.
.
.
Backing into World War III?
By Sean Stone at Information Clearing House.
According to the doctrine of pre-emptive war
(illegal under International Law developed especially after 1945, for obvious reasons after what Nazi Germany did, but vehemently supported by Israel who constantly use the canard...."Israel is a one bomb state"....ie one nuke bomb would be enough to destroy the whole state given its size....on the one hand one can't argue with that kind of stark base street logic....but on the other hand we have to ask where the real threat comes from....certainly not from Iran, regardless of what Likud Israel imagines, blusters about and subsequently prods America with such evidence)
Iran can be attacked based on its alleged desire to develop nuclear weapons, just as Iraq was attacked in 2003.
(But the basis of the attack against Saddam's Iraq have been proven over overwhelmingly false and concocted by Israel....Niger Yellow Cake etc....forged documents to the run up of the Iraq war in 2003. Curve Ball info....Aluminum tubes, mobile labs, attacks against NY in 45 minutes from Iraq, covert nuke programs under ground......the CIA's 1200 strong ISG team searching for years after 2003 found nothing. Most of the WMD capability of Iraq was destroyed between 1991--1998, under the American dominated IAEA inspection teams of which Scott Ritter was an important member {the same time frame should apply to Iran given that the Iranian state hasn't even used WMD's, unlike Iraq....1984--1989..against Iranian soldiers and later against Iraqi Kurds}..........the Israelis and their agents in the USA media created highly flammable campfire desert fairy tales against CIA Saddam's Iraq, and the Bush administration undertook war against Iraq for Israel there after.
But what are facts is that maybe 1,000,000 Iraqis died between 1991--2003 due to stringent sanctions, and the lack of food and medicines.
later under American occupation another 1,500,000 Iraqis died as the USA deliberately for Israel destabilized the country, using proxies and covert ops.
5,000,000 Iraqis became refugees within their country, and without.
The utter destruction of the country into three sectarian pieces which are barely reconcilable.
And your dad did Alexander (2004) to mobilize the gays within the military to go for more S&M bloody meaningless wars for Israel.....with an emphasis on "Celtism" with an Irish Alexander, (Alexanders GREEK ARMY suddenly seemed to have been recruited from the British Isle)...which is a current Rothschild Internationalist agenda....string of Celtic commanders in Afghanistan, save the current one.....truly bizarre or weird, but when you are super rich these are the peculiar peccadilloes you pander casually, at the cost of ordinary human beings at the receiving end....in Third World societies.
We all make our choices on informed beliefs, but I always thought Oliver Stone was at his best when he produced movies which critiqued American society whether at war, or its sheer greed, its political cynicism and plots, and its violence with a keen accurate perspective....it was thus a shame he joined, fell in line and succumbed to the tribal group call and the Internationalist banker agenda when the momentum was at its height under the dastardly Bush administration...whereas he had traditionally passed himself off as a radical thinking intellectual alternative director)
In fact, Congress is currently debating whether a nuclear capability alone (which Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel and other countries enjoy) could justify the 'preventive' attack. I believe it is time to negate this doctrine by postulating that Iran in fact has a right, as a sovereign nation, to a nuclear capability. Having traveled to Iran recently, I can attest to the Joint Chiefs' General Dempsey's reference to Iran as a 'rational' actor.
The Iranians have no interest in destroying America, or Israel, at the expense of one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, dating back about 2600 years. Iran is currently surrounded by over 40 U.S. military installations, not counting Israel's still-unaccounted nuclear arsenal.
To assert that Iran would jeopardize its very existence and long civilization for a one-shot nuclear attack is a complete miscalculation of the Iranian spirit;
(Iran is a backward Third World nation, made more so by the Medieval mullahs of the country....who have chased out 5,000,000 mainly middle class educated technocratic Iranians. For such a state to develop nuke bombs given the current stringent climate will be difficult......and putting nuke bombs on reliable long range missiles requires another feat of technology, or the direct deliberate aid of a super-power like Russia or China......this has not happened)
that spirit gave rise to a revolution in 1979 against what they perceived as Anglo-American imperialism in the form of the Shah, much as our own revolution opposed British imperialism.
