Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war

Subject: Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war


Council for the National Interest Foundation

Dear Friends,

We have disturbing and urgent news. Our new executive director, Philip Giraldi, and other former U.S. intelligence officers have just published an extremely important analysis warning that Israel may plan to attack Iran as early as this month (full-length article below).

They detail the evidence for this possibility and warn that such an action would quite likely drag the United States into yet another tragic, needless, and disastrous quagmire.  It would be a war that Israel would begin and the United States would have to finish.

Fortunately, they also describe actions that President Obama could take to prevent this.

1. We urge you to circulate this information widely.

2. Also, please contact the White House and your Congressional representatives to tell them that you do not want another costly and profoundly tragic war. Explain that you desire that the U.S. issue a clear demand that Israel NOT attack Iran and instead allow the various excellent diplomatic initiatives to defuse the situation to move forward.

Our radio program “CNI: Jerusalem Calling” tomorrow at noon eastern time will discuss this topic. CNI President Alison Weir will be the host with Executive Director Philip Giraldi and CIA intelligence officer Raymond McGovern as the guests. Mr. McGovern served as an intelligence officer in the CIA for almost thirty years and prepared the President’s Daily Brief during both the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration. He has also published a number of articles and is one of the founding members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former and current officials in the intelligence community that got together in 2003 to protest the use of faulty intelligence leading up to the Iraq War.

To listen:

go to the show’s homepage and click on the “Listen Live” button for Studio A, at the top left.

Call in:

with your questions and comments during the second half of the show by calling 877-474-3302, toll-free

International users can call 858-678-8958 or Skypename: WSRADIOSTUDIO.

You can also check out archived editions of our show by going to the “CNI: Jerusalem Calling” archives. Past shows include conversations with Gideon Levy, Stephen Walt, Mustafa Barghouti, Rashid Khalidi, Jeffrey Blankfort, Noam Chomsky… and many more.

“CNI: Jerusalem Calling” is a project of the Council for the National Interest Foundation. You can help support the radio show’s continued efforts to educate Americans on how current policies harm the American national interest by making a tax-deductible contribution to CNI Foundation and clicking here.

Below is the article, by Ray McGovern:

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President 
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: War With Iran

We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to preempt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.

We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort. On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically … as opposed to changing them militarily.”

Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. “Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.

Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories. We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab “threat”- well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:

“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders.

Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran.

Netanyahu’s Calculations

Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your reluctance even to mention in controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship. During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene. 

This prime minister learned well from Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu’s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward – and wonderment at – an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:

“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way. … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.” As mentioned above, Netanyahu has had instructive role models. None other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized,” that “Sharon just has him “wrapped around his little finger.” (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and told never again to darken the White House doorstep.)

If further proof of American political support for Netanyahu were needed, it was manifest when Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited Israel during the second week of July. Lieberman asserted that there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including “through military actions if we must.”  Graham was equally explicit: “The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said. More recently, 47 House Republicans have signed onto H.R. 1553 declaring “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.” 

The power of the Likud Lobby, especially in an election year, facilitates Netanyahu’s attempts to convince those few of his colleagues who need convincing that there may never be a more auspicious time to bring about “regime change” in Tehran. And, as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern.

If Israel’s professed fear that one or two nuclear weapons in Iran’s arsenal would be a game changer, one would have expected Israeli leaders to jump with up and down with glee at the possibility of seeing half of Iran’s low enriched uranium shipped abroad. Instead, they dismissed as a “trick” the tripartite deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil with your personal encouragement, that would ship half of Iran’s low enriched uranium outside Tehran’s control.

The National Intelligence Estimate

The Israelis have been looking on intently as the U.S. intelligence community attempts to update, in a “Memorandum to Holders” of the NIE of November 2007 on Iran’s nuclear program. It is worth recalling a couple of that Estimate’s key judgments:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons….”

Earlier this year, public congressional testimony by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (February 1 and 2) and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Ronald Burgess with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright (April 14) did not alter those key judgments. Blair and others continued to underscore the intelligence community’s agnosticism on one key point: as Blair put it earlier this year, “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon.” 

The media have reported off-the-cuff comments by Panetta and by you, with a darker appraisal – with you telling Israeli TV, “all indicators are that they [the Iranians] are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon,” and Panetta telling ABC, “I think they continue to work on designs in that area [of weaponization].” Panetta hastened to add, though, that in Tehran, “There is a continuing debate right now as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”

Israel probably believes it must give more weight to the official testimony of Blair, Burgess, and Cartwright, which dovetail with the earlier NIE, and the Israelis are afraid that the long-delayed Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE will essentially affirm that Estimate’s key judgments. Our sources tell us that an honest Memorandum to Holders is likely to do precisely that, and that they suspect that the several-months-long delay means intelligence judgments are being “fixed” around the policy – as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

One War Prevented

The key judgments of the November 2007 NIE shoved an iron rod into the wheel spokes of the Dick Cheney-led juggernaut rolling toward war on Iran. The NIE infuriated Israel leaders eager to attack before President Bush and Cheney left office. This time, Netanyahu fears that issuance of an honest Memorandum might have a similar effect.

