* The Great Global Power Transfer
Over the past 10 years, a news bureau I know has continually tracked one particular trend as it has threaded its way through the news they analyze daily. It is the trend toward the transfer of power—financially, economically, industrially, commercially, technologically, and, increasingly, politically and militarily—from the dominant Anglo-Saxon peoples to the non-English-speaking peoples. This trend has been particularly strong in this first decade of the 21st century.
The English-speaking peoples established economies of great wealth during the 17th through the 19th centuries. Following World War I, that situation began to change in Britain irreversibly. By the end of the 20th century, a similar change was becoming apparent within the United States. Now these nations, which once largely financed much of world trade between them, are hugely in debt to the very two foreign nations that only 60 years ago they defeated in the greatest contest for world power in the history of mankind!
“Two nations effectively control the world’s credit: Germany and Japan. Between the two of them, they provide more than half the world’s surplus savings. If they ever decided to stop lending to the United States, the world economy would change quickly” (Daily Reckoning, Sept. 13, 2005).
It’s as though the Anglo-Saxon nations are blinded to the plight they have put themselves in, financially and economically, through the mass sell-off of their industry to foreign holdings—transferring jobs and wealth to foreign nations in the process—and their devolution from self-supporting economies to being more and more dependent on foreign nations for supply of the very basics of life. If not blinded, then certainly deluded!
“We believe we can tell where we are in a financial … cycle by studying the delusions of the participants,” the Daily Reckoning continued. “In the month of July [2005], for example, the personal savings rate in America went to a negative 0.6 percent. Not in 70 years had the rate been so low. The last time it was so low was in the Great Depression, when Americans felt their backs to the wall; they had to dip into savings in order to keep going. Now, they no longer dip into savings. Instead, every emergency sends them running to foreigners, asking for credit.”
This trend of transferring Anglo-Saxon wealth to foreign nations is further exacerbated by the current steady flight from dollar holdings to that currency that Germany ramrodded through the European Parliament just five years ago—the fledgling euro.
* Arms Race
While the mass media remain fixated on Iraq and devote huge effort to pulverizing the current U.S. presidency, they largely miss the most important news events of the day. One such event is a definite new global arms race stimulated by foreign nations recognizing America’s failings in diplomacy and military strategy, and the U.S.’s lack of political will to deal decisively with its enemies. All the trends we see from this news bureau's sources point to this new arms race.
Any arms race has, historically, always been a harbinger of war.
The major nations of the world know that America is far overstretched militarily. They recognize that it is tiring of its war on terror. The U.S. is approaching an extremely vulnerable point in its history. Look at the facts.
America has a lame-duck presidency, experiencing a paucity of clear-minded presidential advisers; this at a time when its reputation as a peace-loving, magnanimous nation has descended to an almost global perception of the nation as—next to the Jewish nation of Israel—the chief enemy of world peace. The U.S. population is being brainwashed by its mass media into a mindset of politically correct appeasement of its rank enemies. Its capability as the world’s policeman—a role that certain powers, such as the European Union, have gladly hidden behind while they chased their own agenda for global domination—is diminishing month by month. Realizing this, those nations that since World War II have enjoyed the security of U.S. military presence are beginning to feel vulnerable.
“With hindsight, we may see 2006 as the end of Pax Americana,” wrote Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson. “Ever since World War II, the United States has used its military and economic superiority to promote a stable world order that has, on the whole, kept the peace and spread prosperity. But the United States increasingly lacks both the power and the will to play this role” (Dec. 13, 2006).
The danger of this 21st-century arms race is that it is now crossing the nuclear threshold. There is an increasing trend toward the proliferation of nuclear power. We hear much about Iran’s attempts to become a nuclear power. We hear little of the impending risk posed by those same two nations that control the lion’s share of world credit, though they fall into the same category as the maverick Iran. Japan is the most dramatic case in point. From what we detect, Germany may not be far behind.
When the only nation that has ever felt the cruel blow of nuclear destruction moves to acquire the very power it once feared to collectively endorse, it’s time to sit up and take notice!
Stratfor called this “perhaps the most striking example of the changing view of nuclear weapons acquisition. Tokyo wants its own nukes, even if it continues to profess a non-nuclear stance. And Japan has the capability and resources to produce nuclear weapons in short order, and the capability to deliver such weapons in a time of conflict” (Dec. 19, 2006).
Meanwhile, voices in Germany are quietly calling for that nation to have access to a nuclear defense capability. Germany has already demanded that its high command have access to France’s nuclear weapons. With the U.S. still having upward of 400 nukes deployed on European soil, it may not be long, given the cozy relationship developing between Washington and Berlin, before a similar demand is made of America’s nuclear weaponry. This prospect is of real concern to those attuned to the cycle of history as Germany’s profile as a world power currently leaps into perspective.
