the father’s perspective. In addition, by lending greater credence to the already credible rumor that the elder Bush opposed invading Iraq, Scowcroft’s article belied what would soon become one of the favorite theories of the hard Left—namely, that the son had gone to war in order to avenge the attempted assassination of his father.

On the other hand, by implicitly assenting to the notion that toppling Saddam was merely “a narrow American interest,” Scowcroft gave a certain measure of aid and comfort to the hard Left and its fellow travelers within the liberal community. For from these circles the cry had been going out that it was the corporations, especially Halliburton (which Vice President Dick Cheney​ had formerly headed) and the oil companies that were dragging us into an unnecessary war.

So, too, with Scowcroft’s emphasis on resolving “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”—a standard euphemism for putting pressure on Israel, whose “intransigence” was taken to be the major obstacle to peace. By strongly insinuating that the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was a greater threat to us than Saddam Hussein, Scowcroft provided a respectable rationale for the hostility toward Israel that had come shamelessly out of the closet within hours of the attacks of 9/11 and that had been growing more and more overt, more and more virulent, and more and more widespread ever since. To the “paleoconservative” Right, where the charge first surfaced, it was less the oil companies than Israel that was mainly dragging us into invading Iraq. Before long, the Left would add the same accusation to its own indictment, and in due course it would be imprinted more and more openly on large swatches of mainstream opinion.

A cognate count in this indictment held that the invasion of Iraq had been secretly engineered by a cabal of Jewish officials acting not in the interest of their own country but in the service of Israel, and more particularly of Ariel Sharon. At first the framers and early spreaders of this defamatory charge considered it the better part of prudence to identify the conspirators not as Jews but as “neoconservatives.” It was a clever tactic, in that Jews did in fact constitute a large proportion of the repentant liberals and leftists who, having some two or three decades earlier broken ranks with the Left and moved rightward, came to be identified as neoconservatives. Everyone in the know knew this, and for those to whom it was news, the point could easily be gotten across by singling out only those neoconservatives who had Jewish-sounding names and to ignore the many other leading members of the group whose clearly non-Jewish names might confuse the picture.


This tactic had been given a trial run by Patrick J. Buchanan in opposing the first Gulf war of 1991. Buchanan had then already denounced the Johnny-come-lately neoconservatives for having hijacked and corrupted the conservative movement, but now he descended deeper into the fever swamps by insisting that there were “only two groups beating the drums . . . for war in the Middle East—the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.” Among those standing in the “amen corner” he subsequently singled out four prominent hawks with Jewish-sounding names, counterposing them to “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” who would actually do the fighting if these Jews had their way.

Ten years later, in 2001, in the writings of Buchanan and other paleoconservatives within the journalistic fraternity (notably Robert Novak​, Arnaud de Borchgrave, and Paul Craig Roberts), one of the four hawks of 1991, Richard Perle, made a return appearance. But Perle was now joined in starring roles by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both occupying high positions in the Pentagon, and a large supporting cast of identifiably Jewish intellectuals and commentators outside the government (among them Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan). Like their predecessors in 1991, the members of the new ensemble were portrayed as agents of their bellicose counterparts in the Israeli government. But there was also a difference: the new group had managed to infiltrate the upper reaches of the American government. Having pulled this off, they had conspired to manipulate their non-Jewish bosses—Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush himself—into invading Iraq.

Before long, this theory was picked up and circulated by just about everyone in the whole world who was intent on discrediting the Bush Doctrine. And understandably so: for what could suit their purposes better than to “expose” the invasion of Iraq—and by extension the whole of World War IV—as a war started by Jews and being waged solely in the interest of Israel?

To protect themselves against the taint of anti-Semitism, purveyors of this theory sometimes disingenuously continued to pretend that when they said “neoconservative” they did not mean “Jew.” Yet the theory inescapably rested on all-too-familiar anti-Semitic canards—principally that Jews were never reliably loyal to the country in which they lived, and that they were always conspiring behind the scenes, often successfully, to manipulate the world for their own nefarious purposes.9

Quite apart from its pernicious moral and political implications, the theory was ridiculous in its own right. To begin with, it asked one to believe the unbelievable: that strong-minded people like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice could be fooled by a bunch of cunning subordinates, whether Jewish or not, into doing anything at all against their better judgment, let alone something so momentous as waging a war, let alone a war in which they could detect no clear relation to American interests.

In the second place, there was the evidence uncovered by the purveyors of this theory themselves. That evidence, to which they triumphantly pointed, consisted of published articles and statements in which the alleged conspirators openly and unambiguously advocated the very policies they now stood accused of having secretly foisted upon an unwary Bush administration. Nor had these allegedly secret conspirators ever concealed their belief that toppling Saddam Hussein and adopting a policy aimed at the democratization of the entire Middle East would be good not only for the United States and for the people of the region but also for Israel. (And what, an uncharacteristically puzzled Richard Perle asked a hostile interviewer, was wrong with that?)

Which brings us to the fourth pillar on which the Bush Doctrine was erected.


The Fourth Pillar

Listening to the laments of Scowcroft and many others, one would think that George W. Bush had been ignoring “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” altogether in his misplaced “obsession” with Iraq. In fact, however, even before 9/11 it had been widely and authoritatively reported that Bush was planning to come out publicly in favor of establishing a Palestinian state as the only path to a peaceful resolution of the conflict; and in October, after a short delay caused by 9/11, he became the first American President actually to do so. Yet at some point in the evolution of his thinking over the months that followed, Bush seems to have realized that there was something bizarre about supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state that would be run by a terrorist like Yasir Arafat and his henchmen. Why should the United States acquiesce, let alone help, in adding yet another state to those harboring and sponsoring terrorism precisely at a time when we were at war to rid the world of just such regimes?

Presumably it was under the prodding of this question that Bush came up with an idea even more novel in its way than the new conception of terrorism he had developed after 9/11. This idea was broached only three weeks after his speech at West Point, on June 24, 2002, when he issued a statement adding conditions to his endorsement of a Palestinian state:

Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.

But engaging in such a fight, he added, required the election of “new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror,” who would embark on building “entirely new political and economic institutions based on democracy, market economics, and action against terrorism.”

It was with these words that Bush brought his “vision” (as he kept calling it) of a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel into line with his overall perspective on the evil of terrorism. And having traveled that far, he went the distance by repositioning the Palestinian issue into the larger context from which Arab propaganda had ripped it. Since this move passed almost unnoticed, it is worth dwelling on why it was so important.

Even before Israel was born in 1948, the Muslim countries of the Middle East had been fighting against the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state—any Jewish state—on land they believed Allah had reserved for those faithful to his prophet Muhammad. Hence the Arab-Israeli conflict had pitted hundreds of millions of Arabs and other Muslims, in control of more than two dozen countries and vast stretches of territory, against a handful of Jews who then numbered well under three-quarters of a million and who lived on a tiny sliver of land the size of New Jersey. But then came the Six-Day war of 1967. Launched in an effort to wipe Israel off the map, it ended instead with Israel in control of the West Bank (formerly occupied by Jordan) and Gaza (which had been controlled by Egypt). This humiliating defeat, however, was eventually turned into a rhetorical and political victory by Arab propagandists, who redefined the ongoing war of the whole Muslim world against the Jewish state as, instead, a struggle merely between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Thus was Israel’s image transformed from a David to a Goliath, a move that succeeded in alienating much of the old sympathy previously enjoyed by the outnumbered and besieged Jewish state.

Bush now reversed this reversal. Not only did he reconstruct a truthful framework by telling the Palestinian people that they had been treated for decades “as pawns in the Middle East conflict.” He also insisted on being open and forthright about the nations that belonged in this larger picture and about what they had been up to:

I’ve said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombs. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment, and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah. Every nation committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.

Here, then, Bush rebuilt the context in which to understand the Middle East conflict. In the months ahead, pressured by his main European ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, and by his own Secretary of State, Colin Powell​, Bush would sometimes seem to backslide into the old way of thinking. But he would invariably recover. Nor would he ever lose sight of the “vision” by which he was guided on this issue, and through which he had simultaneously made a strong start in fitting not the Palestinian Authority alone but the entire Muslim world, “friends” no less than enemies, into his conception of the war against terrorism.

With the inconsistency thus removed and the resultant shakiness repaired by the addition of this fourth pillar to undergird it, the Bush Doctrine was now firm, coherent, and complete.


Saluting the Flag Again

Both as a theoretical construct and as a guide to policy, the new Bush Doctrine could not have been further from the “Vietnam syndrome”—that loss of self-confidence and concomitant spread of neoisolationist and pacifist sentiment throughout the American body politic, and most prominently in the elite institutions of American culture, which began during the last years of the Vietnam war. I have already pointed to a likeness between the Truman Doctrine’s declaration that World War III had started and the Bush Doctrine’s equally portentous declaration that 9/11 had plunged us into World War I V. But fully to measure the distance traveled by the Bush Doctrine, I want to look now at yet another presidential doctrine—the one developed by Richard Nixon in the late 1960’s precisely in response to the Vietnam syndrome.

Contrary to legend, our military intervention into Vietnam under John F. Kennedy in the early 1960’s had been backed by every sector of mainstream opinion, with the elite media and the professoriate leading the cheers. At the beginning, indeed, the only criticism from the mainstream concerned tactical issues. Toward the middle, however, and with Lyndon B. Johnson having succeeded Kennedy in the White House, doubts began to arise concerning the political wisdom of the intervention, and by the time Nixon had replaced Johnson, the moral character of the United States was being indicted and besmirched. Large numbers of Americans, including even many of the people who had led the intervention in the Kennedy years, were now joining the tiny minority on the Left who at the time had denounced them for stupidity and immorality, and were now saying that going into Vietnam had progressed from a folly into a crime.

To this new political reality the Nixon Doctrine​ was a reluctant accommodation. As getting into Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson had worked to undermine support for the old strategy of containment, Nixon—along with his chief adviser in foreign affairs, Henry Kissinger​—thought that our way of getting out of Vietnam could conversely work to create the new strategy that had become necessary.

First, American forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam gradually, while the South Vietnamese built up enough power to assume responsibility for the defense of their own country. The American role would then be limited to providing arms and equipment. The same policy, suitably modified according to local circumstances, would be applied to the rest of the world as well. In every major region, the United States would now depend on local surrogates rather than on its own military to deter or contain any Soviet-sponsored aggression, or any other potentially destabilizing occurrence. We would supply arms and other forms of assistance, but henceforth the deterring and the fighting would be left to others.

On every point, the new Bush Doctrine contrasted sharply with the old Nixon Doctrine. Instead of withdrawal and fallback, Bush proposed a highly ambitious forward strategy of intervention. Instead of relying on local surrogates, Bush proposed an active deployment of our own military power. Instead of deterrence and containment, Bush proposed preemption and “taking the fight to the enemy.” And instead of worrying about the stability of the region in question, Bush proposed to destabilize it through “regime change.”

The Nixon Doctrine had obviously harmonized with the Vietnam syndrome. What about the Bush Doctrine? Was the political and military strategy it put forward comparably in tune with the post-9/11 public mood?

Certainly this is how it seemed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks: so much so that a group of younger commentators were quick to proclaim the birth of an entirely new era in American history. What December 7, 1941 had done to the old isolationism, they announced, September 11, 2001 had done to the Vietnam syndrome. It was politically dead, and the cultural fallout of that war—all the damaging changes wrought by the 1960’s and the 1970’s—would now follow it into the grave.

The most obvious sign of the new era was that once again we were saluting our now ubiquitously displayed flag. This was the very flag that, not so long ago, leftist radicals had thought fit only for burning. Yet now, even on the old flag-burning Left, a few prominent personalities were painfully wrenching their unaccustomed arms into something vaguely resembling a salute.

It was a scene reminiscent of the response of some Communists to the suppression by the new Soviet regime of the sailors’ revolt that erupted in Kronstadt in the early 1920’s. Far more murderous horrors would pour out of the malignant recesses of Stalinist rule, but as the first in that long series of atrocities leading to disillusionment with the Soviet Union, Kronstadt became the portent of them all. In its way, 9/11 served as an inverse Kronstadt for a number of radical leftists of today. What it did was raise questions about what one of them was now honest enough to describe as their inveterately “negative faith in America the ugly.”

September 11 also brought to mind a poem by W.H. Auden written upon the outbreak of World War II and entitled “September 1, 1939.” Although it contained hostile sentiments about America, remnants of Auden’s own Communist period, the opening lines seemed so evocative of September 11, 2001 that they were often quoted in the early days of this new war:

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade.

Auden’s low dishonest decade was the 1930’s, and its clever hopes centered on the construction of a workers’ paradise in the Soviet Union. Our counterpart was the 1960’s, and its less clever hopes centered not on construction, however illusory, but on destruction—the destruction of the institutions that made up the American way of life. For America was conceived in that period as the great obstacle to any improvement in the lot of the wretched of the earth, not least those within its own borders.


As a “founding father” of neoconservatism who had broken ranks with the Left precisely because I was repelled by its “negative faith in America the ugly,” I naturally welcomed this new patriotic mood with open arms. In the years since making that break, I had been growing more and more impressed with the virtues of American society. I now saw that America was a country in which more liberty and more prosperity abounded than human beings had ever enjoyed in any other country or any other time. I now recognized that these blessings were also more widely shared than even the most visionary utopians had ever imagined possible. And I now understood that this was an immense achievement, entitling the United States of America to an honored place on the roster of the greatest civilizations the world had ever known.

The new patriotic mood therefore seemed to me a sign of greater intellectual sanity and moral health, and I fervently hoped that it would last. But I could not fully share the confidence of some of my younger political friends that the change was permanent—that, as they exulted, nothing in American politics and American culture would ever be the same again. As a veteran of the political and cultural wars of the 1960’s, I knew from my own scars how ephemeral such a mood might well turn out to be, and how vulnerable it was to seemingly insignificant forces.

In this connection, I was haunted by one memory in particular. It was of an evening in the year 1960, when I went to address a meeting of left-wing radicals on a subject that had then barely begun to show the whites of its eyes: the possibility of American military involvement in a faraway place called Vietnam. Accompanying me that evening was the late Marion Magid, a member of my staff at COMMENTARY, of which I had recently become the editor. As we entered the drafty old hall on Union Square in Manhattan, Marion surveyed the 50 or so people in the audience, and whispered to me: “Do you realize that every young person in this room is a tragedy to some family or other?”

The memory of this quip brought back to life some sense of how unpromising the future had then appeared to be for that bedraggled-looking assemblage. No one would have dreamed that these young people, and the generation about to descend from them politically and culturally, would within the blink of a historical eye come to be hailed as “the best informed, the most intelligent, and the most idealistic this country has ever known.” Those words, even more incredibly, would emanate from what the new movement regarded as the very belly of the beast: from, to be specific, Archibald Cox​, a professor at the Harvard Law School and later Solicitor General of the United States. Similar encomia would flow unctuously from the mouths of parents, teachers, clergymen, artists, and journalists.

More incredible yet, the ideas and attitudes of the new movement, cleaned up but essentially unchanged, would within a mere ten years turn one of our two major parties upside down and inside out. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy had famously declared that we would “pay any price, bear any burden, . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” By 1972, George McGovern, nominated for President by Kennedy’s own party, was campaigning on the slogan, “Come Home, America.” It was a slogan that to an uncanny degree reflected the ethos of the embryonic movement I had addressed in Union Square only about a decade before.


The New “Jackal Bins”

In going over this familiar ground, I am trying to make two points. One is that the nascent radical movement of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s was up against an adversary, namely, the “Establishment,” that looked unassailable. Even so—and this is my second point—to the bewilderment of almost everyone, not least the radicals themselves, they blew and they blew and they blew the house down.

Here we had a major development that slipped in under the radar of virtually all the pundits and the trend-spotters. How well I remember John Roche, a political scientist then working in the Johnson White House, being quoted by the columnist Jimmy Breslin as having derisively labeled the radicals a bunch of “Upper West Side jackal bins.” As further investigation disclosed, Roche had actually said “Jacobins,” a word so unfamiliar to his interviewer that “jackal bins” was the best Breslin could do in transcribing his notes.

Much ink has been spilled, gallons of it by me, in the struggle to explain how and why a great “Establishment” representing so wide a national consensus could have been toppled so easily and so quickly by so small and marginal a group as these “jackal bins.” In the domain of foreign affairs, of course, the usual answer is Vietnam. In this view, it was by deciding to fight an unpopular war that the Establishment rendered itself vulnerable.

The ostensible problem with this explanation, to say it again, is that at least until 1965 Vietnam was a popular war. All the major media—from the New York Times to the Washington Post, from Time to Newsweek, from CBS to ABC—supported our intervention. So did most of the professoriate. And so did the public. Even when all but one or two of the people who had either directly led us into Vietnam, or had applauded our intervention, commenced falling all over themselves to join the antiwar parade, public opinion continued supporting the war.

But it did not matter. Public opinion had ceased to count. Indeed, as the Tet offensive of 1968 revealed, reality itself had ceased to count. As all would later come to agree and some vainly struggled to insist at the time, Tet was a crushing defeat not for us but for the North Vietnamese. But Walter Cronkite had only to declare it a defeat for us from the anchor desk of the CBS Evening News, and a defeat it became.

Admittedly, in electoral politics, where numbers are decisive, public opinion remained potent. Consequently, none of the doves contending for the presidency in 1968 or 1972 could beat Richard Nixon. Yet even Nixon felt it necessary to campaign on the claim that he had a “plan” not for winning but for getting us out of Vietnam.

All of which is to say that, on Vietnam, elite opinion trumped popular opinion. Nor were the effects restricted to foreign policy. They extended into the newly antagonistic attitude toward everything America was and represented.

It hardly needs stressing that this attitude found a home in the world of the arts, the universities, and the major media of news and entertainment, where intellectuals shaped by the 1960’s, and their acolytes in the publishing houses of New York and in the studios of Hollywood, held sway. But it would be a serious mistake to suppose that the trickle-down effect of the professoriate’s attitude was confined to literature, journalism, and show business.

John Maynard Keynes once said that “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Keynes was referring specifically to businessmen. But practical functionaries like bureaucrats and administrators are subject to the same rule, though they tend to be the slaves not of economists but of historians and sociologists and philosophers and novelists who are very much alive even when their ideas have, or should have, become defunct. Nor is it necessary for the “practical men” to have studied the works in question, or even ever to have heard of their authors. All they need do is read the New York Times, or switch on their television sets, or go to the movies—and, drip by drip, a more easily assimilable form of the original material is absorbed into their heads and their nervous systems.

These, in sum, were some of the factors that made me wonder whether the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 would turn out to mark a genuine turning point comparable to the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. I was well aware that, before Pearl Harbor, several groups ranging across the political spectrum had fought against our joining the British, who had been at war with Nazi Germany since 1939. There were the isolationists, both liberal and conservative, who detected no American interest in this distant conflict; there were the right-wing radicals who thought that if we were going to go to war, it ought to be on the side of Nazi Germany against Communist Russia, not the other way around; and there were the left-wing radicals who saw the war as a struggle between two equally malign imperialistic systems in which they had no stake. Under the influence of these groups, a large majority of Americans had opposed our entry into the war right up to the moment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But from that moment on, the opposition faded away. The antiwar groups either lost most of their members or lapsed into a morose silence, and public opinion did a 180-degree turn.

At first, September 11 did seem to resemble Pearl Harbor in its galvanizing effect, while by all indications the first battle of World War IV—the battle of Afghanistan—was supported by a perhaps even larger percentage of the public than Vietnam had been at the beginning. Nevertheless, even though the opposition in 2001 was still numerically insignificant, it was much stronger than it had been in the early days of Vietnam. The reason was that it now maintained a tight grip over the institutions that, in the later stages of that war, had been surrendered bit by bit to the anti-American Left.


There was, for openers, the literary community, which could stand in for the world of the arts in general. No sooner had the Twin Towers been toppled and the Pentagon smashed than a fierce competition began for the gold in the anti-American Olympics. Susan Sontag, one of my old ex-friends on the Left, seized an early lead in this contest with a piece in which she asserted that 9/11 was an attack “undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions.” Not content with suggesting that we had brought this aggression on ourselves, she went on to compare the backing in Congress for our “robotic President” to “the unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress.”

Another of my old ex-friends, Norman Mailer​, surprisingly slow out of the starting gate, soon came up strong on the inside by comparing the Twin Towers to “two huge buck teeth,” and pronouncing the ruins at Ground Zero “more beautiful than the buildings were.” Still playing the enfant terrible even as he was closing in on his eightieth year, Mailer denounced us as “cultural oppressors and aesthetic oppressors” of the Third World. In what did this oppression consist? It consisted, he expatiated, in our establishing “enclaves of our food out there, like McDonald’s” and in putting “our high-rise buildings” around the airports of even “the meanest, scummiest, capital[s] in the world.” For these horrendous crimes we had, on 9/11, received a measure—and only a small measure at that—of our just deserts.