Bottom line: more incentive for Israel to preempt such an Estimate by striking Iran sooner rather than later. 

Last week’s announcement that U.S. officials will meet next month with Iranian counterparts to resume talks on ways to arrange higher enrichment of Iranian low-enriched uranium (LEU) for Tehran’s medical research reactor was welcome news to all but the Israeli leaders. In addition, Iran reportedly has said it would be prepared to halt enrichment to 20 percent (the level needed for the medical research reactor) and has made it clear that it looks forward to the resumption of talks. 

Again, an agreement that would send a large portion of Iran’s LEU abroad would, at a minimum, hinder progress toward nuclear weapons, should Iran decide to develop them. But it would also greatly weaken Israel’s scariest rationale for an attack on Iran. Bottom line: with the talks on what Israel’s leaders earlier labeled a “trick” now scheduled to resume in September, incentive builds in Tel Aviv for the Israelis to attack before any such agreement can be reached. We’ll say it again: the objective is regime change. Creating synthetic fear of Iranian nuclear weapons is simply the best way to “justify” bringing about regime change. Worked well for Iraq, no? 

Another War in Need of Prevention
A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran, would most probably head off such an Israeli move. Follow-up might include dispatching Adm. Mullen to Tel Aviv with military-to-military instructions to Israel: Don’t even think of it.

In the wake of the 2007 NIE, President Bush overruled Vice President Cheney and sent Adm. Mullen to Israel to impart that hard message. A much-relieved Mullen arrived home that spring sure of step and grateful that he had dodged the likelihood of being on the end of a Cheney-inspired order for him to send U.S. forces into war with Iran.

This time around, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel in February 2010. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran, while adding the obligatory assurance that the Pentagon does have an attack plan for Iran, if needed. In contrast to his experience in 2008, though, Mullen seemed troubled that Israel’s leaders did not take his warnings seriously.

While in Israel, Mullen insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences.”

After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22 Mullen drove home the same point. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being “on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization” and its “desire to dominate its neighbors,” he included the following in his prepared remarks:

“For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”

Unlike younger generals – David Petraeus, for example – Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. That experience is probably what prompts asides like this: “I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It’s messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful….” Although the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic, and economic equities at stake know he is right.

Other Steps

In 2008, after Mullen read the Israelis the riot act, they put their preemptive plans for Iran aside. With that mission accomplished, Mullen gave serious thought to ways to prevent any unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities.

Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he indicated that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it.

It was a good idea – still is. The danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has not been addressed, and should be. Establishment of a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran would reduce the danger of an accident, miscalculation, or covert, false-flag attack. 

In our view, that should be done immediately – particularly since recently introduced sanctions assert a right to inspect Iranian ships. The naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly has threatened “a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz” if anyone tries to inspect Iranian ships in international waters.

Another safety valve would result from successful negotiation of the kind of bilateral “incidents-at-sea” protocol that was concluded with the Russians in 1972 during a period of relatively high tension.

With only interim nobodies at the helm of the intelligence community, you may wish to consider knocking some heads together yourself and insisting that it finish an honest Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE by mid-August – recording any dissents, as necessary. Sadly, our former colleagues tell us that politicization of intelligence analysis did not end with the departure of Bush and Cheney… and that the problem is acute even at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which in the past has done some of the best professional, objective, tell-it-like-it-is analysis.

Pundits, Think-Tanks: Missing the Point

As you may have noticed, most of page one of Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook section was given to an article titled, “A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It?  –  Imagining Obama’s Response to an Iranian Missile Crisis.” Page five was dominated by the rest of the article, under the title “Who will blink first when Iran is on the brink?” A page-wide photo of a missile rolling past Iranian dignitaries on a reviewing stand (reminiscent of the familiar parades on Red Square) is aimed at the centerfold of the Outlook section, as if poised to blow it to smithereens.

Typically, the authors address the Iranian “threat” as though it endangers the U.S., even though Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that this is not the case. They write that one option for the U.S. is “the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus.” O Tempora, O Mores! In less than a decade, wars of aggression have become nothing more than lonely, unpopular paths.

What is perhaps most remarkable, though, is that the word Israel is nowhere to be found in this very long article. Similar think pieces, including some from relatively progressive think-tanks, also address these issues as though they were simply bilateral U.S.-Iranian problems, with little or no attention to Israel.

Guns of August?