(This is romantic given your visit to the country, but the sad reality is that the mullahs were brought to power by the USA/UK and other European powers and possibly involving Israel.....very much a repetition of what is happening now in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria...where MODERATE ARAB PRO-Western DICTATORSHIPS are being supplanted by 'al-Qaeda" affiliated groups....the original blue-print for this was Iran in 1979. The mullahs sadly are but puppets of the West who have done great harm to Iran......for Likud Israel with designs of Greater Israel it is easier to threaten mullah Iran and then get the USA to attack the country, then it was under the suited mild mannered Shah who was a friend of Israel and a very good puppet of the USA......this is thus the sheer cynicism of Israel in using Western institutions to topple major allies in order to fulfill a Jewish biblical dream which never existed......'Eretz Israel")
I agree with General Dempsey that an attack on Iran would not only be imprudent, it would be 'destabilizing', and for more than just Iran. What is at stake is much larger than Iran's right to become a nuclear power; and based on the attitude of the political figures I spoke with in Iran, they understand this very well -- should Israel, with or without American support, attack Iran's nuclear or military infrastructure, it would be considered an act of war that may prompt World War III.
What I believe is currently being played out is an 'endgame' scenario, by failing West European and American economies, threatening to explode what has historically been referred to by British imperialists as the Heartland of Eurasia: stretching from the Horn of Africa (guarding the shipping lanes of the Gulf) to Afghanistan and Pakistan (in Russia and China's underbelly).
The Russians know this 'Great Game' well, having played it with the British since at least the Crimean War of the mid-19th Century. So when Russia says it cannot accept the ongoing destruction of the Syrian government, or an attack on Iran, it is based on the understanding that such destabilization of this 'Heartland' could ignite war between Shia and Sunni Muslims across the region, even affecting the Muslim populations of southern Russia and western China.
Iran is currently accused by the West of being a rogue state involved in spreading amorphous terrorism abroad. In reality, Iran has seen the destruction of the sovereign states in Afghanistan and Iraq, on its borders; and now, the Obama Administration is calling for the downfall of Iran's ally, President Assad's secular Syrian regime.
That country is quickly going the way of Lebanon in the 1980s, which could reignite sectarian violence from Lebanon to Iraq, and beyond. The chaos ensuing the overthrow of Assad will not only serve to radicalize the religious factions, as the Iraq war did after the fall of the secular Ba'ath Party, but such a strategy seems to have been predicted; retired General Wesley Clark reported in his 2003 book that the imperialist 'neo-con' faction within the U.S. Defense Department had plans for regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and Iran, dating back to before Sept.11.2001.
In such a meltdown of nation-states, Israel will not be safe from retaliation by Hezbollah and Hamas; unless of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu intends to use such violence to attempt an extension of Israel's borders toward the Euphrates, according to the right-wing 'Greater Israel' doctrine which desires an Israeli state from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq. It would then seem the logic of this current escalation to war with Iran really has nothing to do with protecting Israel; the escalation will more likely sacrifice the Israeli people for the sake of a game of empire.
(You have vindicated your authenticity with such a stark deep analysis.....surprising given the background you come from.....your father is half Jewish)
It is no wonder that Russian Prime Minister Putin has called the Anglo-American policy in the Middle East a 'cult of violence.'
As Putin understands, if we do not respect national sovereignty, who are we left to cooperate with in order to stop the radical political groups we allege as our enemy? In point of little irony, most radical Al-Qaeda elements are derived from Saudi-style Wahhabism, which gave rise to the Taliban regime.
(The internet gossip is that "al-Qaeda" is in fact "al-CIA-duh" a fictitious non-group front run by Western intelligence to destabilize Muslim nations in the Greater Middle East.......a useful fifth column of mercenary guns for hire....with no leadership, no real ideology and no real organization save for the orders that emanate from Western Intelligence for the day.