Then there were the universities. A report issued shortly after 9/11 by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) cited about a hundred malodorous statements wafting out of campuses all over the country that resembled Son-tag and Mailer in blaming the attacks not on the terrorists but on America. Among these were three especially choice specimens. From a professor at the University of New Mexico: “Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote.” From a professor at Rutgers: “[We] should be aware that the ultimate cause [of 9/11] is the fascism of U.S. foreign policy over the past many decades.” And from a professor at the University of Massachusetts: “[The American flag] is a symbol of terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression.”

When the ACTA report was issued, protesting wails of “McCarthyism” were heard throughout the land, especially from the professors cited. Like them, Susan Sontag, too, claimed that her freedom of speech was being placed in jeopardy. In this peculiar reading of the First Amendment, much favored by leftists in general, they were free to say anything they liked, but the right to free speech ended where criticism of what they had said began.

Actually, however, with rare exceptions, attempts to stifle dissent on the campus were largely directed at the many students and the few faculty members who supported the 9/11 war. All these attempts could be encapsulated into a single phenomenon: on a number of campuses, students or professors who displayed American flags or patriotic posters were forced to take them down. As for Susan Sontag’s freedom of speech, hardly had the ink dried on her post-9/11 piece before she became the subject of countless fawning reports and interviews in periodicals and on television programs around the world.


Speaking of television, it was soon drowning us with material presenting Islam in glowing terms. Mainly, these programs took their cue from the President and other political leaders. Out of the best of motives, and for prudential reasons as well, elected officials were striving mightily to deny that the war against terrorism was a war against Islam. Hence they never ceased heaping praises on the beauties of that religion, about which few of them knew anything.

But it was from the universities, not from the politicians, that the substantive content of these broadcasts derived, in interviews with academics, many of them Muslims themselves, whose accounts of Islam were selectively roseate. Sometimes they were even downright untruthful, especially in sanitizing the doctrine of jihad or holy war, or in misrepresenting the extent to which leading Muslim clerics all over the world had been celebrating suicide bombers—not excluding those who had crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—as heroes and martyrs.

I do not bring this up in order to enter into a theological dispute. My purpose, rather, is to offer another case study in the continued workings of the trickle-down effect I have already described. Thus, hard on the heels of 9/11, the universities began adding innumerable courses on Islam to their curricula. On the campus, “understanding Islam” inevitably translated into apologetics for it, and most of the media dutifully followed suit. The media also adopted the stance of neutrality between the terrorists and ourselves that prevailed among the relatively moderate professoriate, as when the major television networks ordered their anchors to avoid exhibiting partisanship.

Here the great exception was the Fox News Channel. The New York Times, in an article deploring the fact that Fox was covering the war from a frankly pro-American perspective, expressed relief that no other network had so cavalierly discarded the sacred conventions dictating that journalists, in the words of the president of ABC News, must “maintain their neutrality in times of war.”

Although the vast majority of those who blamed America for having been attacked were on the Left, a few voices on the Right joined this perverted chorus. Speaking on Pat Robertson’s TV program, the Reverend Jerry Falwell delivered himself of the view that God was punishing the United States for the moral decay exemplified by a variety of liberal groups among us. Both later apologized for singling out these groups, but each continued to insist that God was withdrawing His protection from America because all of us had become great sinners. And in the amen corner that quickly formed on the secular Right, commentators like Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan added that we had called the attack down on our heads not so much by our willful disobedience to divine law as by our manipulated obedience to Israel.


Oddly enough, however, within the Arab world itself, there was much less emphasis on Israel as the root cause of the attacks than was placed on it by most, if not all, of Buchanan’s fellow paleoconservatives on the Right. Even to Osama bin Laden himself, support of Israel ranked only third on a list of our “crimes” against Islam.

Not, to be sure, that Arabs everywhere—together with most non-Arab Middle Eastern Muslims like the Iranians—had given up their dream of wiping Israel off the map. To anyone who thought otherwise, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins, an American who grew up as a Muslim in Lebanon, had this to say about the Arab world’s “great refusal” to accept Israel under any conditions whatsoever:

The great refusal persists in that “Arab street” of ordinary men and women, among the intellectuals and the writers, and in the professional syndicates. . . . The force of this refusal can be seen in the press of the governments and of the oppositionists, among the secularists and the Islamists alike, in countries that have concluded diplomatic agreements with Israel and those that haven’t.

Ajami emphasized that the great refusal remained “fiercest in Egypt,” notwithstanding the peace treaty it had signed with Israel in 1978. It might have been expected, then, that the Egyptians would be eager to blame the widespread animus against the U.S. in their own country on American policy toward Israel, especially since Egypt, being second only to the Jewish state as a recipient of American aid, had a powerful incentive to explain away so ungrateful a response to the benevolent treatment it was receiving at our hands. But no. Only about two weeks before 9/11, Ab’d Al-Mun’im Murad, a columnist in Al-Akhbar, a daily newspaper sponsored by the Egyptian government, wrote:

The conflict that we call the Arab-Israeli conflict is, in truth an Arab conflict with Western, and particularly American, colonialism. The U.S. treats [the Arabs] as it treated the slaves inside the American continent. To this end, [the U.S.] is helped by the smaller enemy, and I mean Israel.

In another piece, the same writer expanded on this unusually candid acknowledgment:

The issue no longer concerns the Israeli-Arab conflict. The real issue is the Arab-American conflict—Arabs must understand that the U.S. is not “the American friend”—and its task, past, present, and future, is [to impose] hegemony on the world, primarily on the Middle East and the Arab world.

Then, in a third piece, also published in late August, Murad gave us an inkling of the reciprocal “task” he had in mind to be performed on America:

The Statue of Liberty, in New York Harbor, must be destroyed because of . . . the idiotic American policy that goes from disgrace to disgrace in the swamp of bias and blind fanaticism. . . . The age of the American collapse has begun.


If this was the kind of thing we were getting from an Arab country that everyone regarded as “moderate,” in radical states like Iraq and Iran nothing less would suffice than identifying America as the “Great Satan.” As for the Palestinians, their contempt for America was hardly exceeded by their loathing of Israel. For example, the mufti—or chief cleric—appointed by the Palestinian Authority under Yasir Arafat had prayed that God would “destroy America,” while the editor of a leading Palestinian journal proclaimed:

History does not remember the United States, but it remembers Iraq, the cradle of civilization. . . . History remembers every piece of Arab land, because it is the bosom of human civilization. On the other hand, the [American] murderers of humanity, the creators of the barbaric culture and the bloodsuckers of nations, are doomed to death and destined to shrink to a microscopic size, like Micronesia.

The absence of even a word here about Israel showed that if the Jewish state had never come into existence, the United States would still have stood as an embodiment of everything that most of these Arabs considered evil. Indeed, the hatred of Israel was in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse. Israel was seen as the spearhead of the American drive for domination over the Middle East. As such, the Jewish state was a translation of America into, as it were, Hebrew—the “little enemy,” the “little Satan.” To rid the region of it would thus be tantamount to cleansing an area belonging to Islam (dar al-Islam) of the blasphemous political, social, and cultural influences emanating from a barbaric and murderous force. But the force, so to speak, was with America, of which Israel was merely an instrument.

Although Buchanan and Novak were earlier and more outspoken in blaming 9/11 on American friendliness toward Israel, this idea was not confined to the Right or to the marginal precincts of paleoconservatism. On the contrary: while it popped up on the Right, it thoroughly pervaded the radical Left and much of the soft Left, and was even espoused by a number of liberal centrists like Mickey Kaus. For the moment, indeed, the blame-Israel-firsters were concentrated most heavily on the Left.

It was also on the Left, and above all in the universities, that their fraternal twins, the blame-America-firsters, were located. Yet Eric Foner, a professor of history at my own alma mater, Columbia, risibly claimed that the ACTA report was misleading since the polls proved that there was “firm support” for the war among college students. “If our aim is to indoctrinate students with unpatriotic beliefs,” Foner smirked, “we’re obviously doing a very poor job of it.”

True enough. But what Foner, as a historian, must have known but neglected to mention was that even at the height of the radical fevers on the campus in the 1960’s, only a minority of students sided with the antiwar radicals. Still, even though they were in the majority, the non-radical students were unable to make themselves heard above the antiwar din, and whenever they tried, they were shouted down. This is how it was, too, on the campus after 9/11. There were, here and there, brave defiers of the academic orthodoxies. But mostly, the silent majority remained silent, for fear of incurring the disapproval of their teachers, or even of being punished for the crime of “insensitivity.”


Such, then, was the assault that began to be mounted within hours of 9/11 by the guerrillas-with-tenure in the universities, along with their spiritual and political disciples scattered throughout other quarters of our culture. Could this “tiny handful of aging Rip van Winkles,” as they were breezily brushed off by one commentator, grow into a force as powerful as the “jackal bins” of yesteryear? Was the upsurge of confidence in America, and American virtue, that spontaneously materialized on 9/11 strong enough to withstand them this time around?

Some who shared my apprehensions believed that if things went well on the military front, all would be well on the home front, too. And that is how it appeared from the effect wrought by the spectacular success of the Afghanistan campaign, which disposed of the “quagmire” theory and also dampened antiwar activity on at least a number of campuses. Nevertheless, the mopping-up operation in Afghanistan created an opportunity for more subtle forms of opposition to gain traction. There were complaints that the terrorists captured in Afghanistan and then sent to a special facility in Guantanamo were not being treated as regular prisoners of war. And there were also allegations of the threat to civil liberties posed in America itself by measures like the Patriot Act, which had been designed to ward off any further terrorist attacks at home. Although these concerns were mostly based on misreadings of the Geneva Convention and of the Patriot Act itself, some people no doubt raised them in good faith. But there is also no doubt that such issues could—and did—serve as a respectable cover for wholesale opposition to the entire war.

Another respectable cover was the charge that Bush was following a policy of “unilateralism.” The alarm over this supposedly unheard-of outrage was first sounded by the chancelleries and chattering classes of Western Europe when Bush stated that, in taking the fight to the terrorists and their sponsors, we would prefer to do so with allies and with the blessing of the UN, but if necessary we would go it alone and without an imprimatur from the Security Council.

This was too much for the Europeans. Having duly offered us their condolences over 9/11, they could barely let a decent interval pass before going back into the ancient family business of showing how vastly superior in wisdom and finesse they were to the Americans, whose primitive character was once again on display in the “simplistic” ideas and crude moralizing of George W. Bush. Now they urged that our military operations end with Afghanistan, and that we leave the rest to diplomacy in deferential consultation with the great masters of that recondite art in Paris and Brussels.

Taking their cue from these masters, the New York Times, along with many other publications ranging from the Center to the hard Left—and soon to be seconded by all the Democratic candidates in the presidential primaries, except for Senator Joseph Lieberman—began hitting Bush for recklessness and overreaching. What we saw developing here was a broader coalition than the antiwar movement spawned by Vietnam had managed to put together, especially in its first few years. The antiwar movement then had been made up almost entirely of leftists and liberals, whereas this new movement was bringing together the whole of the hard Left, elements of the soft Left, and sectors of the American Right.

Treading the path previously marked out by his colleague Mickey Kaus on the issue of Israel, Michael Kinsley​ of the soft Left allied himself with Pat Buchanan in bringing forth yet another respectable cover. This was to indict the President for evading the Constitution by proposing to fight undeclared wars. Meanwhile, the same charge was moving into the political mainstream through Democratic Senators like Robert Byrd, Edward M. Kennedy, and Tom Daschle, though they also continued carrying on about quagmires and slippery slopes and “unilateralism.”

I for one was certain that, as the military facet of World War IV widened—with Iraq clearly being the next most likely front—opposition would not only grow but would acquire enough assurance to dispense with any respectable covers. Which was to say that it would be taken over by extremists and radicalized. About this I turned out to be correct, while those who scoffed at the “jackal bins” and the “aging Rip Van Winkles” as a politically insignificant bunch turned out to be wrong. But I never imagined that the new antiwar movement would so rapidly arrive at the stage of virulence it had taken years for its ancestors of the Vietnam era to reach.


Varieties of Anti-Americanism

A possible explanation of the great velocity achieved by the new antiwar movement was that, like the respectable critique immediately preceding it, the radical opposition was following the lead of European opinion. In this instance, encouragement and reinforcement came from the almost incredible degree of hostility to America that erupted in the wake of 9/11 all over the European continent, and most blatantly in France and Germany, and that gathered even more steam in the run-up to the battle of Iraq. If demonstrations and public-opinion polls could be believed, huge numbers of Europeans loathed the United States so deeply that they were unwilling to side with it even against one of the most tyrannical and murderous despots on earth.

That this was the feeling in the Muslim world did not come as a surprise. Unlike in Europe, where the attacks of 9/11 did elicit a passing moment of sympathy for the United States (“We Are All Americans Now,” proclaimed a headline the next day in the leading leftist daily in Paris), in the realm of Islam the news of 9/11 brought dancing in the streets and screams of jubilation. Almost to a man, Muslim clerics in their sermons assured the faithful that in striking a blow against the “Great Satan,” Osama bin Laden had acted as a jihadist, or holy warrior, in strict accordance with the will of God.

This could have been predicted from a debate on the topic “Bin Laden—The Arab Despair and American Fear” that was televised on the Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera about two months before 9/11. Using “American Fear” in the title was a bit premature, since this was a time when very few Americans were frightened by Islamic terrorism, for the simple reason that scarcely any had ever heard of bin Laden or al Qaeda. Be that as it may, at the conclusion of the program, the host said to the lone guest who had been denouncing bin Laden as a terrorist: “I am looking at the viewers’ reactions for one that would support your positions—but . . . I can’t find any.” He then cited “an opinion poll in a Kuwaiti paper which showed that 69 percent of Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians think bin Laden is an Arab hero and an Islamic jihad warrior.” And on the basis of the station’s own poll, he also estimated that among all Arabs “from the Gulf to the Ocean,” the proportion sharing this view of bin Laden was “maybe even 99 percent.”

Surely, then, the chairman of the Syrian Arab Writers Associations was speaking for hordes of his “brothers” in declaring shortly after 9/11 that

When the twin towers collapsed . . . I felt deep within me like someone delivered from the grave; I [felt] that I was being carried in the air above the corpse of the mythological symbol of arrogant American imperialist power. . . . My lungs filled with air, and I breathed in relief, as I had never breathed before.

If this was how the Arab/Muslim world largely felt about 9/11, what could have been expected from that world when the United States picked itself up off the ground—Ground Zero, to be exact—and began fighting back? What could have been expected is precisely what happened: another furious outburst of anti-Americanism. Only this time the outbursts were infused not by jubilation but by the desperate hope that the United States would somehow be humiliated. This hope was soon extinguished by the quick defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but it was immediately rekindled by the way Saddam Hussein was standing up against America. Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iran, and countless Arabs in his own country and Kuwait. Obviously, however, to his Arab and Muslim “brothers” this was completely canceled out by his defiance of the United States.

Was there, perhaps, an element of the same twisted sentiment in the willingness of millions upon millions of Europeans to lend de-facto aid and comfort to this monster? Of course, the claim was that most such people were neither pro-Saddam nor anti-American: all they wanted was to “give peace a chance.” But this claim was belied by the slogans, the body language, the speeches, and the manifestos of the “peace” party. Though hatred of America may not have been universal among opponents of American military action, it was obviously very widespread and very deep. And though other considerations (pacifist sentiment, concern about civilian casualties, contempt for George Bush, faith in the UN, etc.) were at work, these factors had no trouble coexisting harmoniously with extreme hostility to the United States.

Thus, within two months of 9/11, a survey of influential people in 23 countries was undertaken by the Pew Research Center, the Princeton Survey Research Associates, and the International Herald Tribune. Here is how a British newspaper summarized the findings:

Did America somehow ask for the terrorist outrages in New York and Washington? . . . [M]ost people of influence in the rest of the world . . . believe that, to a certain extent, the U.S. was asking for it. . . . From its closest allies, in Europe, to the Middle East, Russia, and Asia, a uniform 70 percent said people considered it good that after September 11 Americans had realized what it was to be vulnerable.

It would therefore seem that the Italian playwright Dario Fo, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1997, was more representative of European opinion than he may at first have appeared when spewing out the following sentiment:

The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty—so what is 20,000 [sic] dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger, and inhumane exploitation.

In France, a leading philosopher and social theorist, Jean Baudrillard, produced a somewhat different type of apologia for the terrorists of 9/11 and their ilk. This was so laden with postmodern jargon and so convoluted that it bordered on parody (“The collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center is unimaginable, but this does not suffice to make it a real event”). But Baudrillard’s piece did at least contain a revealing confession:

That we have dreamed of this event, that everyone without exception has dreamed of it, . . . is unacceptable for the Western moral conscience, but it is still a fact. . . . Ultimately, they [al Qaeda] did it, but we willed it.


Much the same idea, in even more straightforward terms, was espoused across the Channel by Mary Beard, a teacher of classics at my other alma mater, Cambridge University, who wrote: “[H]owever tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. . . . World bullies . . . will in the end pay the price.” With this the highly regarded novelist Martin Amis​ agreed. But Beard’s old-fashioned English plainness evidently being a little too plain for him, Amis resorted to a bit of fancy continental footwork in formulating his own endorsement of the idea that America had been asking for it:

Terrorism is political communication by other means. The message of September 11 ran as follows: America, it is time you learned how implacably you are hated. . . . Various national characteristics—self-reliance, a fiercer patriotism than any in Western Europe, an assiduous geographical incuriosity—have created a deficit of empathy for the sufferings of people far away.

What on earth was going on here? After 9/11, most Americans had gradually come to recognize that we were hated by the terrorists who had attacked us and their Muslim cheerleaders not for our failings and sins but precisely for our virtues as a free and prosperous country. But why should we be hated by hordes of people living in other free and prosperous countries? In their case, presumably, it must be for our sins. And yet most of us knew for certain that, whatever sins we might have committed, they were not the ones of which the Europeans kept accusing us.

To wit: far from being a nation of overbearing bullies, we were humbly begging for the support of tiny countries we could easily have pushed around. Far from being “unilateralists,” we were busy soliciting the gratuitous permission and the dubious blessing of the Security Council before taking military action against Saddam Hussein. Far from “rushing into war,” we were spending months dancing a diplomatic gavotte in the vain hope of enlisting the help of France, Germany, and Russia. And so on, and so on, down to the last detail in the catalogue.


What, then, was going on? An answer to this puzzling question that would eventually gain perhaps the widest circulation came from Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment. In a catchy formulation that soon became famous, Kagan proposed that Americans were from Mars and Europeans were from Venus. Expanding on this formulation, he wrote:

On the all-important question of power—the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power—American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.” The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.

In developing his theory, Kagan got many things right and cast a salubrious light into many dark corners. But it also seemed to me that he was putting the shoes of his theory on the wrong feet. Although I fully accepted Kagan’s description of the divergent attitudes toward military power, I did not agree that the Europeans were already living in the future while the United States remained “mired” in the past. In my judgment, the opposite was closer to the truth.

The “post-historical paradise” into which the Europeans were supposedly moving struck me as nothing more than the web of international institutions that had been created at the end of World War II under the leadership of the United States in the hope that they would foster peace and prosperity. These included the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Court, and others. Then after 1947, and again under the leadership of the United States, adaptations were made to the already existing institutions and new ones like NATO were added to fit the needs of World War III. With the victorious conclusion of World War III in 1989-90, the old international order became obsolete, and new arrangements tailored to a new era would have to be forged. But more than a decade elapsed before 9/11 finally made the contours of the “post-cold-war era” clear enough for these new arrangements to begin being developed.

Looked at from this angle, the Bush Doctrine revealed itself as an extremely bold effort to break out of the institutional framework and the strategy constructed to fight the last war. But it was more: it also drew up a blueprint for a new structure and a new strategy to fight a different breed of enemy in a war that was just starting and that showed signs of stretching out into the future as far as the eye could see. Facing the realities of what now confronted us, Bush had come to the conclusion that few if any of the old instrumentalities were capable of defeating this new breed of enemy, and that the strategies of the past were equally helpless before this enemy’s way of waging war. To move into the future meant to substitute preemption for deterrence, and to rely on American military might rather than the “soft power” represented by the UN and the other relics of World War III. Indeed, not even the hard power of NATO—which had specifically been restricted by design to the European continent and whose deployment in other places could, and would be, obstructed by the French—was of much use in the world of the future.