The stakes could hardly be higher. Letting slip the dogs of war would have immense repercussions. Again, we hope that Adm. Mullen and others have given you comprehensive briefings on them. Netanyahu would be taking a fateful gamble by attacking Iran, with high risk to everyone involved. The worst, but conceivable case, has Netanyahu playing – unintentionally – Dr. Kevorkian to the state of Israel.

Even if the U.S. were to be sucked into a war provoked by Israel, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war would come out well. Were the U.S. to suffer significant casualties, and were Americans to become aware that such losses came about because of exaggerated Israeli claims of a nuclear threat from Iran, Israel could lose much of its high standing in the United States. There could even be a surge in anti-Semitism, as Americans conclude that officials with dual loyalties in Congress and the executive branch threw our troops into a war provoked, on false pretenses, by Likudniks for their own narrow purposes. We do not have a sense that major players in Tel Aviv or in Washington are sufficiently sensitive to these critical factors. 

You are in position to prevent this unfortunate but likely chain reaction. We allow for the possibility that Israeli military action might not lead to a major regional war, but we consider the chances of that much less than even.

Footnote: VIPS Experience

We VIPS have found ourselves in this position before. We prepared our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s speech at the UN. We had been watching how our profession was being corrupted into serving up faux intelligence that was later criticized (correctly) as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and nonexistent” – adjectives used by former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller after a five-year investigation by his committee. As Powell spoke, we decided collectively that the responsible thing to do was to try to warn the president before he acted on misguided advice to attack Iraq. Unlike Powell, we did not claim that our analysis was “irrefutable and undeniable.” We did conclude with this warning [.pdf]:

“After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” 

We take no satisfaction at having gotten it right on Iraq. Others with claim to more immediate expertise on Iraq were issuing similar warnings. But we were kept well away from the wagons circled by Bush and Cheney. Sadly, your own vice president, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the most assiduous in blocking opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard. This is part of what brought on the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history. 

We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope – Iran – on which another president, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers.

They are probably telling you that, since you have privately counseled Prime Minister Netanyahu against attacking Iran, he will not do it. This could simply be the familiar syndrome of telling the president what they believe he wants to hear. Quiz them; tell them others believe them to be dead wrong on Netanyahu. The only positive here is that you – only you – can prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Phil Giraldi, directorate of operations, CIA (20 years) 

Larry Johnson, directorate of intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years) 

W. Patrick Lang, colonel, USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: defense intelligence officer for Middle East/South Asia; director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years) 

Ray McGovern, U.S. Army intelligence officer; directorate of intelligence, CIA (30 years)

Coleen Rowley, special agent and Minneapolis division counsel, FBI (24 years)

Ann Wright, colonel, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service officer, Department of State (16 years)



Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to the CNI Foundation:
Donate to the CNI Foundation

Council for the National Interest Foundation
1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1 · Washington, DC 20024
800.296.6958 · 202.863.2951 · Fax: 202.863.2952


131 Responses to “Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war”

  • Patriot says:

    Exactly Cyndy. John McCain has been pushing for war against Iran as well. No surprise as John McCain was ‘honored’ with JINSA’s Scoop Jackson award- see end of following article which was mentioned in the Mearsheimer/Walt ‘The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy’ book:


  • Simply right Cindy! you stole my thunder and let me add, NO mention of the USS Liberty attack.

  • Patriot says:

    ‘Netanyahu pushes U.S. to attack Iran’

    Israeli Generals and Intel Officials Oppose Attack on Iran

  • Patriot says:

    George Will weighing in as well!

    Israel’s Netanyahu Poised to Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Sites
    Monday, August 16, 2010 09:43 AM
    By: George Will

    When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.

    To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s belief that stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to “put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn’t defend himself — a perfect victim.”

    Today’s Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.

    Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.

    After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, “the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people.” But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.”

    From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to “eliminate Israel by conventional warfare.” Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. “We put up a fence,” Netanyahu says. “Now they have rockets that go over the fence.” Israel’s military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation’s lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.

    That, however, cannot cope with Hamas’ tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah’s 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.

    Since 2006, Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel’s next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.

    Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged “disproportionate.” Israel knows this as it watches Iran.

    Last year was Barack Obama’s wasted year of “engaging” Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly “isolated.” The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran’s.

    Hillary Clinton’s words about extending a “defense umbrella over the region” imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

    You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:

    Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the “enemy of God.” Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran’s former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a “moderate” by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a “one-bomb country.”

    If Iran were to “wipe the Zionist entity off the map,” as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional “dominance not seen since Alexander.” Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?

    He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is “about right” in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: “For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack.” And he says: “The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense.” If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.

