Check out the extraordinary new, life-changing technology at www.magravsplasmaproducts.com
Check out the extraordinary new, life-changing technology at www.magravsplasmaproducts.com
While HAARP and weather control has been called a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media and government officials, during a Senate hearing on Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering,dropped a bombshell in answer to a question asked by Lisa Murkowski in relation to the dismantling of the $300 million High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program in Gakona this summer.
Walker said this is “not an area that we have any need for in the future” and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do,” he said. “To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.”
Many believe HAARP was created and has been used for weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes and comments such as this bring about the question of whether conspiracy theorists are more on target than anyone has admitted to date.
I have spent a lot of time over the last 3 or so years seeking to understand how our world works and why. When you look, the evidence is unmistakeable and overwhelming. But most people either can’t see it because of their beliefs or don’t want to see it because to acknowledge it would have them question so many things they take to be true about life, which brings us back to beliefs. As I’ve said many times, most of us take ourselves to be our beliefs because we have not built a sense of ourselves within that generates an understanding of Self that is beyond our beliefs and our current life experience.
I recently read “Tragedy and Hope 101” by Joseph Plummer (2014), in which he wrote the following:
“If Operation Gladio had been conceived and directed by the Nazis, most people would have no problem believing every despicable detail. Why? Because most people accept that the Nazis were psychotic criminals who engaged in countless violations of human rights and that they had no respect for freedom or “democracy.” Learning of additional crimes wouldn’t disrupt the average person’s world view at all…far from it. Confirmation bias would kick in, and the individual would experience the psychological rewards of having their world view confirmed.
But what happens when, instead of the Nazis, it’s the United States Government that is accused of countless violations of human rights? What happens when the presumed guardian of freedom and democracy is accused of using terrorism and murder to circumvent both? Now, confirmation bias begins working in reverse. The individual’s deeply held beliefs about America’s morality are challenged. There are no psychological rewards for even considering the charges, let alone accepting them. Faced with this threat to their world view, many will immediately reject the accusations as ridiculous. They will angrily defend the good name of America and shower the accuser in hatred and condemnation.
The Network knows this. Countless university studies (along with secret operations like MK Ultra) have provided their experts an understanding of human psychology that exceeds anything we can comfortably imagine.”
End of quote.
This gets it quite well, in my opinion.
And the model I have unfolded is that all the major transformative events and processes of our world for the last several hundred years form part of the same hidden plan. So, I found the following recent article by Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, to express a very similar understanding of things to my own:
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” – J. Edgar Hoover
I have been trying to understand and expose both the 9/11 and man-caused global warming deceptions for many years. To this end, I have spent countless hours researching, writing articles, and compiling pertinent information on my www.911nwo.com, www.naturalclimatechange.us, and www.waterwatchalliance.us websites. I’ve long suspected that one day it might become obvious that both of these terror-deceptions derive from the same source and serve the same basic ends. I also dared to hoped that someday it might be possible to summarize this research in just a few pages. Voilà! The following is my first attempt to synthesize the most pertinent conclusions from the above websites.
Pertinent Background: Understanding the 9/11, global warming, and many other “false-flag, state-sponsored, synthetic terror” frauds requires some understanding of history and the Judeo-Babylonian “Synagogue of Satan” and its innumerable minions, secret societies, cults, and false religions. It requires some understanding of the modus operandi – that is, the fundamental tricks and lies of the occult Judeo/Babylonian/Satanic system and its main sources of political power, including the Judeo-Babylonian financial system. Those who lack an understanding of these elements may find it difficult, even impossible, to understand the significance and ultimate objectives of the 9/11 and global warming operations…
…That said, overwhelming evidence indicates that the United Nations was/is intended to be the prototypical one-world government; Judeo-Masonic Satanism is to be the one-world religion; and the New World Order capital is to be in Jerusalem. And Satan’s principal tools, now as always, are deception and terror.
The Global Warming Fraud: The man-caused global warming deception, which forms the centerpiece of the phony environmental movement, was initially devised by The Report from Iron Mountain and the Club of Rome think tanks. This fraud provides: 1) a pretext for the United Nations to tax and control all economic activity by controlling usage of hydrocarbon fuels, and thus to become the de facto one-world government; 2) the cover story and funding platform for geoengineering/ chemtrail/ weather warfare depopulation programs now being implemented worldwide by the UN and cooperating governments; and 3) a justification for imposition of UN Agenda 21 (“Agenda for the 21st Century” aka Agenda 2030), which aims to control all aspects of human life and thus usher in the “Jewish Utopia”/ “Jewish World Empire”/ “Tikkun Olam” (Hebrew for “reinvention of the world”), i.e., the one-world Luciferian government/religion system.