Examined from this same angle, the European justifications for resisting the Bush Doctrine—the complaints about “unilateralism,” trigger-happiness, and the rest—were unveiled as mere rationalizations. Here I went along with Kagan in tracing these rationalizations to a decline in the power of the Europeans. He put it very well:

World War II all but destroyed European nations as global powers. . . . For a half-century after World War II, however, this weakness was masked by the unique geopolitical circumstances of the cold war. Dwarfed by the two superpowers on its flanks, a weakened Europe nevertheless served as the central strategic theater of the worldwide struggle between Communism and democratic capitalism. . . . Although shorn of most traditional measures of great-power status, Europe remained the geopolitical pivot, and this, along with lingering habits of world leadership, allowed Europeans to retain international influence well beyond what their sheer military capabilities might have afforded. Europe lost this strategic centrality after the cold war ended, but it took a few more years for the lingering mirage of European global power to fade.


So far, so good. Where I parted company with Kagan’s analysis was over his acquiescence in the claim that the Europeans had in fact made the leap into the post-national, or postmodern, “Kantian paradise” of the future. To me it seemed clear that it was they, and not we Americans, who were “mired” in the past. They were fighting tooth and nail against the American effort to move into the future precisely because holding onto the ideas, the strategic habits, and the international institutions of the cold war would allow them to go on exerting “international influence well beyond what their sheer military capabilities might have afforded.” It was George W. Bush—that “simplistic” moralizer and trigger-happy “cowboy,” that flouter of international law and reckless unilateralist—who had possessed the wit to see the future and had summoned up the courage to cross over into it.

But Bush was also a politician, and as such he felt it necessary to make some accommodation to the pressures coming at him both at home and from abroad. What this required was an occasional return visit to the past. On such visits, as when he would seek endorsements from the UN Security Council, he showed a polite measure of deference to those, again both at home and abroad, who insisted on reading the Bush Doctrine not as a blueprint for the future but as a reckless repudiation of the approach favored by the allegedly more sophisticated Europeans and their American counterparts. In Kagan’s apt description of how the Europeans saw themselves:

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. . . . They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

None of this was new: the Europeans had made almost exactly the same claim of superior sophistication during the Reagan years. At that time—in 1983—it had elicited a definitive comment from Owen Harries (the former head of policy planning in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and himself a member of the realist school):

When one is exposed to this claim of superior realism and sophistication, one’s first inclination is to ask where exactly is the evidence for it. If one considers some of the salient episodes in the history of Europe in this century—the events leading up to 1914, the Versailles peace conference, Munich, the extent of the effort Europe has been prepared to make to secure its own defense since 1948, and the current attitude toward the defense of its vital interests in the Persian gulf—one is not irresistibly led to concede European superiority.

Two decades later, Harries as a realist would have his own grave reservations about the Bush Doctrine. But I had no hesitation in adding the “sophisticated” European opposition to it as the latest episode in the long string of disastrously mistaken judgments he had enumerated back in 1983.


Unrealistic Realists

The astonishing success of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq made a hash of the skepticism of the many pundits who had been so sure that we had too few troops or were following the wrong battle plan. Instead of getting bogged down, as they had predicted, our forces raced through these two campaigns in record time; and instead of ten of thousands of body bags being flown home, the casualties were numbered in the hundreds. As the military historian Victor Davis Hanson summarized what had transpired in Iraq:

In a span of about three weeks, the United States military overran a country the size of California. It utterly obliterated Saddam Hussein’s military hardware . . . and tore apart his armies. Of the approximately 110 American deaths in the course of the hostilities, fully a fourth occurred as a result of accidents, friendly fire, or peacekeeping mishaps rather than at the hands of enemy soldiers. The extraordinarily low ratio of total American casualties per number of U.S. soldiers deployed . . . is almost unmatched in modern military history.

True, the aftermath of major military operations, especially in Iraq, turned out to be rougher than the Pentagon seems to have expected. Thanks to the guerrilla insurgency mounted by a coalition of intransigent Saddam loyalists, radical Shiite militias, and terrorists imported from Iran and Syria, American soldiers continued to be killed. Nevertheless, by any historical standard—the more than 6,500 who died on D-Day alone in World War II, to cite only one example—our total losses remained amazingly low.

But it was not military matters that aroused the equally sour skepticism of the realists. Their doubts centered, rather, on the issue of whether the Bush Doctrine was politically viable. Most of all, they questioned the idea that democratization represented the best and perhaps even the only way to defeat militant Islam and the terrorism it was using as its main weapon against us. Bush had placed his bet on a belief in the universality of the desire for freedom and the prosperity that freedom brought with it. But what if he was wrong? What if the Middle East was incapable of democratization? What if the peoples of that region did not wish to be as free and as prosperous as we were? And what if Islam as a religion was by its very nature incompatible with democracy?

These were hard questions about which reasonable men could and did differ. But those of us who backed Bush’s bet had our own set of doubts about the doubts of the realists. They seemed to forget that the Middle East of today had not been created by Allah in the 7th century, and that the miserable despotisms there had not evolved through some inexorable historical process powered entirely by internal cultural forces. Instead, the states in question had all been conjured into existence less than a hundred years ago out of the ruins of the defeated Ottoman empire in World War I. Their boundaries were drawn by the victorious British and French with the stroke of an often arbitrary pen, and their hapless peoples were handed over in due course to one tyrant after another.

Mindful of this history, we backers of the Bush Doctrine wondered why it should have been taken as axiomatic that these states would and/or should last forever in their present forms, and why the political configuration of the Middle East should be eternally immune from the democratizing forces that had been sweeping the rest of the world.

And we wondered, too, whether it could really be true that Muslims were so different from most of their fellow human beings that they liked being pushed around and repressed and beaten and killed by thugs—even if the thugs wore clerical garb or went around quoting from the Quran. We wondered whether Muslims really preferred being poor and hungry and ill-housed to enjoying the comforts and conveniences that we in the West took so totally for granted that we no longer remembered to be grateful for them. And we wondered why, if all this were the case, there had been so great an outburst of relief and happiness among the people of Kabul after we drove out their Taliban oppressors.


Yes, came the response, but what about the people of Iraq? Most supporters of the invasion—myself included—had predicted that we would be greeted there with flowers and cheers; yet our troops encountered car bombs and hatred. Nevertheless, and contrary to the impression created by the media, survey after survey demonstrated that the vast majority of Iraqis did welcome us, and were happy to be liberated from the murderous tyranny under which they had lived for so long under Saddam Hussein. The hatred and the car bombs came from the same breed of jihadists who had attacked us on 9/11, and who, unlike the skeptics in our own country, were afraid that we were actually succeeding in democratizing Iraq. Indeed, this was the very warning sent by the terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi to the remnants of al Qaeda still hunkered down in the caves of Afghanistan: “Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter [for terrorism in Iraq].”

Speaking for many of his fellow realists, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek disagreed with al Zarqawi that democracy was coming to Iraq and contended that it was premature to try establishing it there or anywhere else in the Middle East:

We do not seek democracy in the Middle East—at least not yet. We seek first what might be called the preconditions for democracy . . . the rule of law, individual rights, private property, independent courts, the separation of church and state. . . . We should not assume that what took hundreds of years in the West can happen overnight in the Middle East.

Now, those of us who believed in the Bush Doctrine saw nothing wrong with pursuing Zakaria’s agenda. But we rejected the charge—often made not only by realists like Zakaria but also by paleoconservatives like Buchanan—that our position was too “ideological” or naively “idealistic” or even “utopian.” We agreed entirely with what the President had long since contended: that the realist alternative of settling for autocratic and despotic regimes in the Middle East had neither brought the regional stability it promised nor—as 9/11 horribly demonstrated—made us safe at home. Bush had also long since given his answer to the question posed by “some who call themselves realists” as to whether “the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours.” It was, he affirmed in the strongest terms, a concern of ours precisely because democratization would make us more secure, and he accused the realists of having “lost contact with a fundamental reality” on this point. In this respect, I would argue, Bush was adopting a course akin to the one taken by the Marshall Plan, which had simultaneously served American interests and benefited others. Like the Marshall Plan, his new policy was a synthesis of realism and idealism: a case of doing well by doing good.

Those of us who supported the new policy also took issue with the view that democracy and capitalism could grow only in a soil that had been cultivated for centuries. We reminded the realists that in the aftermath of World War II, the United States managed within a single decade to transform both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into capitalist democracies. And in the aftermath of the defeat of Communism in World War III, a similar process got under way on its own steam in Central and Eastern Europe, and even in the old heartland of the evil empire itself. Why not the Islamic world? The realist answer was that things were different there. To which our answer was that things were different everywhere, and a thousand reasons to expect the failure of any enterprise could always be conjured up to discourage making an ambitious effort.

To this, in turn, the counter frequently was that the Bush administration had wildly underestimated the special difficulties of democratizing Iraq and had correlatively misjudged the time so great a transformation would take, even assuming it to be possible at all. Yet talk about a “cakewalk” and the like mainly came from outside the administration; and in any event it had been applied to the future military campaign (which definitely did turn out to be a cakewalk), not to the ensuing reconstruction of Iraq. As to the latter, the administration kept repeating that we would stay in Iraq “for as long as it takes and not a day longer.” How long would that be? For those who opposed the Bush Doctrine, a year (or even a month?) after the end of major combat operations was already much too much; for those of us who supported it, “as long as it takes and not a day longer” still seemed, given the stakes, the only satisfactory formula.

As with democratization, so with the reform and modernization of Islam. In considering this even more difficult question, we found ourselves asking whether Islam could really go on for all eternity resisting the kind of reformation and modernization that had begun within Christianity and Judaism in the early modern period. Not that we were so naive as to imagine that Islam could be reformed overnight, or from the outside. In its heyday, Islam was able to impose itself on large parts of the world by the sword; there was no chance today of an inverse instant transformation of Islam by the force of American arms.

There was, however, a very good chance that a clearing of the ground, and a sowing of the seeds out of which new political, economic, and social conditions could grow, would gradually give rise to correlative religious pressures from within. Such pressures would take the form of an ultimately irresistible demand on theologians and clerics to find warrants in the Quran and the sharia under which it would be possible to remain a good Muslim while enjoying the blessings of decent government, and even of political and economic liberty. In this way a course might finally be set toward the reform and modernization of the Islamic religion itself.


The Democrats of 2004

What I have been trying to say is that the obstacles to a benevolent transformation of the Middle East—whether military, political, or religious—are not insuperable. In the long run they can be overcome, and there can be no question that we possess the power and the means and the resources to work toward their overcoming. But do we have the skills and the stomach to do what will be required? Can we in our present condition play even so limited and so benign an imperial role as we did in occupying Germany and Japan after World War II?

Some of our critics on the European Right sneer at us not, as the Left does, for being imperialists but for being such clumsy ones—for lacking the political dexterity to oversee the emergence of successor governments more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. I confess that I am prey to anxieties about our capabilities, and to others stemming from our character as a nation. And in thinking about our long record of inattention and passivity toward terrorism before 9/11, I fear a relapse into appeasement, diplomatic evasion, and ineffectual damage control.

Anxieties and fears like these were given a great boost by the attacks on the Bush Doctrine that became so poisonous in the 2004 presidential primary campaigns of the Democratic party. I have already told of my early apprehensions about the potential spread of the antiwar movement from the margins to the center, and my subsequent amazement in watching it go so far so fast. Whereas it took twelve years for the radicals I addressed in that drafty union hall in 1960 to capture the Democratic party behind George McGovern, their political and spiritual heirs of 2001 seemed to be pulling off the same trick in less than two. This time their leader of choice was the raucously antiwar Howard Dean. Though he eventually failed to win the nomination, his early successes frightened most of the relatively moderate candidates into a sharp leftward turn on Iraq, and drove out the few who supported the campaign there. As for John Kerry, in order to win the nomination, he had to disavow the vote he had cast authorizing the President to use force against Saddam Hussein.

To make matters worse, the campaign to discredit the action in Iraq moved from the hustings into the halls of Congress, where it wore the camouflage of a series of allegedly nonpartisan hearings. In these hearings, the most prominent of which was held by the Senate Intelligence Committee, high officials of the Bush administration were hectored by Democratic legislators (and even a few Republicans) in terms that often came close to sounding like the many articles and books in circulation that were accusing the President of having lied to us in going after Saddam Hussein. This was no slow process of trickle-down; this was an instantaneous inundation of the whole political landscape.

Among the lies through which Bush supposedly misled John Kerry and everyone else was that there might have been some connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Now, even those of us who believed in such a connection were willing to admit that the evidence was not (yet) definitive; but this was a far cry from denying that there was any basis for it at all.10 So far a cry, that according to the reports that would be issued both by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission in the summer of 2004 (and contrary to how their conclusions would be interpreted in the media), al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam.11

It was the same with another of the lies Bush allegedly told to justify the invasion of Iraq. In his State of the Union address of 2003, he said that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Then an obscure retired diplomat named Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had earlier been sent to Niger by the CIA to check out this claim, earned his 15 minutes of fame—not to mention a best-selling book—by loudly denouncing this assertion as a lie. But it would in due course be established that every one of the notorious “sixteen words” Bush had uttered was true. This was the consensus of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, two separate British investigations, and a variety of European intelligence agencies, including even the French.12 Not only that, but it turned out that Wilson’s own report to the CIA had tended to confirm the suspicion that Saddam had been shopping for uranium in Africa, and not, as he went around declaring, to debunk it.13 The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson.


But of course the biggest lie Bush was charged with telling was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. On this issue, too, those of us who still suspected that the WMD remained hidden, or that they had been shipped to Syria, or both, were willing to admit that we might well be wrong. But how could Bush have been lying when every intelligence agency in every country in the world was convinced that Saddam maintained an arsenal of such weapons? And how could Bush have “hyped” or exaggerated the reports he was given by our own intelligence agencies when the director of the CIA himself described the case as a “slam dunk”?

To be sure, again according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, the case, far from being a “slam dunk,” actually rested on weak or faulty evidence. Yet the committee itself “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” The CIA, that is, did not tell the President what it thought he wanted to hear. It told him what it thought it knew; and what it told him, he had every reason to believe.14

In the wake of the WMD issue, several others emerged that did even more to shake the confidence of some who had been enthusiastic supporters of the operation in Iraq. On top of the mounting number of American soldiers being killed as they were trying to bring security to Iraq, and on the heels of the horrendous episodes of the murder and desecration of the bodies of four American contractors in Falluja, came the revelation that Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib had been subjected to ugly mistreatment by their American captors.

Among supporters of the Bush Doctrine, these setbacks set off a great wave of defeatist gloom that was deepened by the nervous tactical shifts they produced in our military planners (such as the decision to hold back from cleaning out the terrorist militias hiding in and behind holy places in Falluja and Najaf). Even the formerly unshakable Fouad Ajami was shaken. In a piece entitled “Iraq May Survive, But the Dream is Dead,” he wrote: “Let’s face it: Iraq is not going to be America’s showcase in the Arab-Muslim world.”

That the antiwar party would batten on all this—and would continue ignoring the enormous progress we had made in the reconstruction of Iraqi society—was only to be expected. It was also only natural for the Democrats to take as much political advantage of the setbacks as they could. But it was not necessarily to be expected that the Democrats would seize just as eagerly as the radicals upon every piece of bad news as another weapon in the war against the war. Nor was it necessarily to be expected that mainstream Democratic politicians would go so far off the intellectual and moral rails as to compare the harassment and humiliation of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib—none of whom, so far as anyone then knew, was even maimed, let alone killed—to the horrendous torturing and murdering that had gone on in that same prison under Saddam Hussein or, even more outlandishly, to the Soviet gulag in which many millions of prisoners died.

Yet this was what Edward M. Kennedy did on the floor of the Senate, where he declared that the torture chamber of Saddam Hussein had been reopened “under new management—U.S. management,” and this was what Al Gore​ did when he accused Bush of “establishing an American gulag.” Joining with the politicians was the main financial backer of the Democratic party’s presidential campaign, George Soros, who actually said that Abu Ghraib was even worse than the attack of 9/11. On the platform with Soros when he made this morally disgusting statement was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton​, who let it go by without a peep of protest.


Equally ignominious was the response of mainstream Democrats to the most effective demagogic exfoliation of the antiwar radicals, Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. Shortly after 9/11—that is, long before the appearance of this movie but with many of its charges against Bush already on vivid display in Moore’s public statements about Afghanistan—one liberal commentator had described him as a “well-known crank, regarded with considerable distaste even on the Left.” The same commentator (shades of how the “jackal bins” of yore were regarded) had also dismissed as “preposterous” the idea that Moore’s views “represent a significant body of antiwar opinion.” Lending a measure of plausibility to this assessment was the fact that Moore elicited a few boos when, in accepting an Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, he declared:

We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. . . . [W]e are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.

By 2004, however, when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, things had changed. True, this movie—a compendium of every scurrility ever hurled at George W. Bush, and a few new ones besides, all gleefully stitched together in the best conspiratorial traditions of the “paranoid style in American politics”—did manage to embarrass even several liberal commentators. One of them described the film as a product of the “loony Left,” and feared that its extremism might discredit the “legitimate” case against Bush and the war. Yet in an amazing reversal of the normal pattern in the distribution of prudence, such fears of extremism were more pronounced among liberal pundits than among mainstream Democratic politicians.

Thus, so many leading Democrats flocked to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 in Washington that (as the columnist Mark Steyn quipped) the business of Congress had to be put on hold; and when the screening was over, nary a dissonant boo disturbed the harmony of the ensuing ovation. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe​, pronounced the film “very powerful, much more powerful than I thought it would be.” Then, when asked by CNN whether he thought “the movie was essentially fair and factually based,” McAuliffe answered, “I do. . . . Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be President of this country.” Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa seconded McAuliffe and urged all Americans to see the film: “It’s important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore.”

Possibly some of the other important Democrats who attended the screening—including Senators Tom Daschle, Max Baucus​, Barbara Boxer, and Bill Nelson; Congressmen Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman​, and Jim McDermott; and elders of the party like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr​. and Theodore Sorensen—disagreed with Harkin and McAuliffe. But if so, they remained remarkably quiet about it.

As for John Kerry himself, he did not take time out to see Fahrenheit 9/11, explaining that there was no need since he had “lived it.”


2004 and 1952

Returning now to the gloom that afflicted supporters of the Bush Doctrine in the spring of 2004: one of the reasons Fouad Ajami gave for it was that “our enemies have taken our measure; they have taken stock of our national discord over the war.” Emboldened by our restraint in Falluja and elsewhere within Iraq, as well as by our concomitant willingness to bring the UN back into the political picture, our enemies had begun to breathe easier—and not only in Iraq:

Once the administration talked of a “Greater Middle East” where the “deficits” of freedom, knowledge, and women’s empowerment would be tackled, where our power would be used to erode the entrenched despotisms in the Arab-Muslim world.

But now, Ajami lamented, it had become clear that “we shall not chase the Syrian dictator to a spider hole, nor will we sack the Iranian theocracy.” There were even indications that, abandoning the dream of democracy altogether, we might settle for the rule of a “strong man” in Iraq.

But how accurate was the measure our enemies had taken of us? Was it possible that their gauge was being thrown off by the overheated atmosphere of a more than usually bitter presidential campaign, and by the caution George Bush felt it necessary to adopt in seeking reelection?

This seemed to me then, and it still seems to me now, the most decisive question of all. I therefore want to conclude by examining it, and I want to do so by returning to the analogy I drew earlier between the start of World War III in 1947 and the start of World War IV in 2001.

When the Truman Doctrine was enunciated in 1947, it was attacked from several different directions. On the Right, there were the isolationists who—after being sidelined by World War II—had made something of a comeback in the Republican party under the leadership of Senator Robert Taft. Their complaint was that Truman had committed the United States to endless interventions that had no clear bearing on our national interest. But there was also another faction on the Right that denounced containment not as recklessly ambitious but as too timid. This group was still small, but within the next few years it would find spokesmen in Republican political figures like Richard Nixon and John Foster Dulles and conservative intellectuals like William F. Buckley, Jr. and James Burnham​.

At the other end of the political spectrum, there were the Communists and their “liberal” fellow travelers who—strengthened by our alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II—had emerged as a relatively sizable group and would soon form a new political party behind Henry Wallace. In their view, the Soviets had more cause to defend themselves against us than we had to defend ourselves against them, and it was Truman, not Stalin, who posed the greater danger to “free peoples everywhere.” But criticism also came from the political center, as represented by Walter Lippmann, the most influential and most prestigious commentator of the period. Lippmann argued that Truman had sounded “the tocsin of an ideological crusade” that was nothing less than messianic in its scope.