As Deutsche Welle put it, “Germany’s growing economic, political and military role is under the spotlight in 2007 with Berlin holding the rotating presidencies of both the European Union and the G-8 club of industrial nations. Germany’s military transition is one of the biggest ongoing shifts in the country’s global positioning since unification” (January 2, 2007).
During the past 10 years, as this definite trend has been tracked toward the progressive transfer of power from the Anglo-Saxons to the non-English-speaking peoples, an eye to history has also been kept.
Now, in 2007, we see the inevitable cycle of history bringing back into focus, as global powers, two of the very nations that joined in a tyrannical axis to seek the enslavement of the Anglo-Saxon peoples less than 70 years ago—Germany and Japan.
* Brainwashed By Leftists
A recent visit to Australia left someone insightful noting one glaring similarity between Aussies and Americans. The leftists have brainwashed both societies into living in a fool’s paradise.
They have accomplished this in each of these countries since World War II by a combination of deft use of the education system, a takeover of the mass media, and promulgation of liberal-socialist legislation by the left.
( look to the Talmudic followers for a possible answer as to who might be behind this brainwashing and why: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion - Torrent info link )
It is no mere coincidence that the last great crop of leaders of real character, of true statesmen and heroes in battle, emerged from the pre-World War II, pre-liberalized education system.
By contrast, the free democracies of the world (largely comprised of the English-speaking peoples) are today being led by prime ministers and presidents who developed as individuals within post-World War II society. These have been the years of the feminizing of society, the blurring of gender roles, the emasculation of language, and the neutering of anything that might smack of the old values upon which our respective nations were built.
We now live out the legacy of the Marxist-Leninist theoreticians’ takeover of education in the ’60s, its flower-power results of the ’70s, the corporate greed backlash of the ’80s, and the self-fulfillment rush of the ’90s. Today we see the high penalty we must pay for satiating our senses at any price: the accelerating meltdown of the whole post-war system!
* Read The Signs !
Whether it be our national debt, the state of our increasingly incompatible multicultural societies, the transfer of major industries offshore, the conversion of our once-great agricultural export economies into net importers, the volatility of our stock markets, the increasing gender confusion within society, or the rising hatred for people of Anglo-Saxon and Judaic stock—threats to the freedoms hard won in World War II currently abound.
What is it about us essentially peace-loving, generally good-natured Anglo-Saxons that causes us to ignore any powerfully aggressive threat to our freedoms until our enemies try to smash us?
Should it not have been obvious, given their history, that the Teutonic peoples of Europe would use the Treaty of Versailles as a cloak under which to heap retribution on those nations that humiliated them in World War I? Ought it not to have been self-evident that a signature on a piece of paper of a rabble-rousing, Jew-hating tyrant gave absolutely no protection whatsoever against his imperialistic drives in 1939? Should it not have been clear to all that a corpulent, gun-toting, scraggy-bearded Palestinian addressing the United Nations was simply enhancing his platform calling for the annihilation of the tiny nation of Israel? And should it not have been apparent to any level-headed political leader, looking into the eyes of a former Russian KGB agent (Putin) who suddenly rises to the presidency of his own country, that he is certainly not “a man I can trust”?
Any realist would have to agree that the history that Western—in particular Anglo-Saxon—civilization is writing today is a history we are bound to regret.
Western society’s decline may have been accelerated by the events of 9/11. The signs are, its fall is but a matter of time. But, inevitably, history shows, we will have to learn this the hard way.
As we either ignore or remain willingly ignorant of the hard facts of the impending doom of our hedonistic way of life, will it yet again take an enemy intent on smashing us over the head to wake us up to the reality of our great moral decline into Romanesque decadence?
While Western mass media remain stupidly hypnotized by a petty Persian windbag and lesser extremist Islamists loud on rhetoric and great on blowing themselves and others to bits, we ignore one great fact of history. The major threats to the freedoms of the Anglo-Saxon peoples have always been initiated from the continent of Europe.
Though Imperial Japan did raise a dire threat to our existence in World War II, it did not initiate that war on the West. The two greatest wars in man’s history were launched against the free West from Europe.
That such a catastrophe could again be perpetrated against our shores from Europe is incomprehensible to our educationalists, our politicians, press and mass media.
Break out of the fool’s paradise that currently enraptures Western society, and really WAKE UP to the reality of what is truly happening on the world scene/
* The Danger In Ignoring History
Current world leaders—some of the most highly educated of our time—are making fatal errors in managing international crises. Why? The solutions that would work require knowledge and respect for history.