Operation 9/11: The 9/11 false-flag terror attacks were contrived and executed by think tanks and military/intelligence forces on behalf of Israel and other elements of the “Synagogue of Satan.” Major roles were/are played by the Jewish-American “neo-conservatives”/ Project for the New American Century (PNAC) group, which has dictated policy to the Bush II and Obama White Houses, as well as high-ranking members of Congress/ military/ intelligence and other treasonous elements within the U.S. government. 9/11 is still being covered up by the Jew-controlled media and American government. Operation 9/11 serves as a pretext for: 1) the phony and endless “war on terrorism” at home and abroad, which is bankrupting America financially, politically, culturally, and spiritually; 2) prosecuting a series of wars of aggression, on behalf of Israel, to destroy Arab nations in order to create “greater Israel”; and 3) imposition of a global counterintelligence Cheka/Gestapo police state that targets innocent civilians (Christians, dissidents, etc.) for elimination in worldwide gang-stalking operations. This global police state is backed by almost limitless funding, and is being implemented by innumerable organizations (Dept. of Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, military intelligence agencies, and local police LEIUs) and vast networks of citizen spies, secret-society spies, sayanim spies, and spies from certain religions, cults, etc. The global mind-control/ gang-stalking programs employ sophisticated electronic weapons (HAARP, GWEN towers, “non-lethal weapons,” etc.). These systems and technologies comprise other powerful means for mass genocide/depopulation.
It is especially important for citizens to understand that Anglo–American–Israeli elites have long created and controlled their designated “enemy,” “terrorist groups,” etc., including the Nazis, the Mujahideen, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and now ISIS. It is also essential to understand that there have been many other state-sponsored, synthetic, false-flag terror events and “war triggers” in addition to Operation 9/11, including the sinking of the USS Maine (Spanish–American War trigger), the sinking of the RMS Lusitania (World War I trigger), the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident (Vietnam War trigger), the 7/7 London bombings, the Oklahoma City bombings, Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon bombings, the recent Paris and Belgium terrorist attacks, as well as many other staged incidents designed to create fear at home, and direct war policies and “counterterrorism” against designated enemies at home and abroad.
End of quote.
Not everything that Karlstrom has written do I agree with, but the broad thrust of his article is completely in alignment with my understanding of how our world has been directed if you have but eyes to see. And some of you reading this do not, for the reasons I spell out above. And until more do, nothing will change.
I commend the rest of this article to you.
I found this article by Jack Speer-Williams very informative. Jack calls out the atrocities of the United States in WWII, but then looks below the surface to where this actually arose from and how it plays out in our world today. I quote:
In short, the tremendous death and destruction that continuously occurs around the world is always based on false premises that the bankers have forced on our leaders with campaign financing, blackmail, and assassinations – all by way of US intelligence services.
America has long been betrayed by the perfidy of her leaders and the psychopathy of the international bankers…
… The late great American author Eustace Mullins gives us the real reason President Harry S. Truman issued the Executive Order to atom bomb Japan, which would forever black mark America as a Nation of Infamy. In his work “The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb: Why Hiroshima was Destroyed,”
Mr. Mullins tells us of the cast of demons who ordered Truman to atom bomb Japan. The main drivers of this heinous, grossly reprehensible incineration and vaporization of innocent Japanese men, women, and children were the monsters of the International Monetary/Banking Cartel – primarily the House of Rothschild – and their chief US agent, Wall Street banker Bernard Baruch, along with his lackey J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos atomic bomb laboratories. (My emphasis)
It was the repugnant Oppenheimer (Dr. Strangelove in Dr. Strangelove) who gloried in such vile torture of children. After he heard about the horrible effects his bomb had caused in Hiroshima, Oppenheimer paraded around with his hands clenched above his head, like a prize-fighter who had just knocked out his opponent.
It was Oppenheimer who said, “I am Death, the Destroyer of worlds.”
It would be a pathetic fallacy to attribute human emotions or characteristics to these beasts of darkness; they are of another breed that knows no civilized breeding. These same half-breeds of Satan and man gave the Soviet Union, by way of US intelligence agents, the secrets to developing atomic bombs.