    George Will’s e-mail address is

  • peacelily says:

    Oh good grief. I’m just giddy with excitement (compliments to Ben Stein) that Obama has joined Mayor Bloomberg in support for the Muslims to use their private property as planned. It really matters not where the building is insofar as those with conflicts of interest are concerned. They want to make sure that America has an enemy so they can carry on endless wars for Israel. It’s as simple as that. Although there are uninformed Americans who fall for the propaganda of those with the where-with-all to put out masses of their hatred and bigotry, hidden behind excuses for pretending they are against the building being where it is. And who did those CNN polls that say “most” Americans are against the building. And who did they get the answers from? Anyhow,dissolving hatred and bigotry is the very last thing the armchair warriors want. Go figure the trillions of $ being spent on needless wars that are doing nothing but creating misery and hatred and losing thousands of America’s young soldiers and thousands more Muslims, including women and little children. It’s fairly easy to find out who the profiteers are.

  • peacelily says:

    Israel wants war, but wants America to fund it. And as long as the US politicians are taking millions of $ from Israel’s at least 250 lobbies, don’t be surprised at anything. But it seems to becoming more out in the light what is happening and less people are willing to turn a blind eye to the obviois fact Americans are being bilked of their hard earned tax dollars to fund a very rich, nuclear armed foreign country, no matter its crimes. Makes no sense does it? Folks should read some of Tel Aviv’s Schlomo Sand’s books. Amazing man.

  • Coleen Rowley says:

    OMG, George Will is awful! What’s he ever been right about? He and Tom Friedman have surpassed their “Peter Principle” by more than a few steps and yet they are revered by newspaper editors.

  • GOP Blank Check for War?
    Patrick J. Buchanan

    …These Republicans have just given Tel Aviv a blank check for a preemptive war that Israel, unless it uses its nuclear weapons, can start but not finish. Fighting and finishing that war would fall to the armed forces of the United States. Whom do these Republicans represent? The Pentagon has made clear that with two wars of nearly a decade’s duration bleeding us, we do not want a third war with Iran. For while easy to predict how such a war begins, with air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, no one can know how it ends … The principal purpose and result of an Israeli preemptive war on Iran, bringing retaliation on Israel, would be to drag America in to fight and finish a war Israel had begun. In whose interest is that?:

    Whose War (Israel’s war!)?:

  • To this day, the most evil lies remain intact in the minds of too many Americans:

    1. Who do you want to win the War On Terror? Al Qaeda or America?

    2. Where do you want to fight them? Over there or are you going to wait to fight them over here, when they come here?

    3. Israel is our ally.

    4. Islam is inherently evil and seeks to kill, destroy and ruin all persons and things NOT Islam.

    5. Israel has a right to defend Israel by killing Palestinians on Palestinian territory soil.

    6. Islamic terrorists have no legitimate complaint(s) against Israel and the USA and are to be ignored and killed at each and every opportunity.

    7. If you complain about Israel’s four decade long illegal occupation, then you are a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser.

    8. Hamas aren’t Palestinians – they are from another planet.

    These are just a few of the most evil lies harming America and Islam today.

    JUST SAY NO to funding Israel with U.S. tax dollars.

  • Patriot says:

    Commentary: Guns of August?

    UPI Editor at Large

    America Cannot Go to War for Israel: By Ahmed Moor

    Here is Philip Giraldi’s article about General David Petraeus scheming with neocon warmonger Max Boot which isn’t being covered in the US mainstream media either:

    Who Owns General Petraeus (scroll down to the comments section at following URL as well)? by Philip Giraldi:

    Tales from the Northwest Frontier (by Philip Giraldi)

    Ron Paul: The American Empire Can’t Afford Another War Pt 1

    Ron Paul: The American Empire Can’t Afford Another War Pt 2

  • Patricia Blair says:

    U.S. Foreign policy is insane and the support of Israel is absolutely insane. 25,000 Jews live peacefully in Iran. This type of policy brings America clser to its demise. Stop it now!

  • Patriot says:

    John Bolton has been associated with neocon/Israel first JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs):

    John McCain has been pushing for war against Iran as well. No surprise as John McCain was ‘honored’ with JINSA’s Scoop Jackson award – see end of following article which was mentioned in the Mearsheimer/Walt ‘The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy’ book:

    Neocon Bolton Renews Call for Israel to Bomb Iran

    Israel has ‘8 days’ to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    AFP/File – Israel has “eight days” to launch a military strike against Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility …

    Tue Aug 17, 8:02 am ET
    WASHINGTON (AFP) – Israel has “eight days” to launch a military strike against Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility and stop Tehran from acquiring a functioning atomic plant, a former US envoy to the UN has said.

    Iran is to bring online its first nuclear power reactor, built with Russia’s help, on August 21, when a shipment of nuclear fuel will be loaded into the plant’s core.

    At that point, John Bolton warned Monday, it will be too late for Israel to launch a military strike against the facility because any attack would spread radiation and affect Iranian civilians.

    “Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they’re in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it,” Bolton told Fox Business Network. “So if Israel is going to do anything against Bushehr it has to move in the next eight days.” Absent an Israeli strike, Bolton said, “Iran will achieve something that no other opponent of Israel, no other enemy of the United States in the Middle East really has and that is a functioning nuclear reactor.”