Prior to World War II, Churchill warned Britain and the Western nations about Hitler’s rise to power. Because he learned the lessons taught by World War I, he saw the extreme danger of the bold (and illegal) German moves to rearm. Churchill saw the German youth ready and willing to fight for the Fatherland. As Germany rearmed, British leaders wanted to disarm. Churchill was aghast! But his warnings were met with a vicious attack from leaders in Parliament and at Oxford. A group of Oxford undergraduates officially declared they would not fight for “king and country.” Still, Churchill remained determined and only grew stronger in the face of their hostility.
Oxford was the leader of the pacifists. Other colleges and universities thought similarly in America and Britain. Have our educational institutions learned a lesson from the Hitler experience? No they have not! Neither have our political leaders, nor the press.
Today, Germany is again rising to power in Europe. The Roman Catholic Church is gaining influence globally. Iran is boldly prancing on the world stage. The United States, Britain and the tiny nation of Israel are being pushed into the background. What does this all mean? History tells us that a 21st-century crusade is coming. It will violently involve a Roman Catholic-inspired and German-led Europe. Israel will be swallowed in the coming clash. The U.S. and Britain will be powerless to intervene. But who believes that?
Referring to the perilous danger of Germany’s current rise to power, how Tony Blair’s government is contemptuous of history, as was former U.S. President Bill Clinton. “It is a dangerous problem—the kind of thinking that destroys nations!”
Bill Clinton, when he was president, totally ignored the “1945 United Nations warning about the likelihood of Germany starting World War III.” Many of our own citizens personally lived through that history. Even worse, Mr. Clinton actually pushed Germany into dominating Europe—the ultimate contempt for extremely recent history! …
How utterly contemptuous Mr. Blair and Mr. Clinton have been of World War II history that cost 50 million lives! Our nations are going to pay dearly for such dangerous contempt of history.
Do we see how our contempt for history is putting us in harm’s way?
Just after World War II, leaders like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to make certain that Germany would not start World War III. Where are men like these today?
Let’s face the truth. The pool of rightly trained, effective leaders is nearly dried up. There is a cause for every effect. Education has promised us that with sufficient knowledge we can solve all of our problems. Do we see that, in regards to leadership training, our education system is failing us?
Where is the world leader today willing to stand against the tide as Churchill did?
Do you see a world leader stirring up people, warning them about Germany’s rise to power? Let’s be honest: our people and our educational institutions are far more liberal than at the time of World War II.
These childish leaders lack knowledge of critical history. Of course, we do not want to oversimplify the causes of our leaders’ mishandling of international crises, but we should be able to recognize that not learning the lessons of history is an important cause.
* America Is Copying Chamberlain’s Mistakes
In World War II, Britain’s prime minister dreamed of making peace with Hitler. Today, the U.S. has the same fantasy.
We live in the most dangerous times ever. And they are getting much more dangerous every day. At the same time, most people are afraid to face reality.
Two bombshell events happened within one week—the Annapolis “peace” talks and the release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program—that signal a nation-destroying change in American foreign policy!
Both events reveal how Americans prefer to live in a fantasy world—like the one portrayed in the NIE. Like little children, far too many Americans hide from the ugly and dangerous truth.
It is hard to read about the Israeli-Palestinian “peace” conference in Annapolis—which the U.S. hosted on Nov. 27, 2007—and not think about the relationship between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain before World War II. Many experts believe we came dangerously close to losing that war because we refused to face reality. Winston Churchill called it “the unnecessary war” because we failed to confront Hitler’s humiliation of the West before he became so powerful.
* Coddling Hitler
A terrifying event was unfolding in Germany during 1932. Here is what Martin Gilbert wrote in his biography of Winston Churchill, The Prophet of Truth (please take note of that powerful title):
“As the German economic crisis intensified, and unemployment rose, Adolf Hitler’s following had increased, and by mid-January more than 400,000 men had joined his semi-military ‘Stormtroopers,’ while Nazi Party membership reached 2 million. The three most strident Nazi demands were an end to the Versailles Treaty, rearmament, and the removal of German Jews from all walks of German life.”
Hitler and the Nazis demanded “the removal of German Jews from all walks of German life.” Hitler’s sick and dangerous demands should have been met with a resolute will. But Chamberlain and others had a defeatist attitude. As a result, Hitler and Germany eventually caused the deaths of 50 million people.