Then, they financed the “arms race” during the Cold War, which has resulted (in descending order of atomic magnitude) in Great Britain, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all developing nuclear weapons.
It is also this same cabal that now wants the US and/or Israel to destroy Iran with nuclear bombs.
It is the Monetary/Banking Cartel, with its International Monetary Fund and World Bank that has fostered the anthropogenic global warming hoax to advance their Agenda 21 plans and to further enrich themselves at our expense.
It’s this same clique of ghouls who financed the mass production of the so-called “depleted” uranium (DU) that – in fact – will deplete to half-life in about 4.47 billion years, once discharged and aerosolized from weaponry.
There is absolutely nothing depleted about DU munitions, and it is more accurately called Deplet-ING Uranium, which will continue to deplete for billions of years. That is a B as in Billion. Clearly, the word “depleted” is a planned and purposely used misnomer.
Please understand, this Cartel and their minions in government, science, and the mass media care not a whit about our environment, as is well proven by their silence regarding the aerosolization of thousands of tons of deadly DU (depleting uranium) from the Balkans, to the Middle East, to the rest of the world, with their god-less wars of aggression.
When have our presidential candidates ever spoken out against our illegal use of DU that is poisoning all human and animal (and even marine) life around the world? Who has told us the ugly truth about DU munitions? Who has told us that the DU munitions, expended by US, UK, and Israeli troops in the Middle East, are now poisoning our entire world? Certainly not our presidents. Where have the mainstream political pundits been who should be pointing out how we have put our own young men and women, serving in war zones, among the walking dead?
Our treacherous and traitorous leaders of government and the mouth-pieces of the corporate media have all been muzzled regarding the dangers of DU, chemtrails, GMO crops, fluoride, aspartame, television, Wi-Fi technology, pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, psychotropics, CAT scans, naked body scanners, lab-created viruses, ethno-specific bio-weapons, HAARP, EM fields, black magic, pornography, perverted sex, and transhumanism, all of which form formidable barriers between one’s consciousness and the intuitive truth and light within one’s soul.
End of quote.
Jack is also joining the dots in our world. I commend Jack’s article to you.
Some useful history on the plans to trigger war with Iran. Will Israel provide the trigger as has long been planned? Is this what the sister plane to MH370 sitting in Tel Aviv is all about?
Global Research, April 23, 2014
This article was first published in August 2010.
For further details consult Michel Chossudovsky’s book,
available in hardcover or pdf from Global Research.
The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. US military sources intimated that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )
“Theater Iran Near Term”
Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.” ( (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006).
The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:
“The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.
… Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.” (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)
Different “theater scenarios” for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplated: “The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).” (New Statesman, February 19, 2007)
In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation directed against Iran “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States” on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:
“The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.” (Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005)
The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective:
“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.” (USCENTCOM,
The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.” In “Winning Modern Wars” (page 130) General Clark states the following:
“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (See Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
The Role of Israel
There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.
Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.
Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington.
An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.
In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran and Syria.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it” (See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to Cheney:
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005)
Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:
“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”
What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.
An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11,2009)
Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.” (Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009,)
What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather than Israel controls the air defense system: ”’This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. ‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009).
The US military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the US Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:
“The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area.”’ (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010)
In practice, the proposed legislation is a “Green Light” to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor ”incident” could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran.
Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.
Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the regional commands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map below) as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and decision making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as “partner nations” is integrated into a global military design including the weaponization of space.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for “overseeing a global strike plan” consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of “a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence…. ”
USSTRATCOM’s responsibilities include: “leading, planning, & executing strategic deterrence operations” at a global level, “synchronizing global missile defense plans and operations”, “synchronizing regional combat plans”, etc. USSTRATCOM is the lead agency in the coordination of modern warfare.
In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006).
What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a US led nuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe, Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)
Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:
“Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.”(Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007)
Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “war on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons.
“Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.” (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach.
The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the US and Israel are instruments of peace” harmless to the surrounding civilian population“. “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran
Of military significance within the US conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with the the largest yield in the US conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to US military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).
The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran” (Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009). The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in extremely large civilian casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.
The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers.(Ibid). This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a 93-page “reprogramming memo” which included the following instructions:
“The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).” (ABC News, op cit, emphasis added). To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here
The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.