    But when asked whether he expected Israel to actually launch strikes against Iran within the next eight days, Bolton was skeptical.

    “I don’t think so, I’m afraid that they’ve lost this opportunity,” he said.

    The controversial former envoy to the United Nations criticized Russia’s role in the development of the plant, saying “the Russians are, as they often do, playing both sides against the middle.”

    “The idea of being able to stick a thumb in America’s eye always figures prominently in Moscow,” he added.

    Iran dismissed the possibilities of such an attack from its archfoes.

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday that “these threats of attacks had become repetitive and lost their meaning.”

    “According to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences,” he told reporters at a news conference in Tehran.

    Iranian officials say Iran has stepped up defensive measures at the Bushehr plant to protect it from any attacks.

    Russia has been building the Bushehr plant since the mid-1990s but the project was marred by delays, and the issue is hugely sensitive amid Tehran’s standoff with the West and Israel over its nuclear ambitions.

    The UN Security Council hit Tehran with a fourth set of sanctions on June 9 over its nuclear programme, and the United States and European Union followed up with tougher punitive measures targeting Iran’s banking and energy sectors.

    The Bushehr project was first launched by the late shah in the 1970s using contractors from German firm Siemens. But it was shelved when he was deposed in the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    It was revived after the death of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, as Iran’s new supreme leader Ali Khamenei and his first president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, backed the project.

    In 1995, Iran won the support of Russia which agreed to finish building the plant and fuel it.

    Ex-UN envoy John Bolton: Israel should attack Iranian nuclear plant now, before it’s too late
    By Michael Sheridan

    Tuesday, August 17th 2010, 12:11 PM

    Read more:

    John Bolton, the former United States envoy to the United Nations, warns that Iran has gotten further in its nuclear goals than Saddam Hussein

    Read more:

    Israel, it’s now or never.

    The former United States envoy to the UN warned on Monday that if Iran’s nuclear facility in Bushehr, which is set to be unveiled in little more than a week, isn’t destroyed soon it should never be attacked.

    “Israel’s got a problem, because once the fuel rods are inserted into the reactor, an attack … would almost certainly release the radiation into the atmosphere,” John Bolton said on Fox Business.

    “If they were going to do anything militarily about Bushehr, they’ve only got a few days,” he said.

    Iran announced that the long-in-development nuclear power reactor will go online Aug. 21, thanks to help from Russia, when a shipment of nuclear fuel will be loaded into its core.

    “So if Israel is going to do anything against Bushehr,” Bolton warned, “it has to move in the next eight days.”

    However, the sharp-tongued former diplomat noted that Israel was unlikely going to act, chiefly because there are numerous other nuclear sites that would also need to be attacked. Israel would have to hit them all at once, since launching multiple attacks over the course of several days or weeks would be far more difficult.

    Iran has already warned that any such attack by Israel would be met with the swiftest response.

    “In that case we will lose a power plant, but Israel’s existence will be in danger,” Iran’s defense minister Ahmad Vahidi is quoted as saying by the state-run Mehr news agency.

    The Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said Tuesday he “doubts” that Israel would “make such a dangerous move.”

    “Any aggression against this power plant will result in a serious reaction,” he said.

    Bolton, in language often used during the Bush administration, stressed that Iran’s nuclear program has gone much further than it should have been allowed to, and that sanctions alone are “failing.”

    Iran has taken “steps to mitigate the effect” of the sanctions, he said. And “even if the sanctions – the U.S. sanctions, the European sanctions – are imposing some extra cost on Iran, some extra economic burden, it’s not nearly enough to stop Iran from continuing to pursue nuclear weapons.”

    He stressed that the Bushehr nuclear power plant marks a “major, major plus for the Iranian weapons program,” as they could obtain material from it to make nuclear weapons.

    “Iran is on the verge of achieving something that Saddam Hussein was not able to achieve,” Bolton said, “and that’s getting a second route to nuclear weapons. It’s a very, very significant step forward for the Iranian nuclear program.”

    Bolton served as envoy to the UN under President George W. Bush – despite being extremely critical of the international organization – for little more than a year, but left in December 2006 when he failed to be confirmed by the Senate.

    With News Wire Services; or follow him at

    Read more:

  • Patriot says:

    Bolton was contradicted by Bush on Iran’s Bushehr plant

  • Patriot says:

    Former Pakistani Intel Chief Fears World War Three Is Imminent (9/11 ‘inside job’ conspiracy kook Alex Jones runs, but the following interview is still worthwhile taking a look at for what is mentioned about any attack on Iran by Israel drawing the US into it as well):

    The following URLs provide a reality check for 9/11 though:

    What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:

    Purpose of the 9/11 Attacks:

    Also read the Los Angeles Times article referenced near the top of if interested further

  • Patriot says:

    Americans Won’t Back Attack on Iran


    Without a revolution (against the neocons and bankers), Americans are history (according to Paul Craig Roberts below):

    The ecstasy of empire
    By Paul Craig Roberts
    Online Journal Contributing Writer

    Aug 17, 2010, 00:16

    The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control. Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a nonexistent recovery. As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times column, “Welcome to the Recovery.”