During the 1930s, British and other Western diplomats worked feverishly to have peace with a diabolical Hitler. Neville Chamberlain, the last prime minister before Churchill, was humiliated and had his career tarnished forever by the Nazis. The media, politicians and people of Britain and America were supportive of Chamberlain’s allowing himself to be bullied and abused by Hitler before the whole world. (Just as most of our media, politicians and people loved the Annapolis conference.) There was a strong buzz about Chamberlain receiving the Nobel Prize—until Hitler started World War II.
Winston Churchill warned Chamberlain and others throughout the 1930s against giving in to Hitler’s egregious demands. But he was ALONE and almost driven from his own party—until people were forced to see that he was right. However, they didn’t see it until it was almost too late.
The West did nothing as Hitler toppled the government of Austria and got control of that country. Many Jews and others were slaughtered. The Times of London even tried to justify Hitler’s enslaving of that nation against the majority’s will.
That was a land-for-peace deal—which is exactly what Israel has been using for many years to try to gain peace with the radical Arabs. What does this tactic say about Israel? It is in its final phase as a nation if it doesn’t wake up!
After devouring Austria, Hitler wanted the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France forced that country to give away a large portion of its territory—all in the name of peace.
Then Hitler attacked and conquered all of Czechoslovakia. The West let it happen to a freedom-loving country, in the name of peace. Britain and France didn’t declare war until Hitler attacked Poland. But even then, Chamberlain tried to get Hitler to withdraw from Poland and sign a peace treaty with Britain. What a fantasy world Neville Chamberlain lived in.
* Racism In Annapolis
On Nov. 30, 2007, Caroline Glick wrote in her column for the Jerusalem Post:
“This week the Bush administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
“Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs. …
“It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not [Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, who was forced—by Rice—to enter the conference through the service entrance”.
The foreign minister received that repugnant treatment even though she came prepared to make weighty concessions.
How abominable! The spirit of Hitler prevails again. And somehow we think this is going to bring peace. This is not the way to peace—it’s the way to war! Just as it was in the 1930s. We are nurturing the Nazi spirit to our everlasting shame!
* America Favors Syria Over Israel
Syria, the second-leading terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world, came to the conference only because America agreed to allow its chosen leader to gain control of Lebanon. The terrorists already have the upper hand there.
The political party of Saad al-Hariri, son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, has tried to limit Syria’s influence in Lebanon. On Nov. 28, 2007, however, his party agreed to a constitutional amendment that opened the door for Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, to be elected president.
The Weekly Standard reported, “Up until now, Hariri and his March 14 allies (the date of the 2005 Cedar Revolution) had resisted Suleiman’s candidacy; Lebanese democrats are generally loath to have military men serve as president of the republic, especially after the last nine years of former commander Emile Lahoud’s presidency. But more importantly, Suleiman is Damascus’s number-one choice to fill the now-vacant spot.
“So why have Hariri and his colleagues, including Druze chieftain Walid Jumblatt and leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea, made an about-face? It is because of Annapolis. They feared Washington was going to cut a deal with Syria over Lebanon, so they made their own bargain to protect themselves since it is now obvious Washington will not. Thus, the wages of peace processing” (Nov. 30, 2007).
The Standard article continued by describing some of the background of this situation. Please take note of this:
“In October 2007, Hariri visited Washington where he met with the president and every major administration figure along with dozens of legislators on both sides of the aisle. ‘There is a killing machine in Syria,’ Hariri told a roomful of journalists. ‘We came to Washington to say, “If you are going to do something about it, let us know. If you are not going to do anything about it, let us know. But no matter what, we’re not going to give in.”‘
“Consciously or not, Rice signaled where America’s real priorities lie—not with protecting a fledgling democracy in Beirut from the terrorist state next door, but in trying to reward a society that breeds terrorism within its own state. …
“In Beirut, though, it means a continuation of the Syrian-backed military and security apparatus that has killed Lebanese politicians, journalists, and civil society figures with impunity. It means, as well, a betrayal of the Lebanese men and women who peacefully resisted a terrorist regime and its local allies, who risked their lives over the last two-plus years on behalf of a national dream of tolerance and coexistence.”
Now we have a stronger killing machine in Lebanon, supposedly to bring peace! And who is rejoicing? The terrorists of Lebanon and the Middle East—instead of the more innocent, freedom-loving people who trusted in America to help them gain peace and freedom. The Arab Nazis will usher in a new era of “peace” in the Middle East with their killing machine—with a lot of help from the U.S.
We are accomplices in helping this terrorist-sponsoring nation destroy a fledgling democracy. How could anyone not believe we are hurting our war against terrorism? Or have we just surrendered in that war?