The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb—longer than 11 persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder [see image below] or more than 20 feet base to nose” (See Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September 21 2009)
These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOAB (“mother of all bombs’), is “mass destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear and despair.
State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”
The process of US military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested.
The 2000 Project of the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the US military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World:
“Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”.
This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new technologies”. (See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf). The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms.
“Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial breakpoint, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces.
Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004). These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, the US Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of weather modification technologies:
“Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.”
Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might also be envisaged in the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004). In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the US military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” (PNAC, op cit., p. 60).
Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles
Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the US-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pr-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.
In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert (quoted by Debka), “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach” (Debka, November 5, 2006)
According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression — and it made an impression.”
The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the US and Israel, did not in any way modify US-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage on Iran.
Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s air defense system is therefore crucial. US and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.
Iran’s Ground Forces While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to US and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to US and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.
Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia). There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in the air force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).” According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolutionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be” (Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran – Wikipedia), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq.
For several years now Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. While its Air force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of US and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates.
It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the US has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the US and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field.
Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s military facilities, its communications systems, etc. through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which US military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.
An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.
The expanded budget for the war in Afghanistan currently debated in the US Congress is also intended to be used in the eventuality of an attack on Iran.
Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.
In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle East Central Asian region.
In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than five years, threatens the future of humanity.
Our focus in this essay has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out.
The US-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial over the last five years in the decision by the US and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran.
Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet republics has been significantly weakened.
The ongoing US military threats directed against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a US NATO Israeli attack.
What are the countervailing forces which might prevent this war from occurring? There are numerous ongoing forces at work within the US State apparatus, the US Congress, the Pentagon and NATO.
The central force in preventing a war from occurring ultimately comes from the base of society, requiring forceful antiwar action by hundred of millions of people across the land, nationally and internationally.
People must mobilize not only against this diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be also be challenged.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.
The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. he can be reached at the globalresearch.ca website Author’s note: Dear Global Research Readers, kindly forward this text far and wide to friends and family, on internet forums, within the workplace, in your neighborhood, nationally and internationally, with a view to reversing the tide of war. Spread the Word!
To consult Part I of this essay click below
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran Part I: Global Warfare
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-08-01
Related articles Targeting Iran: Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-08-09
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-08-01
Global Military Agenda: U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China – by Rick Rozoff – 2010-08-07
– by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach – 2010-07-31
Can be ordered online directly from Global Research
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
I suspect that you may have trouble accepting the links I have put in place pointing to typhoon Yolanda, which recently devastated the Philippines as being set to influence the current climate change talks in Poland.
So let me take this from the top and spell out the pieces.
Human activity is not responsible for global warming
This notion is so deeply entrenched that it is almost impossible to consider it to be otherwise. Indeed, it is widely stated that there is a consensus of scientists agreeing that it is so. In fact, it is not so. Yes, there are many apparent pointers to human activity causing global warming; however, it is important to recognise the fundamental impact of directed funding on the focus of research projects and their outcomes. In simple terms, scientists choose to undertake research that will be funded and bring forth outcomes that ensure they continue to be funded. I do not intend this to be a discussion of the scientific process, the nature of science and how it is manipulated, though I will probably do that as a separate posting.
To understand the views of some highly regarded climate scientists that do not get promoted in the mainstream media, watch this video. Their perspective is completely juxtaposed to the mainstream view of global warming.
For a complementary and separate perspective, read this previous post and follow the links in it. Apart from providing you with this graph:
showing there is no correlation with human CO2 generation and temperature, it shares with you careful research which completely discredits the original tree ring research pointing to global warming. Yes, we are in a period where temperatures are warmer, but this warming is not outside earlier ranges.
Unsurprisingly, the warming and cooling on planet Earth is primarily driven by the changing behaviour of the sun, and it is believed by some key climate scientists that we have begun a period of reduced sunspot activity, which may see our planet cool significantly in the next few years. This video covers this ground.
As I said, this truth is so deeply buried, it seems impossible for it to be true. Moreover, had the alternative energy paths been allowed to flourish from early last century, beginning with the work of Nikola Tesla, we would never have needed this century of fossil fuel consumption, nor the abomination of nuclear power.
In making this point about global warming, I am not advocating a disregard for how we treat the planet; quite the contrary.
Why are we told this lie about climate change?
This lie is perpetrated to bring forth Agenda 21 and to impose global taxes such as a carbon tax based upon global warming.
Was typhoon Yolanda man-made?