In the election of 1948, Truman had the seemingly impossible task of confronting all three of these challenges (and a few others as well). When, against what every poll had predicted, he succeeded in warding them off, he could reasonably claim a mandate for his foreign policy. And so it came about that, under the aegis of the Truman Doctrine, American troops were sent off in 1950 to fight in Korea. “What a nation can do or must do,” Truman would later write, “begins with the willingness and the ability of its people to shoulder the burden,” and Truman was rightly confident that the American people were willing to shoulder the burden of Korea.

Even so, enough bitter opposition remained within and around the Republican party to leave it uncertain as to whether containment was an American policy or only the policy of the Democrats. This uncertainty was exacerbated by the presidential election of 1952, when the Republicans behind Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Truman’s hand-picked successor Adlai Stevenson in a campaign featuring strident attacks on the Truman Doctrine by Eisenhower’s running mate Richard Nixon and his future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Nixon, for example, mocked Stevenson as a graduate of the “Cowardly College of Communist Containment” run by Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson, while Dulles repeatedly called for ditching containment in favor of a policy of “rollback” and “liberation.” And both Nixon and Dulles strongly signaled their endorsement of General Douglas MacArthur​’s insistence that Truman was wrong to settle for holding the line in Korea instead of going all the way—or, as MacArthur had famously put it, “There is no substitute for victory.”

Yet when Eisenhower came into office, he hardly touched a hair on the head of the Truman Doctrine. Far from adopting a bolder and more aggressive strategy, the new President ended the Korean war on the basis of the status quo ante—in other words, precisely on the terms of containment. Even more telling was Eisenhower’s refusal three years later to intervene when the Hungarians, apparently encouraged by the rhetoric of liberation still being employed in the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe, rose up in revolt against their Soviet masters. For better or worse, this finally dispelled any lingering doubt as to whether containment was the policy just of the Democratic party. With full bipartisan support behind it, the Truman Doctrine had become the official policy of the United States of America.


The analogy is obviously not perfect, but the resemblances between the political battles of 1952 and those of 2004 are striking enough to help us in thinking about what a few moments ago I called the most decisive of all the questions now facing the United States. To frame the question in slightly different terms from the ones I originally used: what will happen if the Democrats behind John Kerry defeat George W. Bush in November? Will they follow through on their violent denunciations of Bush’s policy, or will they, like the Republicans of 1952 with respect to Korea, quietly forget their campaign promises of reliance on the UN and the Europeans, and continue on much the same course as Bush has followed in Iraq? And looking beyond Iraq itself, will they do unto the Bush Doctrine as the Republicans of 1952 did unto the Truman Doctrine? Will they treat Iraq as only one battle in the larger war—World War IV—into which 9/11 plunged us? Will they resolve to go on fighting that war with the strategy adumbrated by the Bush Doctrine, and for as long as it may take to win it?

From the way the Democrats have been acting and speaking, I fear that the answer is no. Nor was I reassured by the flamboyant display of hawkishness they put on at their national convention in July. Yet as a passionate supporter of the Bush Doctrine I pray that I am wrong about this. If John Kerry should become our next President, and he may, it would be a great calamity if he were to abandon the Bush Doctrine in favor of the law-enforcement approach through which we dealt so ineffectually with terrorism before 9/11, while leaving the rest to those weakest of reeds, the UN and the Europeans. No matter how he might dress up such a shift, it would—rightly—be interpreted by our enemies as a craven retreat, and dire consequences would ensue. Once again the despotisms of the Middle East would feel free to offer sanctuary and launching pads to Islamic terrorists; once again these terrorists would have the confidence to attack us—and this time on an infinitely greater scale than before.

If, however, the victorious Democrats were quietly to recognize that our salvation will come neither from the Europeans nor from the UN, and if they were to accept that the Bush Doctrine represents the only adequate response to the great threat that was literally brought home to us on 9/11, then our enemies would no longer be emboldened—certainly not to the extent they have recently been—by “our national discord over the war.”

In World War III, despite the bipartisan consensus that became apparent after 1952 (and contrary to the roseate reminiscences of how it was then), plenty of “discord” remained, and there were plenty of missteps—most notably involving Vietnam—along the way to victory. There were also moments when it looked as though we were losing, and when our enemies seemed so strong that the best we could do was in effect to sue for a negotiated peace.

Now, with World War IV barely begun, a similar dynamic is already at work. In World War III, we as a nation persisted in spite of the inevitable setbacks and mistakes and the defeatism they generated, until, in the end, we won. To us the reward of victory was the elimination of a military, political, and ideological threat. To the people living both within the Soviet Union itself and in its East European empire, it brought liberation from a totalitarian tyranny. Admittedly, liberation did not mean that everything immediately came up roses, but it would be foolish to contend that nothing changed for the better when Communism landed on the very ash heap of history that Marx had predicted would be the final resting place of capitalism.

Suppose that we hang in long enough to carry World War IV to a comparably successful conclusion. What will victory mean this time around? Well, to us it will mean the elimination of another, and in some respects greater, threat to our safety and security. But because that threat cannot be eliminated without “draining the swamps” in which it breeds, victory will also entail the liberation of another group of countries from another species of totalitarian tyranny. As we can already see from Afghanistan and Iraq, liberation will no more result in the overnight establishment of ideal conditions in the Middle East than it has done in East Europe. But as we can also see from Afghanistan and Iraq, better things will immediately happen, and a genuine opportunity will be opened up for even better things to come.


The memory of how it was toward the end of World War III suggests another intriguing parallel with how it is now in the early days of World War IV. We have learned from the testimony of former officials of the Soviet Union that, unlike the elites here, who heaped scorn on Ronald Reagan’s idea that a viable system of missile defense could be built, the Russians (including their best scientists) had no doubt that the United States could and would succeed in creating such a system and that this would do them in. Today the same kind of scorn is heaped by the same kind of people on George W. Bush’s idea that the Middle East can be democratized, while our enemies in the region—like the Russians with respect to “Star Wars”—believe that we are actually succeeding.

One indication is the warning to this effect issued by al Zarqawi to al Qaeda, from which I have already quoted. But his letter is not the only sign that the secular despots and the Islamofascists in the Middle East are deeply worried over what the Bush Doctrine holds in store for them. There is Libya’s Qaddafi, who has admitted that it was his anxiety about “being next” that induced him to give up his nuclear program. And there are the Syrians and the Iranians. Of course they keep making defiant noises and they keep trying to create as much trouble for us as possible, but with all due respect to the disappointed expectations of Fouad Ajami, I have to ask: why would they be sending jihadists and weapons into Iraq if not in a desperate last-ditch campaign to derail a process whose prospects are in their judgment only too fair and whose repercussions they fear are only too likely to send them flying?

This fear may, as Ajami says, have been tempered by our response to the troubles they themselves have been causing us. But it cannot have been altogether assuaged, since it is solidly grounded in the new geostrategic realities in their region that have been created under the aegis of the Bush Doctrine. Professor Haim Harari, a former president of the Weizmann Institute, describes these realities succinctly:

Now that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are out, two-and-a-half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony. . . . As a result of the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iran and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories unfriendly to them. Iran is encircled by Afghanistan, by the Gulf States, Iraq, and the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. Syria is surrounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. This is a significant strategic change and it applies strong pressure on the terrorist countries. It is not surprising that Iran is so active in trying to incite a Shiite uprising in Iraq. I do not know if the American plan was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the resulting situation.

Finally, there is the effect the Bush Doctrine has had on the forces pushing for liberalization throughout the Middle East. When Ronald Reagan used the word “evil” in speaking of the Soviet Union, and even confidently predicted its demise, he gave new hope to democratic dissidents in and out of the gulag. Back then, very much like Ajami on Bush, some of us fell into near despair when Reagan failed to act in full accordance with his own convictions. When, for example, he responded tepidly to the great Polish crisis of 1982 that culminated in the imposition of martial law, the columnist George F. Will, one of his staunchest supporters, angrily declared that the administration headed by Reagan “loved commerce more than it loathed Communism,” and I wrote an article expressing “anguish” over his foreign policy. Yet even though (once more like Ajami today) our criticisms were mostly right in detail, we were proved wondrously wrong about the eventual outcome. It was different with the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. They knew better than to get stuck on tactical details, and they never once lost heart.


So it has been with the Bush Doctrine. Bush has made reform and democratization the talk of the entire Middle East. Where before there was only silence, now there are countless articles and speeches and conferences, and even sermons, dedicated to the cause of political and religious liberalization and exploring ways to bring it about. Like the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain in the 1980’s, the democratizers in the Middle East today evidently remain undiscouraged. Falluja and the rest notwithstanding, there has been, if anything, a steady increase in the volume and range of the reformist talk that was and continues to be inspired by the Bush Doctrine.15

I do not wish to exaggerate. Except in Iran, and perhaps also one or two other non-Arab Muslim states, the democratizers are still a relatively small group, and as yet their ranks seem to contain no one comparable in intellectual stature or moral and political influence to Sakharov or Solzhenitsyn or Sharansky. But the editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, Barry Rubin, who has generally been very skeptical about the chances for democratization in the region, offers a cautious assessment that seems reasonable to me:

Democracy and reform are on the Arab world’s agenda. It will be a long, uphill fight to bring change to those countries, but at least a process has begun. Liberals remain few and weak; the dictatorships are strong and the Islamist threat will discourage openness or innovation. Still, at least there are more people trying to move things in the right direction.

To which I (though not Rubin) would add, thanks to George W. Bush.

Then there is Gaza, where at least some elements of the fabled Palestinian street have for the very first time exploded with denunciations not of Israel or the United States, but of Yasir Arafat’s tyrannical and corrupt rule. For the first time, too, we find articles in the Arab press calling for Arafat’s removal—in favor not of the Islamist alternative represented by Hamas but of a different kind of leadership.

Here, for example, is the Jordan Times:

The rapid deterioration of the domestic political order in Gaza mirrors similar dilemmas that plague most of the Arab world, revolving around the tendency of small power elites or single men to monopolize political and economic power in their hands via their direct, personal control of domestic security and police systems. Gaza is yet another warning about the failure of the modern Arab security state and the need for a better brand of statehood based on law-based citizen rights rather than gun-based regime protection and perpetual incumbency.

And here is the Arab Times of Kuwait:

Arafat should quit his position because he is the head of a corrupt authority. Arafat has destroyed Palestine. He has led it to terrorism, death, and a hopeless situation.

And there is this, from the Gulf News in Dubai:

Palestinians are saying their president for life—Arafat—is the problem along with his cronies who rule them, rob them, and impoverish them. Arabs have a responsibility here too. They can say “Israel” until they are all blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that a large part of the fault lies with the Palestinians and the Arabs.

According to a Palestinian legislator quoted by the Washington Post, “what is happening in the streets of Gaza has [nothing] to do with reform. It’s a simple power struggle.” By contrast, the Iranian-born commentator Amir Taheri sees it as a new kind of “intifada aimed at bringing down yet another Arab tyranny.” Chances are that there is some truth in both of these opposing judgments, and in any event it is still too early to tell how the turmoil in Gaza will play itself out. But it is surely not too early to say that there would have been no uprising against Arafat, and much less talk about reform, if not for George W. Bush’s policies combined with his courageous willingness to back those of Ariel Sharon.


History’s Call

In his first State of the Union address, President Bush affirmed that history had called America to action, and that it was both “our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight”—a fight he also characterized as “a unique opportunity for us to seize.” Only last May, he reminded us that “We did not seek this war on terror,” but, having been sought out by it, we responded, and now we were trying to meet the “great demands” that “history has placed on our country.”

In this language, and especially in the repeated references to history, we can hear an echo of the concluding paragraphs of George F. Kennan’s “X” essay, written at the outbreak of World War III:

The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

Kennan then went on to his peroration:

In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will experience a certain gratitude for a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.

Substitute “Islamic terrorism” for “Russian-American relations,” and every other word of this magnificent statement applies to us as a nation today. In 1947, we accepted the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history “plainly intended” us to bear, and for the next 42 years we acted on them. We may not always have acted on them wisely or well, and we often did so only after much kicking and screaming. But act on them we did. We thereby ensured our own “preservation as a great nation,” while also bringing a better life to millions upon millions of people in a major region of the world.

Now “our entire security as a nation”—including, to a greater extent than in 1947, our physical security—once more depends on whether we are ready and willing to accept and act upon the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history has yet again so squarely placed upon our shoulders. Are we ready? Are we willing? I think we are, but the jury is still out, and will not return a final verdict until well after the election of 2004.

August 2, 2004



1 “How to Win World War IV” (February 2002), “The Return of the Jackal Bins” (April 2002), and “In Praise of the Bush Doctrine” (September 2002). A fourth piece I used was “Israel Isn’t the Issue” (Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2001).

2 He did, however, seem to have committed a sin of omission. Richard Lowry​, the editor of National Review, reports that according to John Lehman, one of the Republican commissioners, “Clarke’s original testimony included ‘a searing indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies.’ That was the Clarke, even-handed in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, whom Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise ‘that he would come out against Bush that way.’ Republicans were taken aback: ‘It caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats.’ ” In a different though related context, the commission quotes material written by Clarke while he was still in office that is inconsistent with his more recent, much-publicized denial of any relationship whatsoever between Iraq and al Qaeda.

3 Hill was referring here to the hearings of the 9/11 commission, not its final report, which did not single out the Bush administration for criticism on this score.

4 The analysis offered by Kennan in “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”—as against his own later revisionist interpretation of it—turned out to be right in almost every important detail, except for the timing. He thought it would take only fifteen years for the strategy to succeed in causing the “implosion” of the Soviet empire.

5 In expressing his determination to win the war, however, Bush was mainly reaching back to the language of Winston Churchill, who vowed as World War II was getting under way in 1940: “We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end.”

6 It is worth noting that Churchill, who had been the target of many derogatory epithets in his long career but who was never regarded even by his worst enemies as “simple-minded,” had no hesitation in attaching a phrase like “monster of wickedness” to Hitler. Nor did the political philosopher Hannah Arendt, whose mind was, if anything, overcomplicated rather than too simple, have any problem in her masterpiece, The Origins of Totalitarianism, with calling both Nazism and Communism “absolute evil.”

7 Fukuyama did not return the compliment. While not exactly rejecting the Bush Doctrine, he would later criticize it and call for a “recalibration.” He would do this more in sorrow than in anger, but still in terms that were otherwise not always easy to distinguish from those of what I characterize below as the respectable opposition.

8 As John Podhoretz would later write: “Those who supported the war, in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it. Those who opposed and oppose it, in equally overwhelming numbers, weren’t swayed by the WMD arguments. Indeed, many of them had no difficulty opposing the war while believing that Saddam possessed vast quantities of such weapons. Take Sen. Edward Kennedy. ‘We have known for many years,’ he said in September 2002, ‘that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.’ And yet only a few weeks later he was one of 23 senators who voted against authorizing the Iraq war. Take French President Jacques Chirac, who believed Saddam had WMD and still did everything in his power to block the war. So whether policymakers supported or opposed the war effort was not determined by their conviction about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.”

9 The classic expression of this fantasy was, of course, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document that had been forged by the Czarist secret police in the late 19th century but that had more recently been resurrected and distributed by the millions throughout the Arab-Muslim world, and beyond. It would also form the basis of a dramatic television series produced in Egypt.

10 Stephen F. Hayes has done especially good work on this issue, both in a series of articles in the Weekly Standard and in his book The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.

11 Additional corroboration of “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al Qaeda operatives” would come from a comparable British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, whose report would be released around the same time as the Senate Intelligence Committee.

12 From the Butler Report: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

13 From the Senate Intelligence Committee Report: “He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.”

14 Going even further than the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Butler Report concluded: “We believe that it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological or chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found.”

15 A representative sample can be found on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute (


About the Author

Norman Podhoretz has been writing for COMMENTARY for 56 years.


World War IV: Peak Oil Wars

War of Terror “will not end in our lifetimes”

“I don’t know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.”
— Albert Einstein

“the Third World War has already started–a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals and entire economies …. It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam.”
— Brazilian President Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva (Lula), comment from 1989 when he was a labor leader and leading dissident in Brazil

World War II was also an oil war

World War II was in many ways an oil war – the US was able to wage the war because the American oil industry had recently reached the peak of domestic oil discoveries and had enough oil to wage global war.

In contrast, Germany, Italy and Japan do not have oil, and eventually ran out of fuel to power their war machines – a primary reason they lost.

Japan seized oil fields in Indonesia, but when they were driven out they lost much of their oil supply for their military imperialist expansion, and the US naval blockade of Japan ensured their defeat.

Germany tried to capture the rich oil fields of the Caucausus, but after the Stalingrad battle (on the way to the Caucaucus region), it was clear that the Nazi mechanized military would lose the war.

“Hitler and Goering had counted on the new jet fighters driving the Allied air forces from the skies, and well they might have — for the Germans succeeded in producing more than a thousand of them — had the Anglo-American flyers, who lacked this plane, not taken successful counteraction. The conventional Allied fighter was no match for the German jet in the air, but few ever got off the ground. The refineries producing the special fuel for them were bombed and destroyed and the extended runways which had to be constructed for them were easily detected by Allied pilots, who destroyed the jets on the ground.”
— William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (1962), pp. 1426-7

Next on the hit list: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Korea?
Patrick Seale: Who will be the next victim of US democracy?
Special to Gulf News | 14-11-2003

A good simulation of the likely outcome of the US attack on Iraq – chaos in the Middle East, and more (requires “flash” plug in for your browser),12956,928010,00.html
Straw: UK will not attack Syria or Iran
Wednesday April 2, 2003
Britain would have “nothing whatever” to do with military action against Syria or Iran, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, signalled today.

Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario–it’s their plan.
In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East.

Donald Rumsfeld’s nuclear deals with North Korea – How Rumsfeld Filled His Pockets with Pyongyang’s Nuclear Loot

“Syria, Teheran on US radar?” The Hindu April 1, 2003
General Powell threatens Iran and Syria with attacks
Is The Iraq War The Beginning Of World War IV?
SCOOP EDITOR’S NOTE: The following report from CNN is chilling in its audacity. Ex-CIA Director James Woolsey is a Bush insider who is tipped to become the overseer of Iraq once this war is over. Here Woolsey openly talks of a much bigger war, what he calls World War IV.
While there is nothing particularly new about Woolsey’s statement, a large number of Neoconservative nutter friends of the Bush Administration have been saying similar things for at least a decade (and Scoop has been reporting this for several months), what is truly shocking is the openness of the declaration contained in this story. Here we see the gloves of the American Imperialist agenda well and truly taken off.

Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces ‘World War IV’
From Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 5:02 PM EST (2202 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.
In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said “This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War.”
Woolsey has been named in news reports as a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq.
He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the “fascists” of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. ….

“As we move toward a new Middle East,” Woolsey said, “over the years and, I think, over the decades to come … we will make a lot of people very nervous.”
It will be America’s backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
“Our response should be, ‘good!'” Woolsey said.
Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, “We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you — the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family — most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.”

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
— George Orwell, 1984

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.
— Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

“What’s happening with Iraq is not isolated, it’s part of a global phenomenon. When we see the installation of U.S. military bases throughout Latin America, when we look at [American interference] in countries such as Venezuela and Colombia and Panama, we have to ask ourselves what’s going on.
“Lots of people think it and won’t say it, but I will say it: The United States is seeking to control the world. That’s why we are seeing the reaction in so many countries.
— Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1980) Adolfo Perez Esquivel

Published on Saturday, September 6, 2003 by the Globe & Mail/Canada
The Fourth World War
For two years, the U.S. has pursued the culprits behind the 9/11 atrocities with a vengeance that has shocked and awed ally and enemy alike. But even the devastating attacks on the Afghan and Iraqi regimes don’t illustrate the true scope of the campaign, DOUG SAUNDERS reports. While everyone was preoccupied with the fireworks, Washington has quietly deployed thousands of agents in a secretive struggle that may last a lifetime

by Doug Saunders

The guys in the sunglasses have a name for this not-so-secret campaign. They call it World War Four, an unofficial title that is now used routinely by top officials and ground-level operatives in the U.S. military and the CIA. It is a global war, one of the most expensive and complex in world history.

Monday, August 30, 2004

Which World War is it, Anyway?

“And do not forget the petty scoundrels in this regime; note their names, so that none will go free! They should not find it possible, having had their part in these abominable crimes, at the last minute to rally to another flag and then act as if nothing had happened!”
– from the fourth leaflet of the anti-Nazi resistance, The White Rose, 1942.