* An Announcement To The World
Not one week after the Annapolis conference, the U.S. intelligence community released the NIE about Iran. This report was America’s indirect announcement to a stunned world that we lack the will to ever stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Iran is the number-one terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world—by far. The Israeli intelligence network is probably the best in this world. Israel estimates that Iran will have nuclear bombs within two years—a radically different view than the NIE report.
When Iran gets nuclear weapons, it is more likely to start a nuclear World War III than any nation on Earth. President Ahmadinejad already said he would wipe Israel off the map. That is not the kind of mind that diplomacy is going to change. The terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas control southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. They are sponsored and controlled by Iran. They frequently attack Israel without being provoked. How much more dangerous will this world be if they get nuclear weapons?
Well-meaning but weak-willed, dangerous peaceniks (what Churchill called them) in politics and the media helped and encouraged Hitler to start World War II. He could have easily been stopped in the early years. Weak leaders said diplomacy would work. But diplomacy only paved the way for Hitler’s causing the death of 50 million people. Churchill stood alone, warning of the coming catastrophe. Many people called him a warmonger—until they came to see he was right.
We are repeating the same distressing, inexcusable error today. When the peaceniks get control, surrender and war are almost certain to follow rapidly!
Here is what Churchill said after his long warning in the 1930s and shortly before World War II began:
“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.
“There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history” (Gilbert, op. cit.).
* Betraying Israel And America
Yossi Klein Halevi wrote this for the New Republic, December 6, 2007, after the NIE was released:
“America, even under George Bush, is hardly likely to go to war to stop a program many Americans now believe doesn’t exist.
“Until now, pessimists here could console themselves that a last-resort Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would likely draw wide international sympathy and even gratitude—very different from the near-total condemnation that greeted Israel’s attack on Saddam’s reactor in 1981. Now, though, the NIE will ensure that if Israel does attack, it will be widely branded a warmonger, and faulted for the inevitable fallout of rising oil prices and increased terror.
“The sense of betrayal within the Israeli security system is deep. After all, Israel’s great achievement in its struggle against Iran was in convincing the international community that the nuclear threat was real; now that victory has been undone—not by Russia or the European Union, but by Israel’s closest ally.
“What makes Israeli security officials especially furious is that the report casts doubt on Iranian determination to attain nuclear weapons. [The report offers absolutely no evidence to support such a view-but it could have deadly consequences!] There is a sense of incredulity here: Do we really need to argue the urgency of the threat all over again?"
Anybody who doesn’t think Iran has a crash program to build nuclear weapons is simply refusing to face the truth. Weak-willed people make deadly mistakes from which a nation may not recover—especially in this nuclear age. It’s the same old story. History keeps repeating itself.
That intelligence report did betray Israel. But it also betrayed the American people! It has caused them to relax and believe there is no immediate threat. It’s the Hitler scenario all over again, this time with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
We should have learned from Hitler that our “peace” making is fostering a nuclear World War III. If we think we can do nothing and somehow escape the raging danger, we are thinking like children! When a nuclear war starts, the whole world is going to be dragged into the fiery furnace.
It isn’t that we can’t see the danger. We refuse to face it, hoping it will somehow go away. Instead, we make the problem a thousand times worse.
Winston Churchill called this the “confirmed unteachability of mankind.” He said “these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
* Politics Above Survival
Here is another powerful statement from the New Republic:
“Nor do senior analysts [in Israel] take seriously the NIE’s vague assessments of when Iran will reach the point of no return: beginning in 2010, it says, though not likely until 2013 or even 2015. Israel’s point of no return is when Iran attains the potential to produce sufficient fissile material for making a bomb. And they believe that is likely to happen—barring continued mishaps, accidental or not, in the Iranian nuclear program, like exploding centrifuges—somewhere within the next two years.
“Once the material is available, the final step toward constructing a bomb is the least complicated part of the process. ‘Making bombs is a much shorter process than uranium enrichment,’ explains Ephraim Asculai, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and a 40-year veteran of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. ‘Today the Iranians are enriching uranium at 4 percent; to make a bomb, you need 90 percent. From there, the transition doesn’t require a lot of time. Most of the work has been done to get to the 4 percent. It is a matter of months, not years.’”
We should be thinking in terms of months, not years! Politics are being placed above the welfare of nations, that portends a black, foreboding future. These are the most dangerous times in history, we can’t afford such terrifying blunders if we are to survive.
* Grave Danger Of A World Explosion
Churchill kept crying out as a voice in the wilderness of political confusion. There was still a possibility, Churchill believed, of preserving peace.