The Taliban on the other hand is a localized resistance group who fight exclusively in Afghanistan, generally poorly, and are run by the ISI of Pakistan for the CIA. The Taliban were created in 1994 by the USA using the services of the Pakistan military.......its overall membership and performance has been poor but it gives frustrated disgruntled disenfranchised Pashtun Afghans an avenue to vent their anger at the foreign occupation of their country, and an excuse for the Pentagon/CIA to stay in Afghanistan and harvest the opium for the bankers in London and New York.
Beyond radical romanticism, in this modern day and age of hyper-intelligence there are no independent armed groups fighting for an ideal.......most Third World resistance groups are co-opted compromised and run by Western Intelligence, for example the LRA of Joseph Kony....to serve specific agenda's of the corporate elite of the West)
Considering that Iranian Shi'ism is long-opposed to this brand of Sunni Islam, would it not make more sense for America to cooperate with Iran against Al-Qaeda and related extremist groups?
(Please don't try and start a war between Sunnis and Shia Muslims, the USA did that quite well in Iraq, as does the Pakistani military in that failed state for the USA)
In the process of such diplomatic engagement, is it not possible that we make peace with the Iranian regime through a commonality of purpose and an exchanging of ideas?
(Jews who look up to Netanyahu, because of his tough Vin Diesel macho posturing run to a great extent American foreign policy.
Obama is a CIA trained/groomed puppet of at least 30 years.....and the CIA's forte to justify itself to the detriment of the USA and its interests is security, security, more security, war war, more war.....covert ops covert ops and more covert ops......over there over there and over there-----though I respect that the sum total of American intelligence have been objective about mullah Iran and its alleged nuke bomb program, and that they were objective about Saddam's alleged WMDs after 2003.....BUT these were brief instances of rationality and objectivity, which has been trumped by an over arching obsession with foul play around the world which purportedly generates more work for them-----they will become the led agency in Afghanistan after 2014----but takes the world, and the USA in the wrong direction OVERALL. {The KGB in the Soviet Union in the 1980's.....appointing Soviet leaders and strategically running the state}.
With that sad background in the USA, "Can't we all get along oh shucks" calls will be cynically seen as innocent naive puppies spouting nonsense.......a Jew who has gone native in Iran of all places)
The Iranian people, like the American people, are reasonable, but proud; if they believe in a right to nuclear capabilities, it is because they feel they have the same national right as do the Israelis or Pakistanis, both of whom have already weaponized the region.
And according to their Supreme Leader, Iran is not desirous of nuclear weapons, for he has said that even "the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin."
If we are thus serious about the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed, I'd personally like to see a nuclear weapon-free zone across the Middle East, which would mean accounting for the Israeli arsenal.
But if we continue on the current trajectory of giving 'unconditional support' to Israel and its illicit nuclear arsenal -- and if we continue to support the overthrow of nations who have not declared war on us -- are we not creating the conditions for Iran to eventually desire a nuclear weapon, to prevent the destruction of its national sovereignty?
(When are you putting your hat into the Presidential ring.......let me know. That Ron Paul is too mild and old. He's been suckered by the system and cheated out of caucus after caucus but he still goes on as if he's in a gentleman's game of Bridge)
If we can succeed in staving off an imperialistic war in the coming years, I foresee a future of cooperation between Iran, Israel, and America, based on a common republican spirit and tradition.
(Don't get into marijuana like your father has.....its not good for you)
But if Anglo-American imperialism chooses to continue to smash nations and disregard borders, that imperial spirit will only breed more terrorism, not less. If we create a world without sovereign states with authority of law to rule over their people, who will we have left to deal with?
Countries do not always get along, but failed states never do. And should we risk war over the excuse of Iran's nuclear program, we will be looking at a region of radicalized groups of all denominations, with very little authority over them, and tremendous resentment at what they will perceive as foreign imperialists. Such a day would be much worse than seeing a nuclear Iran.
Sean Stone (born 1984) is an American film director, producer, cinematographer, screenwriter and actor.