Among those wise enough to know America is in one and has been for some time, there’s disagreement over which World War George Bush is actually waging. Should we call it number III? Or was that the Cold War, and now we’re at number IV and counting? (“This is World War IV” is the favoured construct of the neoconservatives. See, for instance, such bloody-minded idealogues as John Woolsey and Norman Podhoretz. I imagine at some point they determined that decades of association with nuclear apocalypse had voided the potential positive spin for “World War III.”)
So which World War is it? It’s neither the Third nor the Fourth; it’s still the Second. Even though the apologists of the Pirate Class in their red, white and blue shirts will never own the name “fascist.” As Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language, “the word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'” But that’s no reason for us to shy from using it. Just because goosestepping has gone out of style doesn’t mean they’ve kicked off their jackboots.
When we talk about Nazis in America, we’re talking about more than the more than passing resemblance to the Bush Cartel. That Prescott’s family business profited handsomely by the Nazis is well known, at least by those who think it important to note such things. But the story is larger and uglier than more dirty dealings by a Bonesman.
It also goes deeper than the Republican Party’s active recruitment of fascists and racists since the mid-50s through the aegis of its Heritage Groups Council, but since that’s seldom recalled, let’s pause for a moment to recollect.
When a number of senior members of George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign team were revealed to be old school Nazi sympathizers it generated something of a media flap – Pete Hamill titled a New York Post column “George Bush and his fascist fan club” – but the scandal is little remembered today.

Some of Bush’s team:

Radi Slavoff, GOP Heritage Council’s executive director, and head of “Bulgarians for Bush.” Slavoff was a member of a Bulgarian fascist group, and he put together an event in Washington honoring Holocaust denier, Austin App.
Florian Galdau, director of GOP outreach efforts among Romanians, and head of “Romanians for Bush.” Galdau was once an Iron Guard recruiter, and he defended convicted Nazi war criminal Valerian Trifa.
Nicholas Nazarenko, leader of a Cossack GOP ethnic unit. Nazarenko was an ex-Waffen SS officer.
Method Balco, GOP activist. Balco organized yearly memorials for a Nazi puppet regime.
Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP’s Byelorussian unit. Melianovich worked closely with many Nazi groups.
Bohdan Fedorak, leader of “Ukrainians for Bush.” Fedorak headed a Nazi group involved in anti-Jewish wartime pogroms.
Nazis staffing the VP’s campaign? Oops! Tut tut tut. We need to run better background checks, wink wink.

The Nazi infection goes back much further. All the way back to the 1930s, when industrialists with fascist sympathies and names like DuPont and Morgan sponsored a coup against Roosevelt to dismantle the New Deal. And then the ’40s, when men with names like Bush, Dulles, Favish and Rockefeller traded strategic goods with the enemy, prolonging the war and costing Allied lives.
Worst of all, Project Paperclip saw Nazis virtually co-found the “National Security State,” bringing their advanced technology and criminal medical research to America. And something else as well, as Nick Cook is told by the pseudonymous “Dr Dan Markus” in The Hunt for Zero Point:

When the Americans tripped over this mutant strain of nonlinear physics and took it back home with them, they were astute enough to realize that their home-grown scientific talent couldn’t handle it. That it was beyond their cultural term of reference. That’s why they recruited so many Germans. The Nazis developed a unique approach to science and engineering quite separate from the rest of the world, because their ideology, unrestrained as it was, supported a wholly different way of doing things. Von Braun’s V-2s are a case in point, but so was their understanding of physics. The trouble was, when the Americans took it all home with them they found out, too late, that it came infected with a virus. You take the science on, you take on aspects of the ideology, as well.

The Nazi virus entered America’s system long ago. It’s been Americanized. But what else would one expect, given the CIA was essentially a co-creation of Nazis like General Reinhard Gehlen and his Abwehr anti-Soviet intelligence apparatus and Nazi money launderers like Allen Dulles and the corporatist/intelligence old boy network of Sullivan and Cromwell. No. Such men got exactly what they expected.
“Once the neo-fascists became bold enough to slay the President on the street, they showed their hand,” Mort Sahl said early in 1968. So early Dr King and Robert Kennedy were yet to join the body count. “They showed how arrogant they had become. Now it’s a question of symptom. That crime was a national symptom. If we can turn our back on that, we will pay a terrible price. That will be the end of this democracy.”
They showed their hand, and they’ve had forty years of getting away with it. And not for lack of evidence. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t read Fonzi’s The Last Investigation, Russell’s The Man Who Knew Too Much or Newman’s Oswald and the CIA, to cite just three works. Rather, they got away with it because the truth is too terrible, and many who did not conspire in the killing conspired in the cover-up because they were led to believe that a finding of official complicity in Kennedy’s death would shatter the system, when in fact it might have killed the virus.
And undoubtedly the same justification has been used over and over again, to shield Americans from the awful truth of state-sanctioned assassinations, the October Surprise, medical experiments worthy of Mengele, the introduction of crack to the LA underclass, BCCI, 9/11 and on and on. High treason, many times over. But so what? You know what they say about none daring to call it such should it prosper. And brother, has it prospered.
Here’s the thing: we’re not talking about discrete, singular, sui generis conspiracies here. Indeed, these are not even conspiracies, in the sense of representing aberrant breaks with the system. These are, rather, examples that the system works. It’s just not the system Americans were taught in civics class. The examples evidence the criminalization of the state by the deep political nexus of underworld, intelligence, industrial and military interests. “America,” to these players, serves as the legit front for their lawless enterprise. The Nazi virus has consumed the host. If it were eradicated and the host miraculously recovered, the poor thing would swear up and down it was still late Autumn, 1963.
On The Verge of Armageddon: World War III May Just be Around the Corner
by Stephen V. Kane

Few have said it yet. Somebody needs to. We are on the verge of WWIII.
The signs are here. Armies massing in a tinderbox around the oil fields of the Mideast. Armies massing on the India-Pakistan border, another flash point in the world. Amidst a war of words that has ended in war before, the two sides are sending each other’s diplomats home. North Korea is busily turning its nuclear facilities to the sincere task of creating enriched uranium for nuclear missiles. America the just has seen the rise to power of a dangerously misdirected mind, amidst an election sham, while US Senate power balance changes due to airplanes falling out of the sky, electronic ballot machines whose code is posted on unsecured servers, and vituperative character attacks against decent men and women seeking office for the good of the majority. That government has now turned bellicose, a dangerous development considering the awesome military hardware it commands.
Secret plans have been unearthed in the past forty-eight hours to further attenuate the rights of US citizens, including secret arrests and seizure of property; detention without counsel and without notification (disappearances); even plans to expunge the citizenship of anyone caught in a “terrorist” organization, where the government defines what a terrorist organization is. All with no recourse to the courts.
And war. Every tyrannical and totalitarian regime needs war. They will say they don’t want world war, but world war consolidates and perpetuates their grip on power.
World war breaks out easily from a major confrontation as that in Iraq. As the major war transfixes the world, myriad minor ones break out, as nations use the cover of the big events in Iraq and India and Korea to settle scores elsewhere. China will wait until the USA is war-weary, and will then strike Taiwan/Formosa to “reunite” them to mainland China.
Nukes will be used in WWIII. There are too many of these terrible weapons stockpiled around the world to be secure. Some fool will unleash them, and once he does, all bets are off. Retaliations and counter-retaliations will wreck large sections of the biosphere.
Isn’t it terribly ironic that the world survived the prospect of nuclear annihilation in the cold war, only to see it ignite in the remote and historically less significant places of the world? For forty years US and USSR nuclear arsenals aimed at every major population center on two continents stood ready to launch. And for forty years diplomacy and spying kept the giants respectful of each other. Now the fear is that a desperate rogue state backed into a corner will set one or two off. And what is US diplomacy doing? Backing these states into a corner.
Under the cloak of world war our enemies will find a way to deliver, and ignite, a nuclear warhead on our soil. These enemies will not rest until they have delivered this nuclear reaction to what they see as US imperialism.
Only by extraordinary, police-state laws and enforcement can the wartime government “protect” the people. They will eliminate, in fact already have eliminated, many freedoms. If you disagree with them on any level they will monitor your phone calls and emails. If you persist in your dissent they will arrest, detain and deport you. Ultimately, they will execute their political enemies under the same confusion, blood, and death of the wars they so desperately need to cover their failed attempts to govern a peaceful nation peacefully.
The intentions of the US government are not, in fact peaceful. Bush is an oil man placed into power by oil interests. The strategic prize is the Iraqi oilfields. Yet as a domestic political matter, only by war and the accompanying smoke, fog, and confusion of war can the Bush men consolidate their extremely tenuous grip on control over their “homeland.” War provides them the necessary cover. The fear that war brings overwhelms the resistance by a people who feel powerless in the face of rapidly changing, overwhelming history.
But when the smoke clears — and it will clear — the United State will be dishonored. The dishonor will not arise from the policies of this misguided administration, but will be pointed at us, the American people. All of us. Just like Nazi Germany, where the signs of a rise to power of a depraved and dangerous element were unmistakable, the signs are here as well, to anyone careful enough to read them. The Germans resist this war because they know all too well the dire consequences that are in store.
There is no beer-hall putsch as in Munich. But there is a national election that saw tens, if not hundreds of thousands of voters disenfranchised in one state. Electronic voting machines were almost certainly tampered with in certain elections. A virtual news blackout exists in the mainstream media of any developments critical of the ruling elite. A President is put into office through campaign promises and slogans that are outright lies. His government may have impeded an investigation that would have forewarned the nation of 9/11. The appointed government, with a shaky electoral mandate, has embarked on a war that is unsupported at home, and vigorously rejected abroad: They assemble a massive army *before* trying diplomacy, to start the war anyway. Polite congressmen try to pressure the government subtly to stand down, expecting they will as reason says they must.
And yet like Germany in 1932 the intelligentsia, the press, and the rest of government grossly miscalculates the depravity of the situation. They will realize, only too late, they are dealing with a far greater, far more dangerous situation than they ever dreamed. They are dealing with a ruling faction that intends to rewrite the rules to an extent that nobody ever dared think possible in the USA.
Part of that new set of rules involves war. It doesn’t matter that the world condemns it. It won’t matter if a million people march in New York City on February 15. Once the fog of war settles in, none of that will matter. Once the guns begin to roar, the Bush Cartel, as it’s been called, will write the dark history.


     Arab Spring: Western ploy to loot, control Eurasia : F. William Engdahl


Uploaded by on Nov 5, 2011

William F. Engdahl believes the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is a plan first announced by George W. Bush at a G8 meeting in 2003 and it was called “The Greater Middle East Project”.

It was masterminded to take under control for the “democratization” of the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan down through Iran, Pakistan and the oil producing Persian Gulf area, across North Africa all the way to Morocco.

“The so-called Arab Spring had been planned, pre-organized and used by the instigators of the ‘spontaneous’ protests and Twitter revolts in Cairo and Tunisia and so forth,” insists the historian.

Engdahl exposes that the some of the leaders of the protests had been trained in Belgrade, Serbia, by activists of Canvas (the Center for Applied Non-Violent Actions and Strategies) and Otpor (a youth movement that played a significant role ousting the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic), organizations financed by the US State Department.

Engdahl names two reasons for the US State Department’s designs on the Islamic world.

The first reason is a vast wealth in the hands of the Arab world’s leaders, sovereign wealth funds and resources. The agenda — exactly as it was done with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 — is “the IMF privatization, ‘free market’ economy and so forth so that Western banks and financial agencies and corporations could come in and take the plunder.”

“The second agenda is militarize the oil sources in such places as Libya and the so-called Republic of South Sudan, that are directly strategic to China’s future economic growth,” points Engdahl.

“This is all about controlling Eurasia, something Zbignew Brzezinski talked about back in 1997 in his famous book The Great Chessgame, especially about controlling Russia and China and any potential cohesion of the Eurasian countries economically and politically,” he says.

And the results are already there — in Egypt and Tunisia the democracy has already brought weak economy, while Libya, the country with the highest living standards in all of Africa before the NATO bombings, today is in ruins.

The concern of the Western powers, especially the Pentagon, is the military control of the troubled region, not restoring normality, the historian evaluates. The NTC puppet government’s main concern is giving NATO prominent basing rights — something unheard of during the 42 years of Gaddafi rule.

read more:


Uploaded by on Dec 31, 2011

The Arab Spring uprisings were arguably the most significant events of the last 12 months. Protests are still raging across the region, even after regimes were toppled. Journalist and author F. William Engdahl gives his view on the Arab world in 2012.

RT on Twitter
RT on Facebook



Globalization of War -WW III War sparks in extended theater, Syria, Iran, Pakistan .

The Globalization of War – GRTV Backgrounder

From: GlobalResearchTV  | Dec 23, 2011  |


The Globalization of War – GRTV Backgrounder

From: GlobalResearchTV  | Dec 23, 2011  | 10,251 views

The world’s attention is increasingly focused on Syria and Iran as the region continues to move toward military confrontation. Less noticed, however, is that the pieces are being put into place for a truly global conflict, with military buildup taking place in every region and threatening to draw in all of the world’s major powers.

Find out more in this week’s GRTV Backgrounder.

… (more info)

View comments, related videos, and more

total war ….

WWIII War sparks in extended theater….Syria… Iran…Pakistan …. etc

…. China and Russia part of equation ….

drone attacks in six countries

….. global war machine


Is Islam, and are the Muslims are specifically targeted?


     Iran cornerstone of possible World War 3 over Mid East—Russia Today TV 11.03.11


Uploaded by on Nov 4, 2011

mirrorvideo Channel#7 rebroadcast
Adrian S. has a firm grasp on the InternationCriminaljMafia and tells it like it is!
Great interview, had to mirror it to spread the awareness


NATO’s War on Libya is Directed against China: AFRICOM and the Threat to China’s National Energy Security

by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, September 25, 2011
3digg 961Share

MAP above. Africom’s regional interests. Copyright Stratcom 2011

The Washington-led decision by NATO to bomb Gaddafi’s Libya into submission over recent months, at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of at least $1 billion, has little if anything to do with what the Obama Administration claims was a mission to “protect innocent civilians.” In reality it is part of a larger strategic assault by NATO and by the Pentagon in particular to entirely control China’s economic achilles heel, namely China’s strategic dependence on large volumes of imported crude oil and gas. Today China is the world’s second largest importer of oil after the United States and the gap is rapidly closing.


If we take a careful look at a map of Africa and also look at the African organization of the new Pentagon Africa Command—AFRICOM—the pattern that emerges is a careful strategy of controlling one of China’s most strategically important oil and raw materials sources.


NATO’s Libya campaign was and is all about oil. But not about simply controlling Libyan high-grade crude because the USA is nervous about reliable foreign supplies. It rather is about controlling China’s free access to long-term oil imports from Africa and from the Middle East. In other words, it is about controlling China itself.


Libya geographically is bounded to its north by the Mediterranean directly across from Italy, where Italian ENI oil company has been the largest foreign operator in Libya for years. To its west it is bounded by Tunisia and by Algeria. To its south it is bounded by Chad. To its east it is bounded by both Sudan (today Sudan and Southern Sudan) and by Egypt. That should tell something about the strategic importance of Libya from the standpoint of the Pentagon’s AFRICOM long-term strategy for controlling Africa and its resources and which country is able to get those resources. 


Gaddafi’s Libya had maintained strict national state control over the rich reserves of high quality “light, sweet” Libyan crude oil. As of 2006 data Libya had the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, some 35%, larger even than Nigeria. Oil consessions had been extended to Chinese state oil companies as well as Russian and others in recent years. Not surprisingly a spokesman from the so-called opposition claiming victory over Gaddafi, Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO, told Reuters, “We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.” China and Russia and Brazil either opposed UN sanctions on Libya or pressed for a negotiated settlement of the internal conflict and an end to NATO bombing.


As I have detailed elsewhere,1  Gaddafi, an old adherent of Arab socialism on the line of Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, used the oil revenues to improve the lot of his people. Health care was free as was education. Each Libyan family was given a state grant of $50000 towards buying a new house and all bank loans were according to Islamic anti-usury laws, interest free. The state was also free of debt. Only by bribery and massive infiltration into the tribal opposition areas of the eastern part of the country could the CIA, MI6 and other NATO intelligence operatives, at an estimated cost of $1 billion, and massive NATO bombing of civilians, destabilize the strong ties between Gaddafi and his people.


Why then did NATO and the Pentagon lead such a mad and destructive assault on a peaceful sovereign country? Clear is that one of the prime reasons was to complete the encirclement of China’s oil and vital raw material sources across northern Africa.


Pentagon alarm over China


Step-by-step in the past several years Washington had begun to create the perception that China, which was the “dear friend and ally of America” less than a decade ago, was becoming the greatest threat to world peace because of China’s enormous economic expansion. The painting of China as a new “enemy” has been complex as Washington is dependent on China to buy the lion’s share of the US Government debt in the form of Treasury paper.


In August the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China’s military status. 2 This year the report sent alarm bells ringing across China for a strident new tone. The report stated among other things, “Over the past decade, China’s military has benefited from robust investment in modern hardware and technology. Many modern systems have reached maturity and others will become operational in the next few years,” the Pentagon said in the report. It added that “there remains uncertainty about how China will use its growing capabilities… China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.”3


In a matter of perhaps two to five years, depending on how the rest of the world reacts or plays their cards, the Peoples’ Republic of China will emerge in the controlled Western media painted as the new “Hitler Germany.” If that seems hard to believe today, just reflect on how that was done with former Washington allies such as Egypt’s Mubarak or even Saddam Hussein. In June this year, former US Secretary of the Navy and now US Senator from Virginia, James Webb, startled many in Beijing when he told press that China was fast approaching what he called a “Munich moment,” when Washington must decide how to maintain a strategic balance, a reference to the 1938 crisis over Czechoslovakia when Chamberlain opted for appeasement with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. Webb added, “If you look at the last 10 years, the strategic winner has been China.” 4


The same massively effective propaganda machine of the Pentagon, led by CNN, BBC, the New York Times or London Guardian will get the subtle command from Washington to “paint China and its leaders black.” China is becoming far too strong and far too independent for many in Washington and in Wall Street. To control that, above all China’s oil import dependency has been identified as her Achilles Heel. Libya is a move to strike directly at that vulnerable Achilles heel.


China moves into Africa


The involvement of Chinese energy and raw materials companies across Africa had become a major cause of alarm in Washington where an attitude of malign neglect had dominated Washington Africa policy since the Cold War era. As its future energy needs became obvious several years ago China began a major African economic diplomacy which reached a crescendo in 2006 when Beijing literally rolled out the red carpet to heads of more than forty African states and discussed a broad range of economic issues. None were more important for Beijing than securing future African oil resources for China’s robust industrialization.


China moved into countries which had been virtually abandoned by former European colonial powers like France or Britain or Portugal.


Chad is a case in point. The poorest and most geographically isolated African countries, Chad was courted by Beijing which resumed diplomatic ties in 2006.    


In October 2007 China’s state oil giant CNPC signed a contract to build a refinery jointly with Chad’s government. Two years later they began construction of an oil pipeline to carry oil from a new Chinese field in the south some 300 kilometers to the refinery. Western-supported NGO’s predictably began howling about environmental impacts of the Chinese oil pipeline. The same NGOs were curiously silent when Chevron struck oil in 2003 in Chad. In July 2011 the two countries, Chad and China celebrated opening of the joint venture oil refinery near Chad’s capital of Ndjamena. 5 Chad’s Chinese oil activities are strikingly close to another major Chinese oil project in what then was Sudan’s Darfur region bordering Chad.


Sudan had been a growing source of oil flows to China since cooperation began in the late 1990s after Chevron abandoned its stake there. By 1998 CNPC was building a 1500 km long oil pipeline from southern Sudan oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea as well as building a major oil refinery near Khartoum. Sudan was the first large overseas oilfield project operated by China. By the beginning of 2011 Sudan oil, most all from the conflict-torn south, provided some 10% of China’s oil imports from taking more than 60% of Sudan’s daily oil production of 490,000 barrels. Sudan had become a point of vital Chinese national energy security.


According to geological estimates, the subsurface running from Darfur in what was southern Sudan through Chad into Cameroon is one giagantic oil field in extent perhaps equivalent to a new Saudi Arabia. Controlling southern Sudan as well as Chad and Cameroon is vital to the Pentagon strategy of “strategic denial” to China of their future oil flows. So long as a stable and robust Ghaddafi regime remained in power in Tripoli that control remained a major problem. The simultaneous splitting off of the Republic of South Sudan from Khartoum and the toppling of Ghaddafi in favor of weak rebel bands beholden to Pentagon support was for the Pentagon Full Spectrum Dominance of strategic priority. 