“Never must we despair,” he said, “never must we give in, but we must face facts and draw true conclusions from them.” It was now essential for Britain to retrieve “the woeful miscalculations of which we are at present the dupes, and of which, unless we take warning in time, we may some day be the victims” (Gilbert, op. cit.).
We are not facing the facts. Our people are being duped by leaders who want to hear “smooth things” in a world filled with unparalleled dangers.
Churchill continued:
“Terrible preparations are being made on all sides for war,” and he added: “I do not feel that people realize at all how near and how grave are the dangers of a world explosion. Some regard the scene with perfect equanimity; many gape stolidly upon it, some are angry to be disturbed by such thoughts in their daily routine and pleasures” (ibid.).
The people wouldn’t face Churchill’s warning until it was almost too late. He talked about the possible “end” of Britain’s glories. But the people did not want to think about the bloody dangers of a world explosion. They didn’t want to be disturbed from their comfortable routine and pleasures. So they voted for politicians who spoke to them about more pleasures and a prosperous world.
The same is true today. We face a far more spectacular world explosion. But we are too glutted on sports and entertainment to heed a strong warning. As Churchill said, history continues to repeat itself! We have not learned from the historical lessons of World War II. Today, we are again surrendering to evil tyrants.
* National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
The National Intelligence Council said it now has “high confidence” that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program over four years ago. The estimate caused an earthquake in government circles.
Nearly every critic of the intelligence that guided America’s decision to invade Iraq—including Iran-friendly foreign governments like Russia and China—immediately accepted the new NIE as sacred scripture.
If the intelligence community overstated Iraq’s WMD capabilities in 2003, this report—in its effect—went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It single-handedly eliminated any rationale for military action against Iran, and even deflated the prospect of more sanctions. In nine terse pages, it dealt a deadly blow to the international effort to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
The first sign upon the NIE's release was Iran’s increased nerviness—Ahmadinejad talking about his “victory” and the “fatal blow” to American military action; Iranian officials demanding the end of UN sanctions, a U.S. apology and damages; Iran’s oil minister calling the U.S. dollar “unreliable” and announcing no more oil trade in greenbacks. There were also the death knells for international pressure against Iran, such as Russia saying discussion of more UN sanctions should end and promising to resume work on Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr.
What a sudden, drastic change! The last intelligence estimate on the subject, issued in May 2005, stated “with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons.” Why the about-face? Was it merely the result of better information suddenly becoming available?
Shamefully, overwhelming evidence indicates that the primary reason for the change was not the pursuit of truth, but the dictates of politics.
* A Faulty Report
Many people—including CIA and other government officials—have lambasted the NIE for a number of reasons. Officials in Israel and Britain made it clear they do not accept its conclusions. Even France, Germany and the United Nations expressed doubts.
The American press, by contrast, conveniently shelved its skepticism for this single assessment.
Consider the evidence.
First, the intelligence community reported that it now sees Iran as a “rational actor”—meaning that the Islamic Republic bases its policies not on religious ideology, but on predictable “cost-benefit” calculations. This report said Iran’s abandonment of nuclear weapons development in 2003—done “primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work”—suggests that “Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.”
Is it true? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “rational actor”? Well, he is known to make unorthodox statements from time to time—like when he said he believes the Twelfth Imam put him in office in order to provoke a clash of civilizations—or the time he said Israel would be wiped off the map in “one storm”—or when he said he looks forward to “a world without America.” What about the ruling mullahs Ahmadinejad reports to—the ones who have turned their nation into the world’s biggest bankroller of state-sponsored terrorism? “Rational actors”? Just the right combination of economic and political incentives and punishments, and they’ll give up their ambition to transform the Middle East into a Khomeinist empire?
The NIE placed an extraordinary degree of trust in individuals who have repeatedly proven they shouldn’t be trusted.
Notice this statement from the report:
“We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon.”
Moderate confidence? Based on every successful nuclear program in history, and given Iran’s history of deceit, we should be able to assess with absolute confidence that Iran would absolutely use covert facilities to make nuclear weapons. Nobody advertises serious efforts to manufacture nukes—that is, until they detonate them.
For its part, Israel has contended for at least three years that the nuclear program Iran has been tussling with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) over is actually a distraction from a more secret program. The NIE itself confirms that Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program for about a decade and a half leading up to 2003, when it supposedly came to an abrupt halt. Iran has a long history of nuclear trickery. Yet now, suddenly, the intelligence community can “judge with high confidence” that it all ended in 2003?