    Tales from the Northwest Frontier (by Philip Giraldi)

  • Patriot says:

    The Guns of August
    Lowering the Flag on the American Century

    By Chalmers Johnson

  • John Bolton is a member of JINSA. IsraHELL has been talking about attacking Iran. They want to get us to do it. I dont doubt theyll pull another Lavon affair. Obama is a puppet to aipac, and whether we’ll go into Iran or not is very up in the air as he said all options are on the table. He said that after meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister. Before that, he said we won’t attack them.

  • Coleen Rowley says:

    The main sponsor of H. Res. 1553 to back Israel if they attack Iraq (signed by 46 Republicans, including Minnesotan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann) is Texas Representative Louie Gohmert who just suffered a meltdown on this TV interview: with regard to having propagated a rumor (without any real evidence) about “terrorist babies” being born in the U.S.

  • Chris says:

    I’ve had a over the years quite a few visionary tip offs of very interesting events. One such vision came yesterday while I was in a deep meditation. It had to do with the quiet decision of many people in Military and Political positions in the US Military Government Complex. After decades of being bullied and manipulated by the state of Israel. The Battleship Liberty, and possibly 9/11 mosad exercises… the list goes on and on. It was realized by many people in key positions to allow for Israel to go ahead and provoke Iran with a military assault of some kind. And instead of coming to the aid of Israel, which would do the US, and the Middle East and indeed the whole world NO GOOD, it was decided to allow Israel to receive the consequences for it’s warlike aggressive behavior and would be utterly obliterated in an act of self defense by Iran. And low and behold the world would be rid of the Rabid Rabbi Republic. That scenario can only come into our timeline if the Israeli mindset is fixed upon destruction, instead of creation.

    On another date, almost a decade ago, I watched the World Trade Center towers both crack into pieces and fall, through my mind’s eye at approximately 2 AM September 11 2001. If I had known back then that I am a very accurate psychic, I would have told some people.

    In this case, I think I should say something. And so I have.

    “Go Humans Go!”

  • Jc says:

    Rense is funny he linked this article not directly though. Either way both sites rense and infowars are note worthy to look at for information. Israel is really running around getting ready to strike Iran and for whatever reason (we already know why) they have permission from USA because of the lobby. Peaceful solutions with nuclear technology does exist but you can’t build for peace and expansion of renewable energy no! we attack you for that!

  • Cherifa says:

    Is this all US intelligence could come up with at such a late stage in time? The United States is not only on its way to lose its “cherished ally and “island of democracy” Israel, it is well on its way to lose the entire Middle East as well as the Muslim people wherever they reside world-wide. War or no war with Iran, the US has lost whatever small status it had left in a world it has shown so little respect for. Maybe the US believes that the Mubarak family, Fouad el Siniora, the evaporated cedar’s revolution” government, the “royal” Saudis, Mahmoud Abbas, Mohamed Dahlan, Iraq or Afghanistan might come to its rescue? These US “moderate” “allies” themselves need rescue and have their baggage packed and their private jets ready to take off when the shit hits the fan. With or without an Iran war, “project Israel” is already dying. The US had in front of it one choice to make: should it go down with Israel or should it let Israel go down alone and ally with the countries and people of the region? With the Iraq war, the 2006 Lebanon war, the2009 cowardly Gaza war as well as the continued US backed siege of Gaza, the US clearly chose to go down with Israel. Why is US intelligence complaining today? The US had opportunity after opportunity to redefine its real relation with the Arab world (an Africa I might ad) and the US always chose the illegal, apartheid, racist occupying entity named Israel. An Iran war will only accelerate the US/Israeli exit from the “greater” Middle East .

  • Jeanne says:

    Read this article on al Qaeda preparing for an Israeli attack on Iran.

    To you Coleen Rowley: Thanks for all that you have done to inform the American public. Your credibility makes a huge difference for this task as the neocons, VP Cheney, AIPAC etc. have such a huge megaphone in propagating a MORE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST campaign in the US.

  • Patriot says:

    Thank you for your latest comment post above Jeanne..