AFRICOM responds


The key force behind the recent wave of Western military attacks against Libya or more covert regime changes such as those in Tunisia, Egypt and the fateful referendum in southern Sudan which has now made that oil-rich region “independent” has been AFRICOM, the special US military command established by the Bush Administration in 2008 explicitly to counter the growing Chinese influence over Africa’s vast oil and mineral wealth.


In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance … a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” 6


In testimony before the US Congress supporting creation of AFRICOM in 2007, Pham, who is associated with the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated:


“This natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s Republic of China, whose dynamic economy…has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it…China is currently importing approximately 2.6 million barrels of crude per day, about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 of those barrels—roughly a third of its imports—come from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). Is it any wonder, then, that…perhaps no other foreign region rivals Africa as the object of Beijing’s sustained strategic interest in recent years…

Intentionally or not, many analysts expect that Africa—especially the states along its oil-rich western coastline—will increasingly becoming a theatre for strategic competition between the United States and its only real near-peer competitor on the global stage, China, as both countries seek to expand their influence and secure access to resources.”7


It is useful to briefly recall the sequence of Washington-sponsored “Twitter” revolutions in the ongoing so-called Arab Spring. The first was Tunisia, an apparently insignificant land on north Africa’s Mediterranean. However Tunisia is on the western border of Libya. The second domino to fall in the process was Mubarak’s Egypt. That created major instability across the Middle East into north Africa as Mubarak for all his flaws had fiercely resisted Washington Middle East pollicy. Israel also lost a secure ally when Mubarak fell.  


Then in  July 2011 Southern Sudan declared itself the independent Republic of South Sudan, breaking away from Sudan after years of US-backed insurgency against Khartoum rule. The new Republic takes with it the bulk of Sudan’s known oil riches, something clearly not causing joy in Beijing. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, led the US delegation to the independence celebrations, calling it “a testament to the Southern Sudanese people.” She added, in terms of making the secssion happen, “the US has been as active as anyone.” US President Obama openly supported seccession of the south. The breakaway was a project guided and financed from Washington since the Bush Administration decided to make it a priority in 2004. 8          


Now Sudan has suddenly lost its main source of hard currency oil revenue. The secession of the south, where three-quarters of Sudan’s 490 000 barrels a day of oil is produced, has aggravated economic difficulties in Khartoum cutting some 37% off its total revenues. Sudan’s only oil refineries and the only export route run north from oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea in northern Sudan. South Sudan is now being encouraged by Washington to build a new export pipeline independent of Khartoum via Kenya. Kenya is one of the areas of strongest US military influence in Africa.9


The aim of the US-led regime change in Libya as well as the entire Greater Middle East Project which lies behind the Arab Spring is to secure absolute control over the world’s largest known oil fields to control future policies in especially countries like China. As then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is reported to have said during the 1970’s when he was arguably more powerful than the President of the United States, “If you control the oil you control entire nations or groups of nations.”

For the future national energy security of China the ultimate answer lies in finding secure domestic energy reserves. Fortunately there are revolutionary new methods to detect and map presence of oil and gas where even the best current geology says oil is not to be found. Perhaps therein lies a way out of the oil trap that has been laid for China. In my newest book, The Energy Wars I detail such new methods for those interested.



F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order


1 F. William Engdahl, Creative Destruction: Libya in Washington’s Greater Middle East Project–Part II, March 26, 2011, accessed in

2 Office of the Secretary of Defense, ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011, August 25, 2011, accessed in

3 Ibid.

4 Charles Hoskinson, DOD report outlines China concerns, August 25, 2011, accessed in

5  Xinhua, China-Chad joint oil refinery starts operating, July 1, 2011, acessed in BBC News, Chad pipeline threatens villages, 9 October 2009, accessed in

6 F. William Engdahl, China and the Congo Wars: AFRICOM. America’s New Military Command, November 26, 2008, accessed in

7 Ibid.

8 Rebecca Hamilton, US Played Key Role in Southern Sudan’s Long Journey to Independence, July 9, 2011, accessed in

9 Maram Mazen, South Sudan studies new export routes to bypass the north, March 12, 2011, accessed in

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl
Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter


THE CLOCK IS TICKING: “Shadow War” Heating Up. War With Iran: A Provocation Away?

– by Tom Burghardt – 2011-12-05
Amid conflicting reports that a huge explosion at Iran’s uranium conversion facility in Isfahan occurred last week, speculation was rife that Israel and the US were stepping-up covert attacks against defense and nuclear installations
World War III: The Launching of a Preemptive Nuclear War against Iran

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-12-04
World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
War Clouds Form over Iran

– by Wayne Madsen – 2011-11-10
Russia and China have warned the West against any military attack on Iran. The words being used in international diplomacy are reminiscent of the Cold War era…
Global Warfare: Targeting Iran: Preparing for World War III

– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-11-03
The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously. What is unfolding is an integrated attack plan on Iran led by the US, with the participation of the UK and Israel


Preparing to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons: “No Option can be taken off the Table.”

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, December 26, 2011
3digg 571Share

“When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority, including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.”
(Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, May 2011)


The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads. America’s is on a War Path.

World War III is no longer an abstract concept

The US and its allies are preparing to launch a nuclear war directed against Iran with devastating consequences.

This military adventure in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

War pretexts and “justifications” abound.  Iran is heralded as a threat to Israel and the World. 

The war on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than eight years. In recent developments, a renewed set of threats and accusations directed against Tehran have been launched.

A “war of stealth” has already commenced. Mossad intelligence operatives are on the ground. Covert paramilitary formations are being launched inside Iran, CIA drones are being deployed.

Meanwhile, Washington. London, Brussels and Tel Aviv have launched specific destabilizing initiatives “to choke Iran diplomatically, financially and economically”.

A stepped up economic sanctions regime has been formulated by the US Congress:

“a bipartisan consensus has emerged in Washington in favor of strangling the Iranian economy.”  The latter consists in implementing “an amendment to the 2012 defence authorisation bill, designed to “collapse the Iranian economy”… by making it virtually impossible for Tehran to sell its oil.” (Tom Burghardt, Target Iran: Washington’s Countdown to War, Global Research, December 2011). : 

This new wave of diplomatic hype coupled with the threat of economic sanctions has also contributed to triggering an aura of uncertainty in the market for crude oil, with potentially devastating consequences on the global economy.

Meanwhile, the corporate media has embarked on a renewed propaganda stint pertaining to Iran’s alleged nuclear program, pointing  to “activities related to possible weaponization.”

In recent developments, barely acknowledged by the US media, President Barack Obama met privately (December 16), behind closed doors with Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The meeting was held in the outskirts of Washington DC at the Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor, Maryland under the auspices of the Union for Reform Judaism.

Barack meets Barak, Barack Obama and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak
December 16, 2011  at the URJ Biennal Plenary, Gaylord Hotel,  National Harbor
(White House photo)

The importance of this timely private meeting under URJ auspices cannot be underestimated. Reports suggest that the Barack O / E. Barak meeting centered largely on the issue of a US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Writing in Haaretz, Israeli political analyst Amir Oren described the Barack-Barak meeting as a potential “Green Light” to Israel to launch an all out war on Iran:

“Is it possible that the half-hour meeting last Friday at the Gaylord Hotel in National Harbor, Maryland, between U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be remembered in Israel’s history as the moment at which Barack O. gave the green light to E. Barak — for better or for worse — to attack Iran?... Can this be seen as a sort of flashback to the talk between Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig in Washington in May 1982, that gave rise to the (mistaken) Israeli impression that there was an understanding with the United States over going to war in Lebanon… ” No sign U.S. has given Israel green light to strike Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Following this private meeting, Obama addressed the Biennial Plenary of the Union for Reform Judaism, reassuring his audience that “cooperation between our militaries [and intelligence] has never been stronger.”

Obama underscored that Iran is a “threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world … And that’s why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons….And that’s why … we have imposed the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions that the Iranian regime has ever faced…. And that’s why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table.” (Transcript of President Obama Union for Reform Judaism Speech Video Dec. 16. 2011: Address at URJ Biennial, 71st General Assembly , emphasis added).

Towards a “Coordinated” US-Israeli Attack on Iran?

In recent weeks, the US media tabloids have been literally plastered  with “no options off the table” statements by Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta intimated, however, “that Israel should not consider unilateral action against Iran” while stressing “that any military operation against Iran by Israel must be coordinated with the United States and have its backing“. (Panetta’s December 2 statement at the Saban Center quoted in U.S. Defense Secretary: Iran could get nuclear bomb within a year – Haaretz, December 11, 2011, emphasis added)

The Threat of Nuclear War against Iran

The “no options off the table” statement intimates that the US not only envisages an attack on Iran but that this attack could include the use of tactical bunker buster  nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity between one third and six times a Hiroshima bomb. In a cruel irony, these “humanitarian” “peace-making” nuclear bombs “Made in America” –which according to “scientific opinion” on contract to the Pentagon are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”– are contemplated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

While Iran has no nuclear weapons, what is rarely acknowledged is that five (officially) “non-nuclear States” including Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey have US made tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command in their respective military bases. This nuclear arsenal is slated to be used against Iran.

The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five “non-nuclear states” are intended for targets in the Middle East. In accordance with  “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs would be launched  “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” (quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005, emphasis added)

While these “undeclared nuclear states” casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran, Syria and Russia. (See  Michel Chossudovsky, Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States” , Global Research, February 12, 2010)

Israel’s Nukes are Pointed at Iran. Joint US-Israel “Coordination” of Nuclear Weapons Deployment

Israel rather than Iran is a threat to global security.
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads, which are fully deployed against Iran.

Already in 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in “the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines.” (The Observer, 12 October 2003).

According to Russian general Leonid Ivashov:

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently [2007] it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran. (General Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007 emphasis added)

It is worth noting that at the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”.

In the above context, political analyst and historian Michael Carmichael has pointed to the integration and coordination of military decision-making between the US and Israel pertaining to the deployment of nuclear weapons:

“Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak. (Michael Carmichael, Global Research, January 2007)

“No Options off the Table”: What Does it Mean in the Context of Military Planning? Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons Systems

The rules and guidelines of the US Military governing the use of nuclear weapons have been “liberalized” (i.e. “deregulated” in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The decision to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision. The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be “flexible”, allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons: 

Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

What this means is that if an attack on Iran is launched, tactical nuclear weapons will be an integral part of the weapons arsenal.

From a military decision-making standpoint, “no options off the table” means that the Military will apply “the most efficient use of force”. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are part of what the Pentagon calls “the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the “war theater”. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Global Research, February 22, 2006

“Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran),  theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used.  Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become “part of the tool box”, used in conventional war theaters. Michel Chossudovsky, Targeting Iran, Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust, Global Research, February 2006, emphasis added)

The Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Warfare. CONPLAN 8022

Of utmost relevance to the planned attack on Iran, US military documents point towards the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of nukes on a pre-emptive basis in the conventional war theater.

This proposed “integration” of conventional and nuclear weapons systems was first formulated in 2003 under CONPLAN 8022. The latter is described as “a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy–pre-emptively, if necessary–“time-urgent targets” anywhere in the world [including Iran].”  (See Michel Chossudovsky, US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran, Global Research, September 27, 2007). Coordinated by US Strategic Command, CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists).

CONPLAN opens up a military Pandora’s box. It blurs the dividing line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It opens the door for the preemptive use of nukes “anywhere in the World”

The Absence of Public Awareness

The “international community” has endorsed an attack on Iran in the name of World Peace.

“Making the World safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result  from a  Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, including nukes, until it occurs and becomes a reality.

The corporate media is involved in deliberately blocking news coverage concerning these war preparations. The war on Iran and the dangers of escalation are not considered “front page news.” The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.

Iran does not constitute a nuclear threat.

The threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which contemplates –under the CONPLAN framework– the use of thermonuclear weapons against a non nuclear state.

In the words of General Ivashov, “The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility”. Nuclear weapons are “part of tool box”.

An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario.

The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat.

NATO constitutes a nuclear threat

Five European “non-nuclear states” (Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on Iran.

The complacency of Western public opinion –including segments of the US anti-war movement– is disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of  a US-NATO-Israel attack on Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.

Such an action would result in “the unthinkable”: a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East.

It should be noted that a nuclear nightmare would occur even if nuclear weapons were not used. The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities using conventional weapons would contribute to unleashing a Chernobyl-Fukushima type disaster with extensive radioactive fallout.

Related article

Israel Cannot Wage a War against Iran without a “Green Light” from the US
Preparing for a Confrontation with Iran: Beefing Up Israel’s Missile Defense
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-12-23

Barack Obama’s speech to the Union of Reform Judaism, December 16, 2011

Transcript (Excerpts)

“I want to welcome Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. (Applause.) The cooperation between our militaries has never been stronger, and I want to thank Ehud for his leadership and his lifelong commitment to Israel’s security and the quest for a just and lasting peace. (Applause.)Another grave concern -– and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -– is Iran’s nuclear program. And that’s why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And that’s why we’ve worked painstakingly from the moment I took office with allies and partners, and we have imposed the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions that the Iranian regime has ever faced. We haven’t just talked about it, we have done it. And we’re going to keep up the pressure. (Applause.) And that’s why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear.

We’re going to keep standing with our Israeli friends and allies, just as we’ve been doing when they’ve needed us most. In September, when a mob threatened the Israeli embassy in Cairo, we worked to ensure that the men and women working there were able to get out safely. (Applause.) Last year, when raging fires threatened Haifa, we dispatched fire-fighting planes to help put out the blaze. (Applause.)

On my watch, the United States of America has led the way, from Durban to the United Nations, against attempts to use international forums to delegitimize Israel. And we will continue to do so. (Applause.) That’s what friends and allies do for each other. So don’t let anybody else tell a different story. We have been there, and we will continue to be there. Those are the facts.” (Applause.)

Transcript at President Obama Union for Reform Judaism Speech Video Dec. 16. 2011: Address at URJ Biennial, 71st General Assembly

Towards a World War III Scenario

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
Bookmark and Share


“Invading Iran is invading Russia, China”


A political analyst says Russia and China consider a US military action on Iran as an attack on their own borders and a threat to their own national security.

“The US is assuming that Russia or China will not respond militarily, but they’ve been wrong before,” Shamus Cooke wrote on the Global Research website.

Cooke explained that when former US president George W. Bush gave the green light to the then President of Georgia Mikheil Saakahvili to attack South Ossetia in 2008, “Russia surprised everyone by responding militarily and crushing Georgia’s invasion.”

“Attacking Syria and/or Iran opens the door to a wider regional or even international war,” Cooke stressed.

Last Month, Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, professor from the Chinese National Defense University, said China would not hesitate to protect the Islamic Republic against a military strike, even if this means the start of the Third World War.

Also last week, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin vehemently criticized any plans of attacking Iran, describing the measure as “a very dangerous scenario” which could lead to a “regional catastrophe.”

The United States and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran’s nuclear program may consist of a covert military agenda.

Iran has refuted the allegations, saying that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Over the past weeks, Israel has renewed its aggressive rhetoric against Iran. On November 21, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that “time has come” to deal with Iran.

Israeli President Shimon Peres also threatened on November 6 that an attack against Iran is becoming “more and more likely.”

Iranian officials have promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.

“If the US becomes militarily involved with Syria and Iran, it is up to the working people of the US to mobilize in massive numbers in the streets to prevent such an attack,” Cooke concluded.



Arab Parliament calls on Arab League monitors to withdraw from Syria ‘promptly’

JANUARY 1, 2012

An Arab League advisory body called on Sunday for the immediate withdrawal of the organization’s monitoring mission in Syria, saying it was allowing Damascus to cover up continued violence and abuses. The Arab League has sent a small team to Syria to check whether President Bashar al-Assad is keeping his promise to end a crackdown […]

Read the full article →

US sanctions on Iran’s central bank “an act of war”

JANUARY 1, 2012

On the last day of 2011, US President Barack Obama Saturday signed into law measures penalizing foreign financial institutions doing business with Iran’s central bank, Bank Markazi – the toughest sanctions imposed yet over Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. In recent weeks Tehran has repeatedly warned that it would deem the signing of this measure an […]

Read the full article →

Obama signs into law tough new sanctions against Iran’s central bank, financial sector

DECEMBER 31, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama Saturday signed into law tough new sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and financial sector, in a move likely to deepen acrimony between Washington and Tehran. The measures, meant to punish the Islamic Republic for its nuclear program, were contained in a $662 billion defense bill, which officials said Obama signed despite […]

Read the full article →

Iran denies test-firing long-range missiles in Gulf

DECEMBER 31, 2011

Iran has denied reports by state media that it test-fired long-range missiles during military exercises in the Gulf. “The exercise of launching missiles will be carried out in the coming days,” Iran’s senior navy commander is quoted as telling Iran’s Press TV. Earlier the semi-official Fars news agency and other outlets reported that land-to-sea missiles […]

Read the full article →

Iran closes Strait of Hormuz for 5 hours and America does nothing

DECEMBER 31, 2011

By a media trick, Tehran proved its claim that closing the Strait of Hormuz is as “easy as drinking water,” DEBKAfile reports.  First thing Saturday morning, Saturday, Dec. 31, Iran’s state agencies “reported” long-range and other missiles had been test-fired as part of its ongoing naval drill around the Strait of Hormuz. Ahead of the test, Tehran closed its […]

Read the full article →

US warships cross Hormuz despite Iranian threats

DECEMBER 30, 2011

TWO American warships have crossed through the Strait of Hormuz without incident despite Iranian threats to close the strategic oil route, the US Navy said Thursday (Friday AEDT). The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and the guided missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay “conducted a preplanned, routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz” on Tuesday, […]

Read the full article →

Syria forces fire nail bombs as masses protest

DECEMBER 30, 2011

Syrian forces were accused of firing nail bombs on Friday to disperse protesters as tens of thousands of people flooded streets across the country to make their voices heard to Arab monitors. Protesters called for the ouster and prosecution of President Bashar al-Assad, whose autocratic regime has been blamed for the deaths of more than […]

Read the full article →

Siberia to separate from Russia to become a part of USA

DECEMBER 30, 2011

The idea to separate Siberia and annex the territory to the United States of America has been engrossing the minds of Siberian separatists for a long time already. Surprisingly, or maybe not, they find the support from across the ocean. Many, if not all Siberians, may think at times that the Siberian regions with their […]

Read the full article →

US Moves EMP Attack To Iran From North America After Russian Report

DECEMBER 29, 2011

An urgent follow-up report from General Director Vladimir Popovkin of the Russian Federal Space Agency (ROSCOSMOS) to Prime Minister Putin on the failed Phobos-Grunt Mars space probe mission circulating in the Kremlin today states that since his last report (which we reported on in our 26 December report US Warned Could Soon Face Russian Wrath From Space) the Americans who have taken control […]

Read the full article →

Iranian plan to mine Hormuz puts US, NATO on Persian Gulf alert

DECEMBER 29, 2011

US and NATO task forces in the Persian Gulf have been placed on alert after US intelligence warned that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are preparing Iranian marine commandos to sow mines in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The new deployment, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, consists of USS Combined Task Force 52 (CTF 52), which is trained and […]

Read the full article →


on and on it goes, just links folks , think and search for yourself,

and prepare to die and meet your Lord, who is not a man or idol or figment of fragments of various somebody x, y, z  imagination, but the Lord Creator of the Universe, sender of Messengers and Prophets, Most Beneficent and Merciful, The Almighty and Magnificent, The Truth and Just, the Absolutely Perfect Ruler and Judge.


We’re already at war with Iran

Cheney’s call for a “quick air strike” comes amid an escalating covert conflict

Iran Explosion

Smokes rises from an explosion at a Revolutionary Guard ammunition depot outside Tehran on Nov. 12, 2011.  (Credit: AP)

Even as the United States winds down its war with Iraq, former vice-president Dick Cheney is calling for another war in the Middle East. On Tuesday he advised the Obama administration to launch a “quick air strike” against Iran after it captured a U.S. drone flying in its airspace. According to Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, “the Obama administration’s decision not to risk war by going in and destroying the drone reflects its desire to avoid catastrophic escalation. For Cheney, all-out war appears not to be a risk, but a desired outcome.”

Cheney need not worry—he will likely get his wish in time. The United States is already at war with Iran. A covert, low-level war, yes. But a war nonetheless. That is the disturbing assessment of Parsi, among the country’s most important analysts of Iran, who has been consulting with the Obama administration on its policy. His award-winning 2007 book, “The Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States,” featured interviews with policymakers in all three countries to reveal the inner workings of the complicated Middle East. Parsi’s new book, “A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran,” includes conversations with over 70 high-level government officials in Iran, the United States, Israel and other countries. Both large and small aspects of the U.S.-Iranian conversation that were hitherto unknown are revealed in the book.