Actually, that “high confidence” was far shakier than mainstream headlines suggested. Notice this statement—buried within parentheses in the estimate:
“(Because of intelligence gaps … [we] assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)”
The report is a maze of such carefully hedged statements, conjectures and guesses. We do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. The New York Sun quoted one former senior intelligence officer as saying that this is like submitting a report saying the sun will come up tomorrow unless it doesn’t.
Astoundingly, the report read as though we are all meant to have “high confidence” in the civility of Iran’s nuclear program—despite mountains of uncertainty and gratuitously charitable assumptions.
Why? That question stands out in flashing neon when one studies the report.
As John Bolton wrote, “[T]he headline finding—that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003—is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread”—that is, misread in Iran’s favor (Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2007).
Not even the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, gives Iran that much credit; it said it couldn’t agree with the report’s conclusions based on the evidence.
Again, John Bolton: “When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda.”
Now, sure enough, it appears U.S. policy will proceed as if Iranian nuclear weapons pose virtually no threat whatsoever.
In other words, the report achieved its intended effect.
* Retracing Our Steps
How did this happen? Even during the Clinton administration, Iran was at the top of the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Today we are over six years into a supposedly out-and-out “war on terrorism.”
When President George W. Bush spoke of that war after 9/11, he said, “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.”
By that definition, Iran would qualify as the premier target. In his State of the Union address the following January, he specifically branded Iran as a member of an “axis of evil.”
Even by the time “axis of evil” entered public discussion, the limits of America’s determination to follow through on its rhetoric had already started to appear. The first target in the “war on terrorism” was the shaky, friendless Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Washington had meanwhile worked to cobble together a worldwide coalition of anti-terrorist nations—and, remarkably, among the nations it invited to join was the world’s number-one state sponsor of terrorism: Iran.
Iran denied the request—and surely savored the opportunity to do so.
The White House chose its second target in the war on terrorism: Iraq. Here is where the big revelation that emerged from the NIE—that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003—has some fascinating ramifications.
That Iran did in fact have a clandestine nuclear weapons program before 2003 comes as little shock, considering its naked aspirations to be the Middle East’s dominant power. But, assuming the NIE’s version of events is correct, why halt the program in 2003? The NIE credits “international pressure”—as if it was the threat of sanctions, or some stern words issued through diplomatic channels. Not likely. Diplomatic efforts to stem Iran’s nuclear program didn’t officially start until 2004. What did happen in 2003 that may have convinced the Iranian mullahs to switch off the power at the nuclear weapons lab—even if only temporarily—was America’s invasion of Iraq.
If you remember, about that time, Muammar Ghadafi decided it was in his best interest to bring his WMD programs to a halt. Seeing the world’s mightiest military, backed by an international coalition, smash through Iraq and turn the mighty Saddam into a fugitive cave-dweller in three quick weeks apparently made quite an impression.
The irony is, at the same time Iran stopped its clandestine nuclear weapons program (assuming the NIE is correct), it also held clandestine celebrations over the demise of its archenemy, Saddam. The U.S.-led strike in Iraq successfully removed the biggest obstacle within the region to Iran realizing its regional ambitions.
In an effort to wage a fundamentally altruistic war—one that wouldn’t appear imperialistic and nasty to the rest of the world—the U.S. chose not merely to eliminate the threat of Iraq, but to undertake the impossible task of transforming Iraq into a functional, West-friendly democracy. Four and a half years and $2 trillion later, that task remains a work in progress.
Those 4 _ years have been a slow, inevitable illumination of the fact that in failing to pursue Iran—the head of the terrorist snake—from the beginning, the U.S. made a fundamental error from which it could not recover.
Today, the idea of going after Iran has been superseded by a bitter reality: Not only does America not have the means and the political will to mount a successful attack on Iran, but Tehran has also gained enough influence over the situation that the U.S. can’t even extricate itself from Iraq without Iran’s help.
* The High Cost To America
The Bush administration has slowly, gingerly, reluctantly looked for a way to come to terms with an Iranian presence in Iraq. Though it is clearly uncomfortable with the idea and is doing all it can to try to gain the upper hand, the signs of working toward an agreement have been there. In addition to numerous private talks between the U.S. and Iran, the two parties have conducted three rounds of high-level public talks and are about to conduct a fourth. Regarding Iran’s nuclear material, almost two years ago the U.S. agreed to allow Russia to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian soil (a proposal Israel rejected)—no small accommodation (Dec. 17, 2007, Russia announced it had begun these deliveries). Aside from occasional, mostly veiled verbal threats, the U.S. has remained solidly committed to addressing the Iran nuclear question through the clunky UN Security Council, which by nature of its composition is unable to agree upon any but the most anemic of punitive measures against Iran. The threat of a military strike on Iran has never been anything more than a negotiation tool.