    I don’t buy what Al Qaeda conveyed about Iran taking over Mecca and Media as that seems to be their anti-Shia propaganda intended to rally their Sunni base of support. But what was mentioned about ‘the Jews getting US into a war with Iran’ seems to be spot on (it has to be mentioned that not all Jews support such but AIPAC-ers and the neocons along with their advocates/lackeys in the US government certainly do though!). Did you see Arnaud de Borchgrave’s latest which appeared at yesterday and in the Washington Times today?:

    DEBORCHGRAVE: War with Iran

    PS: I am honored to be in touch with Coleen Rowley and have her as a Facebook friend too as she was the FBI whistleblower who was on the cover of Time magazine after 9/11 via

  • Patriot says:

    Iran Threatens ‘Israel’s Existence’ If It Attacks

    ‘Intl. law forbids attack on nuclear sites’

    ‘JINSA John’ Bolton: “Israel has 8 days to hit bushehr” (Iran)

  • Jeanne says:

    The above article by Patrick Buchanan “GOP GIVES BLANK CHECK FOR WAR” is significant in warning Americans that the GOP is giving Israel a blank check for war against Iran. The last sentence in the column warns voters that they should know this before they go to vote this fall which indicates his desperation as Buchanan is NOT a Democrat — yet is saying vote Democratic.

  • Patriot says:

    Jeanne, keep in mind that Obama (a Democrat) has escalated the Afghan quagmire much more than neoconned Bush II ever did and is getting even more Americans killed/wounded there as a result:

    Afghan quagmire comes home, week after somber week

    Also keep in mind that the Democrats receive something like 40 to 50 percent of their funding from pro-Israel Jews (many of whom are associated with AIPAC and other pro-Israel PACs):

    Democrats seek AIPAC payback

  • Patriot says:

    US media (and BBC too) is saying that ‘last combat’ troops are being pulled out of Iraq quagmire, but what happens to them if Israel attacks Iran and drags US into a war with Iran before they all depart?!

    The US isn’t leaving Iraq, it’s rebranding the occupation

    US Announces Second Fake End to Iraq War

    US neocon ‘A Clean Break’ ( Iraq quagmire costs US taxpayers a trillion dollars & 5,000 dead Americans..

  • JK says:

    The little tiny problem for Uncle and IsraeLIE is the S-300 air defense systems Russia deployed to the North in the break-away (from Georgia) territories and the Sunburns which Iran is known to possess to the South. The Northern attack route is pretty well closed, and any attack on Iran will trigger a Sunburn barrage against shipping in the Gulf. The Phalanx systems on the USN ships will stop a few of them, but not all, and all it takes is one to kill a carrier. The tankers are worse off. In a few days, all oil coming out of the Straight will be shut off and the World economy will be on it’s knees.
    This is why they haven’t been hit (as yet)- 3 days to go until the first fuel rods are loaded …

  • Jeanne says:

    Patriot — it was Patrick Buchanan who was warning that Americans should know before Nov. elections that the GOP is giving Israel a blank check to attack Iran. Do you think he would make that statement if the Democrats and Obama were supporting an Israeli attack?

  • Jeanne says:

    Patriot — The following paragraph is from THE ECONOMIST (June 5-11,2010) in a column titled AMERICANS AND ISRAEL — NOT QUITE AS IT WAS

    “Even in Congress, however, support for Israel is not rock solid, and is showing signs of change. Dan Senor noted recently that there were “real divisions” among congressional Democrats over Israel, “and those divisions are widening and cementing in ways not seen in decates”. For most Republicans, on the other hand, supporting the Jewish state remains, literally, an article of faith.”

  • Patriot says:


    Patrick J. Buchanan has been excellent to include with the following ‘Whose War?’ article mentioned above as well:

    Whose War (Israel’s war!)?:

    Democrats (like AIPAC associated Howard Berman and company) will also be falling all over themselves to have US ‘defend’ our ‘ally’ Israel after Iran retaliates when Israel initiates the war with Iran:

    Berman, Congressional Foreign Affairs Boss, Cites Israel as a Prime Motivator in His Politics, Then Calls Israel Lobby a ‘Total Canard’:

    Obama could have been much stronger telling Netanyahu not to pull any kind of attack on Iran but didn’t!/won’t because he is just another AIPAC pandering poodle as well! Look at the following to see who owns the Democrats as well though!:

    Schlepping to Moguldom

    Haim Saban, friend to Israel and Democrats

    Latest on Haim Saban and Oliver Stone

    Israel, Big Money and Obama

  • Patricia Stones says:

    If I had been told for 10 years that I would be attacked, whenever, I would prepare by placing counter measures in the backyards of the attackers and upgrading my counter measures all the time, so when the attack on me happens, if it does happen, the civilisation of the attacker would siply grind to a hold with a lot of damage. Now my question is, do you think that Iran would not do something similar, or for that matter, many more and worse things?