Here are five takeaways culled from Parsi’s new work and a conversation with him on Monday.

We are already at war with Iran.  Assassinated nuclear scientists.Crippling sanctionsComputer worms damaging centrifuges at nuclear facilities. Support for terrorist groups.  CIA spies interrogated. “The United States is now at war with Iran at a covert level,” says Parsi. Other analysts such as Stephen Walt and Michael Hirsh agree.

It was not a shock to Iran that America was spying—hostile nations generally assume they are being spied upon. In bringing the captured U.S. drone to the world’s attention, Iran is simply demonstrating what it knows to the rest of the world: the U.S. is waging low-level war against Iran. “It gives Iran something of a P.R. coup,” explains Parsi. Iran has begun reverse-engineering the drone’s technology, and Chinese and Russian officials have already visited Tehran to learn the technology, says Parsi. “It’s a pretty significant event.”

Diplomacy didn’t fail, it was never tried. “Contrary to the prevailing narrative, the limited diplomatic encounters between Iran and the U.S. in 2009 and 2010 cannot be characterized as an exhaustion of diplomacy,” Paris writes in his book. U.S. officials sat at a table with their counterparts from Iran, in Geneva, nine months after Obama assumed office. Three days of talks—much of which was spent working on the wording of the communique announcing the results of talks—comprised the bulk of the administration’s direct engagement with Iran. Domestic pressures in both America and Iran prevented a more thorough attempt at peacemaking. Following thirty years of mistrust between Iran and the United States, three days was not even close to enough time to give diplomacy a real chance, Parsi says.

Iran wanted an agreement—and still does. Among the revelations excavated by Parsi’s interviews with senior Iranian officials is that the regime was genuinely interested in making a deal with the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bizarre congratulatory letter two days after Obama’s election victory was an unprecedented move meant to signal Tehran’s willingness to take risks in the interests of rapprochements.

“Despite the skepticism and cynicism, Obama’s posture and interest in engagement did help prompt an unprecedented in debate about relations with the U.S.—an age-old, strictly enforced taboo in the Islamic Republic,” Parsi writes. Iranian policymakers were divided. Reformists were excited about the prospect of long-term changes in U.S. foreign policy that could transform the relationship. Conservatives were more cynical, believing first that Obama would not win in the 2008 presidential election and then that he wouldn’t be calling the shots. Still, the Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad were both on record supporting dialogue with Obama.   

A full-scale war is inevitable if things don’t change. “We are on the trajectory to full-scale war,” Parsi bluntly says. He believes that neither Iran nor the United States wants that outcome, but that the confrontational back-and-forth the countries are engaged in will lead them to war inexorably. “Though there is no will in Washington or even in Tehran for war, they can lose sight of this when they go from controlling the dynamic to being controlled by it,” he says. For instance, Iran takes a stance it sees as defensive but its opponent sees as aggressive, and the United States feels requires to respond.  International relations theorists call this dynamic “spiraling,” and it is a common cause of war. “There is no stability in covert war—this cannot last,” Parsi says. Sooner or later, one side will take a fatal step. 

There’s still time to prevent war. Even now, as the hopes during the 2008 campaign that Obama could make peace with Iran have dimmed, Parsi believes diplomacy would work in reuniting the longtime adversaries. “An institutionalized enmity that has taken three decades to build will not be undone through a few meetings over the course of a few weeks,” he writes. But sustained, long-term diplomacy can accomplish tremendous things. “I would advise the administration to get on with real engagement, because I definitely believe it can still work,” Parsi says.

If it doesn’t, the United States may find itself fighting a third shooting war in the Middle East in a decade.


Jordan Micha>


Posted By Stephen M. Walt  Tuesday, December 27, 2011 – 1:54 PM   Share

Background:  Matthew Kroenig has written a provocative article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, advocating a preventive war against Iran’s nuclear facilities.  I criticized his arguments in aprevious post, and Kroenig offered this defense in response.  Here is my rejoinder.

Matthew Kroenig’s defense of his Foreign Affairs article calling for launching a preventive war against Iran does little to strengthen his case.  He provides no additional evidence to explain why war is necessary; nor does he remedy the gaps and inconsistencies in his original analysis.  Given that he’s now had two swings at the same pitch, one may safely conclude that there is no good case for attacking Iran.

It is clear from the beginning of Kroenig’s response that he misunderstood the central point of my critique.  I accused him of employing the “classic blueprint” for justifying a preventive war, whereby one exaggerates the dangers of inaction, overstates the benefits of war, and understates the costs and risks of employing force.  Kroenig responds by pointing out that “any decision to use force rests on the judgment that the costs of not using force outweigh the costs of using force,” and he seems to think that this was the feature of his analysis to which I objected.  Not so: my objection was to the one-sided way in which he conducted his assessment.

As I noted in my original post, Kroenig assumes that Iran’s leaders are firmly committed to obtaining a nuclear weapon (as opposed to a latent capability), even though U.S. intelligence agencies still reject this conclusion.  He provides no hard evidence demonstrating that the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates on Iran are wrong.  Furthermore, he assumes that a nuclear-armed Iran would unleash a series of fearsome consequences, even though we have no theory that explains how Iran could use its nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, and no examples of other nuclear-armed states doing so successfully in the past.  He also assumes that rejecting the war option will force the United States to maintain a costly and dangerous “containment and deterrence regime” for decades.  In short, when considering the “no-war” scenario, he consistently employs worst-case analysis.

When making the case for how a war against Iran will succeed, however, he switches to “best-case” assumptions about the short-term consequences, the dangers of escalation, and the long-term benefits, even though each of his forecasts is wide open to challenge.  My point was not that Kroenig failed to discuss the costs and benefits of using or not using force; it was that if he had adopted a similar standard on both sides of the equation, his conclusion that war was the “least bad” option would fall apart.

Kroenig’s piece in Foreign Affairs is entitled “Time to Attack Iran.” However, he says in his response to me that he doesn’t think “Washington should immediately launch a bolt-from-the-blue attack.”  Indeed, he now appears to concede that Iran might not be developing nuclear weapons and that we should wait to see if it takes certain measures (expels inspectors, enriches uranium to weapons grade levels, installs advanced centrifuges, etc.) before unleashing the dogs of war.  But these arguments contradict both his title and his original argument, which is that preventive war is the least bad option and now is the time to do it.  We are thus left wondering: is Iran developing nuclear weapons or not ?  And if Kroenig isn’t sure, is it really “Time to Attack?”

Kroenig tells us that “in the coming months, it is possible, even likely, that a U.S. President will be forced to make a gut-wrenching choice” between containment or military action (my emphasis), and he recommends we “begin building global support for (military action) in advance.”  As I’ve noted before, the danger here is that if you keep repeating that preventive war against Iran is necessary, people gradually become comfortable with the idea and assume that it is going to occur eventually.  In fact, if we beat the war drums for months but don’t attack, you can be confident that people like Kroenig will then arguethat U.S. credibility is on the line and we have to strike, lest those dangerous Iranians conclude we are paper tigers.

As in his original article, Kroenig’s image of Iran is simplistic and contradictory. He portrays it as a highly capable and dangerously ambitious power, whose support for terrorism and proxy groups is supposedly restrained only by “fear of U.S. or Israeli retaliation.”  But he never describes Iran’s actual capabilities (which are quite modest) or explains why the threat it poses to vital U.S. interests is grave enough to warrant rolling the iron dice of war.  Nor does he discuss Iranian threat perceptions, internal politics, or foreign policy strategy (including how its policies have evolved over time), or consider the possibility that some of its activities (including its support for some extremist groups) are an asymmetric response to past U.S. efforts to isolate and marginalize it.   Instead, his portrait of Iran is conveniently contradictory: as Paul Pillar puts it, for Kroenig “the same regime that if not attacked can be expected to do all sorts of highly aggressive things . . . turns into a calm paragon of caution, respectful of U.S. ‘redlines’ once the United States starts waging war against it.”  If “knowing one’s enemy” is a prerequisite for going to war, Kroenig has a lot of work to do.

Kroenig also misunderstands my comment about the possibility that an Iranian bomb might prompt others countries in the region to go nuclear. Contrary to what he writes, I did not say “we should not worry that Iran’s proliferation will cause other states in the region to acquire nuclear weapons.”  Rather, my point was that if there were proliferation beyond Iran, it would give other states in the neighborhood the ability to deter Iran and make it impossible for Tehran to wield the coercive leverage that Kroenig (not me) thinks it would gain by building a bomb.  To be clear: I think it would be better if Iran and its neighbors stayed on this side of the nuclear threshold.  But unlike Kroenig, I’m not prepared to panic and start a major war at the possibility that they won’t.

I remain baffled by Kroenig’s belief that crossing the nuclear threshold would give Iran a credible capacity to push the United States around by making nuclear threats.  He repeats his claim that a “nuclear-armed Iran could threaten nuclear war in response to any U.S. initiative in the Middle East,” but he fails to explain why such actions would work.  Iran’s leaders could make whatever threats they wished, of course, but the salient question is whether we would have to take those threats seriously.  Does Kroenig think Iran could veto a new U.S. initiative to mediate Israeli-Palestinian peace, or to organize a new regional peace conference, by threatening to rain warheads down upon us?  Does he believe Iran could credibly threaten to attack us if we wanted to conduct a military exercise with a key regional ally, or if the Pentagon decided to redeploy forces somewhere in the area, or if Washington launched a new initiative to promote democracy and human rights in the region?

I repeat my original point: if it would be that easy for a nuclear-armed Iran to coerce the United States into doing things it does not want to do, then why haven’t other nuclear powers been able to do that to us in the past?  By Kroenig’s logic, the Soviet Union should have had a field day pushing us around during the Cold War.  But that did not happen; in fact, the Soviets never even tried to use their huge nuclear arsenal to coerce us.  The reason, of course, is that Soviet threats would not have been credible because any attempt to carry them out would have led to national suicide.  The same logic applies to Iran.  We know it, and so do they, which is why this familiar bogeyman should not be taken seriously.

Kroenig’s claim that failure to strike soon will force the United States to invest vast sums on a “containment and deterrence regime” is equally unconvincing.  He says “when the United States has imposed deterrence regimes in the past we have dedicated great economic, military, and political resources to the task.”  Yes, but that was because the United States was seeking to contain and deter theUSSR, a major power rival with substantial industrial capacity, a large andpowerful mass army, some significant allies, and (eventually) a vast nuclear arsenal of its own.  Iran is a minor power by comparison, and will never be in the same league as the Soviet Union was.

Even more importantly, Kroenig seems to have forgotten that the United States already has a significant military presence in the Gulf region, and additional forces allocated to intervening there when necessary.  These forces, and the security ties that they support, long predate Iran’s nuclear program, and given Iran’s modest conventional capabilities, they provide the necessary ingredients for a successful containment regime for the foreseeable future. I might add that Kroenig never identifies the exorbitant additional measures that he believes would be necessary if we fail to strike soon. In short, even if Iran does get nuclear weapons someday, there is little need to augment our existing force structure or alter our alliance relationships in any meaningful way.  And by the way: the fact that a few unnamed Washington think tanks are in favor of “massive increases in our commitments to the region” doesn’t mean that this is a sound idea, because think tanks inside the Beltway often propose dubious ideas, as we learned in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Kroenig actually goes so far as to make the foolish argument that “opponents of a bombing campaign are not proponents of peace, but rather by default they are advocates of a multibillion dollar, decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East.”  (Readers with good memories will recall that this same argument was used to explain why we could not contain SaddamHussein in perpetuity, but had to overthrow him instead).  But this charge makes sense only if you believe that attacking Iran would lead us to end our “decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East.”  Does Kroenig think whacking Iran would enable the United States to withdraw completely from the region, terminate our security partnerships with Israel, Jordan, and assorted Persian Gulf states, and disband the Rapid Deployment Force?  I doubt it.  Moreover, if we do attack Iran, we could easily find ourselves in a protracted conflict that would make the Middle East a more dangerous and unstable region.  This would neither be good for the United States nor enable us to reduce our security commitments there.

The bottom line is that the United States is going to remain committed to defending its interests in the Persian Gulf–whether we go to war with Iran or not–and the price tag for doing so is likely to be roughly similar whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not.  It is therefore disingenuous for Kroenig to suggest that the opponents of war are advocating a costly long-term commitment to the region but the proponents of preventive war are trying to save money and reduce our defense burdens.

Kroenig says he is surprised by my charge that he glossed over the risks of a military campaign.  In response, he says that he “fully engaged” with the many negative consequences of an attack and “proposed a mitigation strategy” for each one.  But identifying downsides and “proposing” some mitigating countermeasures is insufficient: one has to explain in considerable detail how they would work and think seriously about the various ways that this best case might go wrong.

Let’s assume, however, that all goes according to plan and we knock out virtually all of Iran’s nuclear facilities.  As Kroenig acknowledges in his Foreign Affairs article, even a completely successful war would not end Iran’s capability to build nuclear weapons once and for all.  We would merely have bought ourselves a few years, because the Iranians–who would probably be mad as hornets–would surely set out to build nuclear weapons in a secure location to deter the United States from attacking their homeland again. All of this is to say that we cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if it wants them badly enough, and attacking them in the immediate future is likely to make them want those weapons even more.  Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, after all, which is why Israel, the United States, and several other countries have nuclear arsenals today and no intention of getting rid of them anytime soon.

Finally, it is striking that Kroenig’s response does not engage the legal or moral implications that I raised in my original critique.  It appears that he remains untroubled by the fact that many innocent people will die and many more will be wounded if the United States follows his advice to launch a major bombing campaign against Iran. He seems equally at ease with the ideathat the United States would be launching an unprovoked war of aggression, which would be in clear violation of international law.  And still people wonder: “why do they hate us?”

IIPA via Getty Images



For your information >

note the following supplication:

Observe, listen, be aware,

events are taking place at all times,


This dua was said in a Masjid in Riyadh and not Mecca in Masjid al Haram as some have said, rather in Masjid Qatari of Riyadh.

He was not arrested as some have said, but was interrogated.

You can check out some of his du’as from last Ramadan on youtube, as well as some of his du’as from Mina this year, and see his website at

Dua of Sheikh Muhammad Al Mohaisany

1422, Ramadan

السلام عليكم
دعاء الشيخ المحيسني

وكم من الأحداث في العالم حصل  بعده


وعن مصعب بن سعد قال رأى سعد رضي الله عنه أن له فضلا على من دونه فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هل تنصرون وترزقون إلا بضعفائكم

 رواه البخاري والنسائي وعنده فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

 إنما تنصر هذه الأمة بضعيفها بدعوتهم وصلاتهم وإخلاصهم

3205 – ( صحيح )

The Dua was made after traaweeh Salah Ramadan,1422 AH

Dua of Sheikh Muhammad al Mohaisany

(الشيخ محمد المحيسني حفظه الله )

 Traaweeh Salah Ramadan,1422 AH (2011)

Of course the pictures are nothing of his doing , (and we do not agree with some of the pictures and connotations), but the important thing is to listen to the words of the Sheikh, and see the English translations only (if you don’t know Arabic, and note there is some disconnect between the timings etc)

Supplications by Sheykh Al Mohaisany

السيره الذاتيه
ولد الشيخ محمد حفظه الله عام 1385 بالرياض منطقة (حلة القصمان)
•حفظه للقرآن:
أتم الشيخ حفظ القرآن عام1397هـ
وعمره آنذاك12سنة.
وكان الفضل بعد الله في حفظه للقرآن لوالده الذي مافتئ يحثه على ذلك ثم لشيخه (حبيب الله علم الدين) المكلف من قبل جماعة تحفيظ القرآن بالرياض برئاسة فضيلة الشيخ عبد الرحمن الفريان رحمه الله.
وكان ذلك في مسجد محمد الجربوع بالرياض
(مسجد المطوع)
والذي يؤذن فيه والد الشيخ رحمه الله
ثم يعود الفضل لمدرسة تحفيظ القرآن بإدارة محمد بن سنان رحمه الله .

كانت بداية إمامة الشيخ ليلة 28 من عام1399هـ وعمره آنذاك14سنة بجامع العجيبة بالرياض
ولد الشيخ محمد حفظه الله عام 1385 بالرياض منطقة (حلة القصمان)

for information, reflection, thankfulness,  awakening, comparison , ,,,,

  • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمالسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاتهرابط فلاش لدعاء الشيخ المحيسني حفظه الله في رمضان 1422 في صلاة التراويحوصلي اللهم وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم الى يوم الديناللهم آمين*****************وهذا تفريغ لنص الدعاء*****************أللَّهُــمَّ يــــــَـا مَنْ لَهُ العـِـزَةُ والجـَـلالِيــــــَـا مَنْ لَهُ القـُدْرَة والكَمـَــاليــــــَـا مَنْ هوَ الكَبيـــرُ المُـتــَعَالنســألـُكَ أللَّهُــمَّ عـِـزاً وَتـَمـْـكيــنـاوَنَصْــراً للمـُجـَاهـِديــنَ فـي سَبيــلِكْأللَّهُــمَّ كـُنْ لـَهـُـم وَمَعـَهُمْأللَّهُــمَّ انـْصُرْهـُم وَقـَوِّهِمْأللَّهُــمَّ سـَدِّدْ رَأْيــَهـُمْوَصَوِّبْ سِــهَامَـهُـمْواجـْمَـعْ كـَلِمـَتـَـهـُمْوأصلح أللَّهُــمَّ قــُلُوبـَـهُـمْأللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِأَعدَائِــهـِمْأللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِأَعدَائِــهـِمْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ فـَـرِّقْ جـَمـْعَهـُم

    وَشــَـتـِّـتْ شــَمْـلـَهـُم

    وَأضْــعـِفْ شــَوْكــَتــَهـُمْ

    وَاقــْذِف الـرُعْــبَ فــي قــُلــُوبـِهـِمْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ إنَّ نـَوَاصِـينا بـِـيــَدَيــكْ

    وَأُمورَنــا تــَرجـِعُ إِلــَيــكْ

    وَأَحــْوَالنــا لا تــَخْــفــَى عـَلـيــكْ

    إِلــَيــكَ نـَرفـَـعُ بـَأســَنا وَحــُزنــَنــَا وَشــِـكـايــَـتــَنـا

    إِلــَيــكَ أللَّهُــمَّ نـَـشْـكوا ظـُلْـمَ الظـَـالِـمـيـــن

    وَقـَسْـوَةَ الـفـَـاجــِريــنْ وتــَسـَـلـُطـَ الخــَوَنــَة َ الـمُــجْـرِمِـيــنْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ إِلــَيــكَ نـَـشْـكوا ظــُلْـمَ النـَصَارى الحـَاقـِـديـــنْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ طـَـالَ لَيـّـلُ الظـَـالِـمـيـــنْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ طـَـالَ لَيـّـلُ الظـَـالِـمـيـــنْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ طـَـالَ لَيـّـلُ الظـَـالِـمـيـــنْ

    وَامـْـتـَـدَّ عـِـدَاءُ الـمُـلـحـِـديــن وَأَيـّـنــَـعَـتْ رُؤوس الـمُــجْـرِمِـيــنْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ فـَسَـلِـط لـَـهـُـم وَعـَـليهم يـَداً مِـنَ الـحـَـقِ حـَـاصِـدَة

    تـَـرفـَعُ بـِـهَا ذُلــَنـَا وَتـُعِـيدَ بـِـهَا عِـزَّنـَـا وَتـُـسْقـِـطَ بها عدونا

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بمعقل الظـُـلمِ وَالإِلـحـاد

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِـمَعْـقـِـلِ الظـُـلمِ وَالإِلـحـاد

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بــأَمـريـكا مـَـعْـقـِلِ الكُـفـْرِ والفـَسـَادْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بــأَمـريـكا مـَـعْـقـِلِ الكُـفـْرِ والفـَسـَادْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بــأَمـريـكا مـَـعْـقـِلِ الكُـفـْرِ والفـَسـَادْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ أَنـْتَ بـِـهـِم عـَـليـم أَفـْـسـَـدوا في أَرْضـِـك وَقـَـتـَلوا عـِـبـَادَك وَأَهـَانـوا دِيـنـَك

    أللَّهُــمَّ أَنـْتَ بـِـهـِم عـَـليـم وَعَـلـَيـهـِم قـَـديـر

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِـهـِم

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِـهـِم

    أللَّهُــمَّ سـَـلِـطْ عـَـلَـيـهـِم ريـحَ عـاد ، وصـَيـحَـةَ ثـَمـود ، وطـُـوفـَانِ قـَومِ نـُـوح