This conversation was not one I went looking for. The pieces literally landed in my lap – or more accurately in my Inbox.
The first suggestion of this from dutchsinse I shared more as a piece of speculation, as my post at the time showed. I was not convinced, but given he has been tracking this subject for some years, I felt it was of interest to share here. Those who sought to discredit his work triggered him to lay out the background to his claim. However, what interested me most was the completely independent evidence coming forth. Included in this material is video footage discussing the massive SBX-1 mobile phased array radar (i.e. HAARP –based) platform.
Look at the scale of this beast. It is 28 stories high. The SBX-1 is discussed in detail in this article, along with evidence that it was deployed to the Philippines at the time of this typhoon.
I quote from the document Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, published in 1996:
In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale.
So was the SBX-1 used in conjunction with land-based HAARP and other installations to trigger this typhoon?
I quote from this article:
A steerable US land-based X-Band Radar system (COBRA DANE phased array radar system) was already built in northern Japan by the United States military and has been operational since 2006 and a second COBRA DANE installation in central Japan came online just prior to super typhoon Haiyan – the strongest wind storm ever recorded – being formed at sea and steered into the Philippines using HAARP AMISR phased array radar beam triangulation.
Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) and satellite weather radar data from the Pacific region detected 2 stationary (land based) microwave hot spots and 1 slow moving hot spot at sea (The HAARP SBX-! is a slow moving sea-based X-Band phased array platform) giving evidence that the U.S. military created and steered typhoon Haiyan using 3 HAARP systems. The 2 land-based systems in Japan and the seafaring SBX-1. Using 3 phased array radar systems drastically improves the angular resolution of the emitted microwave – steers the microwave beam with pinpoint accuracy. Another U.S. military controlled HAARP installation was available on Guam – the COBRA DANE installation pictured in this article.
End of quote.
So, the material I have shared with you provides evidence of the ability to create this typhoon and evidence from two sources that it was done.
Why would this typhoon be created, intentionally killing thousands of people?
Perhaps the biggest issue that confronts all of us when we contemplate such an act is that it profoundly challenges our sensibilities. How could anybody do that?
It’s important that we recognise what those who run the game on this planet are willing to do to get where they want to go – literally anything. How many have been killed in Iraq during and since the Iraqi war? Over a million by my reckoning. So, 10,000 people is nothing by comparison. Also, as I’ve said many times, if the target is 0.5BN people on the planet, as expressed on the Georgia Guidestones, what’s a few thousand to get your way?
If it was man-made, it had a purpose, and that purpose will be reflected in its timing. In my view, this typhoon was timed to influence the current conference on climate change in Warsaw, November 11-22. You cannot ignore the timing, and you cannot ignore that the typhoon is being used to influence the decision-making at that conference. See this video and this commentary. We are seeing mass rallies around the world calling for action on climate change. Who cares about the truth? It’s completely lost.
This is how it’s done, my friends, time and time again. The Hegelian Dialectic: create the problem (in this case a manufactured, false problem of man-made global warming); trigger the reaction (mass rallies calling for change, even a hunger strike); bring forth the solution (global carbon taxes, etc.)
It took us a while to figure out what had happened on 9/11. This one some of us are watching in real time and being considered crazy by many for calling it as it is. Remember, I never ask you to believe anything I say. Do your own homework, beginning with the links I have given you.
In my view, it will take a shift in human consciousness to end this horrible, unending manipulation that humanity is inside of. Nothing less. May it be on our doorstep.
Thank you, Molly.
Well, I was right. We have not seen the end of this discussion. Indeed there are claims arising from a completely separate source that Typhoon Haiyan was generated by US military action. See this video and this website to which it refers.
From: Richard Presser [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013 10:53
Subject: The discussion about the cause of the Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda that hit the Philippines has escalated
I recently shared a video with you which claimed that Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda was triggered by a microwave pulse.
You may have seen some of the claims that it was caused by global warming – entirely to be expected.
It turns out I was not the only one who spotted the Dutchsinse video, sufficient to trigger a public response in which it was bagged by so-called “experts”. What they didn’t realise was that this was like taking a stick and stirring a hornet’s nest, triggering a comprehensive response from Dutchsinse to their claims and criticisms. For me, this was an excellent outcome, since it prompted Dutchsinse to put together a comprehensive picture of all of the well-documented evidence behind his claims.
I think we have not seen the end of this.