  • Patriot says:

    America Cannot Go to War for Israel: By Ahmed Moor

    DEBORCHGRAVE: War with Iran:

  • Patriot says:

    Tales from the Northwest Frontier (by Philip Giraldi)

    Ron Paul: The American Empire Can’t Afford Another War Pt 1

    Ron Paul: The American Empire Can’t Afford Another War Pt 2

  • Jeanne says:

    While the Democrats have been totally controlled by AIPAC for the past many years, there has, as neocon Dan Senor noted, a change among Democrats — especially those who are not Jewish. However, the Republican party has been taken over by the fundamentalist Christians, so almost all (except Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan) Republican candidates– especially those with national ambitions — MUST support the right wing Israeli policies. Fundamentalists (who do not believe in a 2 state solution) are trying to provoke total war (Armageddon) in the Middle East so that Jesus can come again — very, very scary.

    One more thing, In Israel, Obama has the lowest approval ratings (in the single digits) of any American President — which is telling. In other words, Israelis, for the first time, worry that an American President will not be “properly” pro Israel.

  • Dave says:

    I have dreams of seeing Israel start a war against Iran and having the Russians or China destroy Israel with nukes.
    FOX,CNN,and the Zionist bootlicking Christian dummies hoping to see rapture would be wailing about “poor Israel” while 80% of the planet would be having celebrations that would last a month.
    I will be of the latter group.

  • Lili says:

    Is this article a joke? The leaders of America are completely corrupt as are the leaders of the entire rest of the world. American citizens can in no way control government and military actions.

    Israeli citizens can no more control their leaders as Iranian, Afghan, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Canadian, French, Italian, British or African citizens can control theirs.

    War is coming. Prepare. Everything has a beginning and ending. Live with it.

  • Patriot says:

    U.S. Is Said to Assure Israel a Nuclear Iran Isn’t Imminent – NYTimes

  • Patriot says:

    Keep in mind that Iranian nuke program is just the Israeli pretext for Iranian regime change!

    We will have see! Especially with following:

    DEBORCHGRAVE: Guns of August

    Because the Israelis & supporters in US/UK can’t stand Iranian support of
    Palestinian & Hezbollah resistance to Israel!

  • Jimmy Hoff says:

    It is time for the Final Solution to the Zionist Problem.
    The Zionists control both political Parties in the U.S., the
    Presidential Administration, the Federal Agencies, The Educational System,
    the Media, the Banks, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma
    The Zionists have robbed the American Middle Class blind, and want Americans to send their sons and daughters to yet another war to bleed rivers of blood for Israel, and corporate profits.

  • AP Ricot-Jam says:

    I’ve checked out the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

    Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; Churchill’s Second World War totals 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.

    In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

  • AP Ricot-Jam says:

    Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267), and “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:

    “He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere..” (p 200).

    According to Liddell Hart, “At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia” (p140).

    David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to “the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”

    This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.

  • Patriot says:

    Wayne Madsen is not always credible but following is most interesting (and concerning)!

    Israelis conducting covert maritime operations in Persian Gulf

  • Patriot says:

    Take a look at the youtube (Russia Today interview with Grant Smith as I had arranged for him to be interviewed by Susan Modaress on Press TV as well) linked at the bottom of following URL:

    Zionist Lobby Paid Off U.S. Journalists To Sell Israeli Foreign Policy

  • Phil Gldden says:

    Everyone complains about the almost complete control which the Zionists have managed to effectuate over American systems. However, no one seemingly has any idea as to how to deal with this problem. While there is still some non-Jewish control over the courts, all of the prominent Jewish organizations should be sued as agents of a foreign power. The object is not so much to win such a suit, but rather to make an issue of Jewish control so that it can be spread for the common knowledge. For example, sue the ADL in every state where they operate. They will have to answer at consderable expense, and what kind of a defense would they have? Another is NPR whih is supposed to represent the thinking of the Ameican people, but which is dominated by Jews. If taken to court they would have to account for the great preponderence of Jews in the organization, and because of the nature of the suit, they would have to comply. I have already sued in Florida over the Holocaust Law and won on very obvious grounds. One of their Achilles Heels, is their arrogance, but when they lose, their puffed-up personas collapse into the mean, wizened-up creatures which they truly are.

  • Patriot says:

    Bushehr And The Bomb (by Ilan Berman)

    Let’s see if the Russians follow through with installing the fuel into Bushehr. Ilan Berman is the same former JINSA researcher mentioned via the following:

    Philip Giraldi wrote about him in the following piece:

  • Patriot says:

    Iran prepares to start up first nuclear reactor:

  • Patriot says:

    Breaking News from

    Will Israel Strike Iran as Deadline Looms?

    Nuclear Iran: Real and Present Danger?

    Israel views Iran’s nuclear facilities as a “grave threat,” but an attack is not imminent, Jerusalem Post military correspondent Yaakov Katz tells Newsmax.TV – notwithstanding former U.N. ambassador John Bolton’s warning that Israel must strike by Saturday, before the Bushehr reactor goes online.
    Read the Full Story and See the Video – Go Here Now.

Leave a Reply