With the NIE, Washington eliminated the largest cause for public resistance to permitting Iran a freer hand in Iraq and elsewhere: the perceived threat of an Iranian nuke. Again, evidence abounds that this political goal influenced the presentation of the intelligence that informed the NIE.
The U.S. is purchasing an exit from Iraq—and at an extraordinarily high cost. By emboldening Iran, it is selling out all those neighboring Arab states that grow uncomfortable when Tehran gets aggressive. Far more tragically, it is selling out its longtime ally Israel, which is by far the number-one target of Iran’s hostility. (How ironic that all of this U.S.-Iran deal-making occurred in the immediate wake of the U.S. sponsoring the Annapolis “peace” conference—considering that Iran underwrites two of Israel’s biggest terrorist enemies: Hamas and Hezbollah.)
On top of all that, the U.S. purchases this exit at the expense of exposing its own crippling weakness of will—and granting Iran bragging rights for having tussled with the “Great Satan” and won.
If you thought Ahmadinejad was insufferable after the NIE was published, just stick around.
How remarkable the degree of responsibility that rests on America’s shoulders for facilitating the rise of Iran! It is a pushy, aggressive, arrogant power that dares other nations to retaliate against it.
* Another King
Though the NIE claimed Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it pleaded ignorance on whether Iran ever restarted it. Israeli intelligence and Iranian dissident sources claim the program only stopped for a short time. Sheer logic argues against the notion that not a single lab in that huge country has moved a muscle toward building weapons in over four years. Iran wants to dominate the Mideast; becoming a nuclear power would do much to advance that goal. Imagine how it would bring neighboring states into submission, how it would rally the Muslim extremist faithful, how it would restructure the region’s fragile balance of power in Tehran’s favor in a swoop! If you want to talk in terms of “cost-benefit” calculations, to Iran’s mullahs, that’s a lot of benefits.
Still, as of now, official U.S. doctrine is that Iran is not a nuclear threat. Thus, expect increased reconciliation between the two nations. In the end, as the U.S. shrinks from its role as a check on Iran, Iran grows in its power as king of the Middle East.
And we shouldn’t be too surprised if, sometime soon, Iran forces another reputation-crushing reassessment by the intelligence community when it suddenly tests its first nuclear weapon.
This pushy, aggressive, arrogant Middle East power won't be so brazen for too long after that—becoming more of a catalyst to the rise of a far more formidable power, the king to the north. This pushy Middle East bully is simply not a superpower that will dominate the world, or even the region, for a generation or better. It will continue to be a loud, pushy, violent entity that will create enough havoc and stir up enough alarm to eventually provoke a real superpower to rise up and wipe it out. When the moment comes that it faces a determined and ruthless enemy, it will be crushed—soundly, swiftly and decisively.
The demise of the delusional zealotry of Iran and its allies will introduce a short but brutal period of world domination by that newly reawakened European superpower.
* Iran’s Big Bluff
In stating that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program, the NIE explicitly excluded “Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.” Yes, it simply took Ahmadinejad at his word that the hundreds of millions of dollars oil-rich Iran has poured into its nuclear program have been exclusively for domestic energy production—even while admitting that enrichment capabilities developed for electricity are just a short step away from those used for nuclear weapons.
But the NIE’s conclusions went beyond simply accepting Iran’s denials of having any ulterior motives for its nuclear project. They implicitly assumed that years of damning evidence and deceitful behavior on Iran’s part were essentially a big bluff. And hey, nobody got hurt—so let’s all forget it and move on.
Consider it: For a nation without a nuclear weapons program for four years, Iran has done an impressive impersonation of a nation trying to hide a nuclear weapons program. It has restricted the International Atomic Energy Association from accessing its nuclear facilities. It has threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the face of all opposition and despite having plenty of oil energy, it has adamantly, even belligerently defended its right to enrich uranium. It has shrouded its supposedly peaceful nuclear program in alarming secrecy. It has been defiant in the face of having sanctions leveled against it for its obstinance and duplicity.
Just the week before the NIE was released, the IAEA director said Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges busily enriching uranium, but he couldn’t say whether they could be used to make nuclear weapons—because of restrictions Tehran had placed on his inspectors. Just two days before the NIE was released, Iran’s new nuclear negotiator brusquely informed officials in London representing the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany that all prior discussions regarding its uranium-enrichment program were null and void.
If the NIE is to be believed, all this stonewalling and chest-thumping must have been a harmless effort to boost its negotiating position by conning the world into worrying itself over the possibility of an Iranian nuke.
Back to Table of Contents/ . . .
In the public interest.