    أللَّهُــمَّ سـَـلِـطْ عـَـلَـيـهـِم مـا نـَـزَلَ مِـنَ الـسـَمـَاءِ وَمـَا خـَرَجَ مِـنَ الأَرضِ

    أللَّهُــمَّ فـَـرِقْ دَولَـتـَهُم أللَّهُــمَّ اجـعَـلْـهـا دُوَلاً وَأَحـْـزَاباً مُـتـَنـَاحـِـرَة

    أللَّهُــمَّ يـَا حـَـيُّ يـَا قـَـيـُّوم إِجـْعـَـلْـهـُم فـي قـَـبـْضَةَ عـِبَـادِكَ

    أللَّهُــمَّ إِجـْعـَـلْـهـُم فـي قـَـبـْضَةَ عـِبَـادِكَ

    أللَّهُــمَّ ثـَـبـِـت الأَعـَاصـيـرَ عـِـنـْدَهـُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ ثـَـبـِـت الأَعـَاصـيـرَ عـِـنـْدَهـُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ فـُكَ أَسْـرَ إِخـْوَانـِنـَا المَـأسُــوريـن

    أللَّهُــمَّ فـُكَ أَسـْرَهُـم

    أللَّهُــمَّ شـُدَ أَزْرَهـُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ ثـَبـِتـْهـُم عـلـى إِيـمـَانـِهـِـم

    أللَّهُــمَّ إِجْـعَـل الـتـَمـْكـيـنَ لـَهـُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِمَن يـُعَـذِبـُونـَهُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِمَن يـُعَـذِبـُونـَهُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ عَلَيـّـكَ بـِمَن يـُعَـذِبـُونـَهُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ خـُذهـُم أَخـْذَ عَـزِيزٍ مـُقــْتــَدِرْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ إِجْـعَـل تـَدْبــيـرَ أَعـْدَائــَنـَا تـَدْمـِيـراً لَـهـُم ، وَمـَكْرَهـُم مـَكْراً بـِـهـِم يـَـا رَبَ الـعـَالـَمِـيـن

    يـَا حـَـيُّ يـَا قـَـيـُّوم ، يـَا ذا الـجَـلالِ وَالإِكْـرَام ، يـَا سـَمـيـعُ الـدُعـَاء ، يـَا قـَرِيـبٌ مـُجـِـيـب

    إِنــنـَا نـَدْعـُوُكَ وَنـَحْـنُ مـُوقـِنـُونَ بـِوَعْـدِكَ وَبـِإِجـَـابـَتــِكَ

    وَقـُلـْتَ وَقـَـولُـكَ الـحَقْ أُدْعــُوُنـي أَسـتـَجـِبْ لَـكـُم

    أللَّهُــمَّ اســتـَجــِبْ لـنـَا

    أللَّهُــمَّ يـَا حـَـيُّ يـَا قـَـيـُّوم يـَا جَـبـَارُ السـَمَـاوَاتِ وَالأَرْض نـَسـأَلـُكَ أَنْ تــُنـْـقـِـذَ الأَقــْصى مـِنْ قــَبـْضـَةِ الـيـَهُـود

    أللَّهُــمَّ خـَلـِصـْهُ مـِنْ كـُلِ كـَافـِرٍ جــَحـُود

    أللَّهُــمَّ قـُرَّ أَعـْـيــُنـِـنــَا بـِهِ وَبــِهـَزيـمَةَ الـيَـهـودِ الـحـَاقـِديـن يـَا ذا الجـَـلالِ وَالإِكْــرَام

    أللَّهُــمَّ يـَا مـَنْ عـَزَّ وَارْتــَفــَعْ وَذَلَّ كُـلَ شَـيءٍ لـِعـَظـَمـَتـِكَ وَخـَضـَع

    أللَّهُــمَّ يـَا مـَنْ خـَلـَـقـْتـَنـَا مـِنْ نـَفـْسٍ وَاحـِـدَة وَمـُسـْتــَقــَرٍ وَمُـسـْتـَوْدَعْ

    أللَّهُــمَّ يــَا قــَريــب فـي عــُلـُوِهْ يــَا عَـلِيٌ فـي دُنــُوِهْ يــَا ذا الـطــَولِ وَالـقـُوة

    نـَســأَلـُكَ عـِـزاً لِلإِســلامِ وَالـمـُسْــلـِمـِـيــن

    أللَّهُــمَّ يـَا حـَـيُّ يـَا قـَـيـُّوم

    أللَّهُــمَّ احـْفــَظ الـعـُلـَمـَاء الـعـَامـِلـين وَثــَبـِـت الـدُعــاة الـمـُخـْلـِـصـيــن وَارْفــَعِ مـَقــَامَ الآمِـرِيـنَ بــِالـمـَعـْرُوفِ وَالـنـَاهـيـنَ عـَنِ الـمُـنــكَرِ وَمـَنْ وَالاهـُم مِـنَ الـمـُسْـلـمـِيـن

    أللَّهُــمَّ يـَا حـَـيُّ يـَا قـَـيـُّوم يـَا ذا الجـَـلالِ وَالإِكْــرَام

    أللَّهُــمَّ مـَن ســَخــَرَ نـَـفـْسَـهُ لإِيــذَائـِهم وَالـكـلام فـي أَعْرَاضِـهـِـم وَتـَتـَبُـعِ زَلاتـِهـِم وَلــَم تــَرِد لَـهُ هداية ، أللَّهُــمَّ فاجـْعــَلِ الـشـَقـَاءَ لَــزِيــمَهُ وَالـبَـلاء فـي طــَرِيــقــه أللَّهُــمَّ اقــلــِبْ صـِحـَتــَهُ سَــقـَـمـَا وَعـَافــِيـَتـَهُ مـَرَضـَا وَغِــنــَاهُ وَقــُوَتــَهُ فــَقـْرا.

    أللَّهُــمَّ آمين

رد مع اقتباس

  • 06-25-2006 02:54 AM #2


بدأ الصراخ


رقم المشتركية: 1783

تاريخ التسجيل: Apr 2006

المشاركات: 830

التقييم: 10

معدل تقييم المستوى


مشاركة: فلاش لدعاء الشيخ المحيسني حفظه الله

نص الدعاء مترجم بالإنجليزية

The Dua of Sheikh Muhammad Al Mohaisany, was made after Tarawih prayer during Ramadhan 2001, But not in Masjid al Haram as some have claimed nor was he arrested as they say.

Translation of the Du’a of Sheikh Al Mohaisany

O h Allah, to whom belongs All Glory and Grandeur

Oh Allah The Omni-Potentent, The Supreme

The Greatest, The Highest

We ask you of Your Glory and Power

And victory for the Mujahideen in your cause

Oh Allah remain beside them, and with them

Give them triumph; strenghthen them

Oh Allah unite their vision

Focus the aim of their weaponry

And consolidate their word

And O Allah, fix their hearts

O Allah handle, take care of their enemies

O Allah dissipate their congregation

And shatter their integrity

And weaken their strengths

And throw the fear in their hearts

O Allah, our fates are in your hands

And our affairs all return to You

And our conditions are not obscured from Your knowledge

To You do we raise our misery

And our sorrow

And our complaint

To You, and You alone, do we complain the injustice of the oppressors

And the cruelty of the “faajereen” (literaly: perpetrators of debauchery)

And the wrath of the betraying criminals

To You, O Allah, do we complain the injustice of the spiteful Christians

O Allah, the night (the dark reign) of the oppressors has indeed lengthened

Again) O Allah, the night of the oppressors has indeed lengthened

And Again,) … O Allah, the night of the oppressors has indeed lengthened

Again) O Allah, the night of the oppressors has indeed lengthened

The animosity of the atheists has extended deep

And … the heads of the criminals

Oh Allah

Oh Allah

Send upon them a hand from the truth …

To raise with it our humiliation

And to return to us our dignity

And to destroy our enemy with it

Oh Allah

Oh Allah, take care of the sources of injustice and oppression

Again) Oh Allah, take care of the sources of injustice and oppression

Oh Allah, direct your forces against America

The center of Kufr and Fasaad

Again) Oh Allah, direct your forces against America

Again) The center of Kufr and Fasaad

Oh Allah, of them our are All-Aware

They spread fasaad in Your lands

And they killed Your slaves

And they insulted Your religion
Again) Oh Allah, of them our are All-Aware

And over them All-Powerful

Oh Allah, direct your forces against them

Again) Oh Allah, direct your forces against them

O Allah send upon them the Storms of ‘Aad

And the Cry of the Thamoud

And the Typhoon of the people of Noah

O Allah send upon them that which descends from the skies

And of that which exudes from the lands

O Allah disintegrate their country

O Allah make them into divided countries and scattered parties

O Allah, Ever-Living and Omni-Potent

Make contain them within a fist’s grip of Your slaves (i.e. under their control

Again) Make contain them within a fist’s grip of Your slaves

O Allah, make hurricanes a constant for them

Again) O Allah, make hurricanes a constant for them

O Allah release our captured brothers

O Allah release them

O Allah, strengthen them

O Allah make them steady on their faith

O Allah make possible a means for them

O Allah handle those who torture them

Again) O Allah handle those who torture them

O Allah handle those who torture them

O Allah eradicate them with Your power and Omni-Potence

O Allah, make their plots against us a cause for their destruction

And their slyness, slyness against them

O Lord of the worlds

O Ever-Living, O Omni-Potent

O Most-Mighty and Most-Gracious

Hearer of all prayer

Ever so close, accepting to all prayers

We all pray to You

full aware of Your promise

And of Your acceptance

For You have said, and Your speech is the truth

“Pray to Me, for I accept your prayers”

O Allah accept our prayers for us

Again) O Allah accept our prayers for us

O Allah, Everlasting, All-Powerful

The Omni-Potent over all that is in the heavens and the earth

We ask you to save Al-Aqsa from the cruelty of the Jews

Again) O Allah save Al-Aqsa from the cruelty of the Jews

O Allah free Al-Aqsa from every black-hearted Kafir

O Allah lay our eyes rest on a liberated Aqsa, and on the defeat of the spiteful Jews

O Most-Mighty and Most-Gracious

All creatures are unto You humiliated, meek

O Allah, our creator from a single soul

O Allah, Highest in status

O Allah, Greatest in Strength

We ask You glory for Islam and Muslims

O Allah, Ever-Living, Ever so Powerful

O Allah guard the hard working scholars

Again) O Allah guard the hard working scholars

And make steadfast those sincere in inviting to Your path

And raise the positions of those who order righteousness, and who forbid evil

And bestow the same mercy upon those Muslims who enjoin them

O Allah, Ever-Living, Ever so Powerful

O Most-Mighty and Most-Gracious

O Allah, he who devoted himself to hurt them

Talking to defame their honor

And tracking their refuge

And for whom You have willed no guidance

O Allah, make misery his destiny

O Allah, make misery his destiny

And disaster in his path

O Allah, convert his health to disease

And his strength into sickness

And his wealth, into poverty

And his power into weakness




See some info below

Armageddon, World War III, Antichrist, And The Second Coming Of Jesus

Map of Palestine

The Bible describes in a vivid language the corruption, destruction, and death typifying the end of times. We see the godly forces confronting the evil of Satan, the Antichrist, and Gog and Magog. We learn that the cataclysmic events will take place in the Middle East. But still the picture needs to be completed. Unanswered questions need to be answered. Who are Gog and Magog? Where will Jesus return? Where in the Middle East will Jesus confront the evil military forces? What nation(s) will supply the forces? Where will the ‘Antichrist be slain?

The Holy Prophet Muhammad(p) has prophesied about several events that will occur just before the advent of the day of judgment. Among these, Muhammad(p) has foretold the return of Jesus(p), which will materialize when a one eyed claimant to divinity (Antichrist) will attempt to misguide the humanity into worshipping him. Messiah will descend from the heavens in Damascus, pray behind Imam Mahdi, pursue and kill the Antichrist, destroy the savage and unbelieving armies of Gog and Magog, and bring peace and brotherhood to the world. Christians will recognize the truth and accept him only as a Messenger of God; the religion of God (Islam) will justly rule the world.

There will be no oppression and no need to fight oppressors (war will be abolished) and no need to collect Jizyah (since there will be no non-Muslim people of the Book to collect this tax from). Every human being will be well-off and no one will accept charity. Messiah will perform Hajj (pilgrimage), marry, remain married for 19 years, beget children, and die after living on earth for 40 years. His death will signal the beginning of the last days

Verses from the Holy Quran relating to the Second Advent of Jesus Son of Mary (pbuh):

  • And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an messenger of God and as a human being) before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them. (The Holy Quran, An-Nisa, 4:159)
  • And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. (Quran, Az-Zukhuruf, 43:61)

Hadeeths Relating to the Second Advent of Jesus Son of Mary (pbuh):

    1. I swear by Him in Whose hand is my soul: the son of Mary shall descend among you as a just ruler. Then he will break the Cross, and kill the swine and put an end to war (in another Tradition, there is the word Jizyah (tax) instead of war, meaning that he will abolish of jizyah); A then there will be such abundance of wealth that nobody will like to accept it, and (conditions will be such that) performing of one sajdah (prostration) before Allah will be considered better than the world and what it contains.” (Bukhari and Muslim).
    2. “Jesus son of Mary shall descend; then he will kill the swine and destroy the Cross; and a congregation will be held for him for the Prayer; and he will distribute so much wealth that people will be satiated with it; and he will abolish the tribute; and he will encamp at Rauha’, B and from there will go to perform Hajj or ‘Umrah, or both.” (Muslim).
  • The Holy Prophet (after making mention of the appearance of the Dajjal) said: “In the meantime, When the Muslims will be making preparations to fight him, will be lining up (for the Prayer) and the lqamah will have been pronounced, Jesus son of Mary shall descend and lead them in the Prayer; and the enemy of Allah (Dajjal i.e. the Antichrist) on seeing him shall start dissolving like salt in water. If Jesus were to leave him alone, he would melt to death anyway, but Allah will have him killed at his hand, and he will show his blood on his spear to the Muslims.” (Muslim).
  • There is no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus Christ), and he shall descend. So, recognize him when you see him. He is a man of medium height, of ruddy and fair complexion; he will be dressed in two yellow garments; the hair of his head will appear as though water was going to trickle down from it, whereas it will not be wet. He will fight people in the cause of Islam, will break the Cross and kill the swine and will abolish jizyah; and Allah will put an end to all communities in his time except Islam; and he will slay the Antichrist (Dajjal); and he will stay in the world for 40 years; then will die and the Muslims will offer the funeral Prayer for him.” (Abu Da’ud and Ahmad).
  • … then Jesus son of Mary will descend. The leader of the Muslims will say to him, ‘Come, lead us in the Prayer’, but he will say, ‘No: you yourselves are leaders over one another.” C This he will say in view of the honour that Allah has bestowed on this Community.” (Muslim and Ahmad).
  • The Holy Prophet (while relating the story of the Dajjal) said: “At that time suddenly Jesus son of Mary (on whom be peace) shall appear among the Muslims. Then the people will stand up for the Prayer, and he will be asked, ‘Step forward, 0h Spirit of Allah (and lead us in the Prayer); but he will say, ‘No: your own leader should step forward and lead the Prayer.’ Then, after offering the Morning Prayer, the Muslims shall go forth to fight the Dajjal.’ He said, ‘When the liar will see Jesus, he will start dissolving like the salt in water. Then Jesus will advance towards him and will slay him; and it will so happen that the trees and the stones will cry out: ‘0h Spirit of Allah, here is a Jew hiding behind me.’ None will be left from among the followers of the Dajjal, whom he (i.e. Jesus) will not kill.” (Ahmad).
  • In the mean time when the Dajjal will be busy doing this and this, Allah will send down Messiah son of Mary, and he will descend in the eastern part of Damascus, near the white minaret (tower), dressed in the two yellow garments, with his hands resting on the arms of two angels. When he will bend down his head, water drops will appear trickling down, and when he will raise it, it will appear as though pearl–like drops are rolling down. Any disbeliever whom the air of his breath reaches–and it will reach up to the last limit of his sight will fall dead. Then the son of Mary will go in pursuit of the Dajjal, and will overtake him at the gate of Lod, D and will kill him.” (Muslim, Abu Da’ud: Kitab, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah).
  • The Daijal will appear in my Ummah (nation), and will live for forty (I do not know whether he said 40 days, or 40 months or 40 years). Then Allah will send Jesus son of Mary. He will closely resemble ‘Urwah Bin Mas’ud (a Companion). He will pursue him and kill him. Then for seven years the people will live in such a state that no ill-will and enmity will exist between any two of them.” (Muslim).
  • Then in the morning Jesus son of Mary will join the Muslims, and Allah will cause the Dajjal and his hosts to be routed, until the walls and the roots of the trees will call ‘out: “0h believer, here is a disbeliever hidden behind me: come and kill him.” (Ahmad, Hakem).
    1. Then Jesus (on whom be peace) will descend, and Allah will cause the Dajjal to be killed near the mountain pass of Afiq. E (Ahmad).
    2. Exactly at the time when the Imam of the Muslims will have stepped forward to lead them in the Morning Prayer, Jesus son of Mary shall descend upon them. The Imam will step back so that Jesus may step forward (to lead the Prayer), but Jesus, placing his hand between his two shoulders, will say, “No, you should lead, for the congregation has assembled to follow you. So, the Imam will lead the Prayer. After the salutation, Jesus will say, “Open the gate;” so the gate will be opened. Outside there will be the Dajjal along with 70,000 of the armed Jews. As soon as he will look at Jesus (upon whom be peace) he will start melting like the salt in water, and will flee. Jesus will say, “I shall strike you a blow which will not let you live.” And he will overtake him at the eastern gate of Lod, and Allah will cause the Jews to be defeated…. And the earth will be so filled with the Muslims as a vessel is filled with water. The entire world shall recite and follow one and the same Kalimah (word) and none shall be worshipped except Allah.” (Ibn Majah).
    3. The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan (in Iran) wearing Persian shawls.
    4. How will you be when the Son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel. (Bukhari)
    5. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, Ibn Maryam (Jesus Christ) would certainly pronounce Talbiyah for Hajj or for Umrah or for both (simultaneously as a Qarin) in the valley of Rawha.(Muslim)
    6. Narrated Umm Sharik: I heard Allah’s Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: The people would run away from the Dajjal seeking shelter in the mountains. She said: Where would be the Arabs then on the day? He said: They would be small in number.
  • The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
The following ahadith also explain the Middle East crisis. Abu Huraira reported Allah’s messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:

  • The last hour would not come before the Euphrates (river) uncovers a mountain of gold for which people will fight. Ninety-nine out of each one hundred would die but every man amongst them would say that perhaps he would be the one who would be saved (and thus possess the gold). (Muslim)
  1. The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth (An international army?) at that time will come from Medina (to oppose them).
    When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans 
    (i.e. All the white Europeans including the Americans) would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say:  Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them.
    They will then fight and a third 
    (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army), which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople (the capital of the Romans — can be any city).
    As they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war 
    (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Al-Sham (Damascus or Syria), he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks.
    Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus 
    (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would(disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ). (Muslim)


And see some books below

For more information about the coming Last Hour, Day of Resurrection, and the signs and epic events before this Hour and Day,

See a short summary

Signs of the Last Day – Lesser and Greater Signs > HERE


See the following books and Ebooks

Jesus is a-coming!(Peace be upon him) as the Slave of Allah and His Messenger, and he will rule by Islam as a Just Leader and Ruler : HERE


The TRUE MAHDI, and False Claimants of Mahdiism > HERE



Is the First Great Sign of the Resurrection Day the Rising of the Sun from the West

(And No Repentance is accepted thereafter)?

[With Some Amazing Modern Scientific Observations and Ancient Prophecies]

{Including observations about what is said about 2012 CE being the End of the World}

هل أول اشراط الساعة العظام طلوع الشمس من مغربها )ولا توبة تقبل بعدها؟

{مع بعض العجائب من النظريات العلمية الحديثة والتكهنات القديمة وأقوال بعض الناس عن سنة 2012 الميلادي}

Compiled by Abu Salman Deya-ud-Deen Eberle

أبو ســـــــلمان ضياء الدين ابرلي

 [Asking Allah for His Mercy and Forgiveness]

Written 2006 CE, updated 2011-2012

See link for book > HERE


Observations on the Royal Clock Tower of Mecca, near House of Allah Grand Masjid


… and its relation with signs of the LAST HOUR, the DAY OF RESURRECTION

and Fulfillment of Prophecy before our eyes , undeniable , very exact, a wake up call …



In the world and universe

Most Precious of All

أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمداً رسول الله

I testify that none has the right to be worshiped except The ONE GOD,

and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of The ONE GOD



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s