Flashback: US shoots down Iranian civilian airliner with 290 passengers

Why U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change from Global Democratic Jihad to National Self-Defense

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.... 

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

        --John Quincy Adams, Independence Day Address 1821

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

       -- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address 2005.

It is more than ironic that while Republicans appeal to America's Founders (most justly) that they fail to heed them when it comes to foreign policy.  George Washington warned of "entangling interests" or alliances as dangerous and Presidents like Adams above extolled America's restraint in interference.  Their view was not that America should be a militaristic global policeman (and they never extolled "democracy" as ideal) but only an example of freedom and liberty.  It's time for the Founder's view of Foreign Policy to be given a fair hearing.

In this regard, Pat Buchanan, a Republican with credible expertise in several Presidential administrations, is a breath of fresh air compared to both the Republican Establishment's and Democrats' "utopian view" (as he calls it) on foreign policy and alleged "necessary" wars, none of which are for the self-defense of America. His views are seldom permitted in either conservative debates and forums or in the liberal Mainstream Media. So listen to him here for at least an alternative, and in our opinion more rational view, about war.

He condemns American involvement in "regime change" started by the neoconservatives (which too many republicans applauded without just cause) in the Middle East since 2001 during the Bush administration.

He condemns American involvement in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime (which Obama and the democrats, and republicans like Rep. Shelly Moore Capito applaud) and articulates why it is stupid and actually supports radical Islamic groups that are bound to be no better.

He explains why the American Empire in foreign policy (which actually began during the Civil War when Washington invaded the Southern States to consolidate power by force) is a foolish "utopian view" for changing the world (really toward global government, abolishing sovereignty) for the pretense of "making the world safe for democracy" (as democrats W. Wilson and F.D.R. used) or to "end tyranny in the world" (the phrase George W. Bush invoked on his Second Inaugural Address).

He also is adamant that if this course is continued, especially in backing any attack on Iran, it will bring terrible consequences to "my Country" (now here is a better view of American patriotism demonstrated by judicious self-restraint instead of war-mongering) as well as to "the whole world". Indeed, both America's economy would be greatly ruined (i.e. the consequences on oil prices, which would harm the entire economy, as well as national debt) and a probable world war in the Middle East would result.



It's time that a more sober view of foreign policy and its consequences should be considered, before it's too late, as AIPAC and radical pro-Israel and radical "world democracy" revolutionaries continue to drown out Americans' influence in our own Congress.  What America needs is a true National Defense instead of a National Offense policy, which takes us to war without constitutional declarations of war, per the historic Christian 'Just War' Theory of self-defense alone, by Congress.  Until America changes this it is engaging in Global Vigilantism and supporting what could be called justly a Global Democratic Jihad, with terrible consequences on our own nation. 

A history of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire and its aggressive PAX ROMANA should suffice to be a most conspicuous example to any naysayers against our criticism of this dangerous bipartisan foreign policy toward a global PAX AMERICANA or PAX DEMOCRATICA which has been in progress for 150 years now.  Who would deny that the Isles of Great Britain once fought against the tyranny of the Roman Empire?  After all, one type of "tyranny" is often replaced by another, always under the pretense of "liberation" (or things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom").  Doesn't this all, then, look so familiar, from a historical perspective?  "American exceptionalism", frequently invoked to cloak all American wars as moral and just, should not blind anyone to this truth and republicans and democrats ought to heed the speeches and examples of America's Founders and early Presidents once again.

The Price Americans Are Paying at the Pump for Iran Sanctions

This is a quick follow up per our previous article about U.S. and Israel Middle East foreign policy driving high gas prices.   If you look at the gas price chart in that article you will see the steady rise in gas prices since Congress (i.e. both parties, as well as Obama) authorized AIPAC's plan of economic sanctions on Iran (which began in the last half of 2011).

The Christian Science Monitor recently posted this article just over a week ago providing more evidence that supports our article, citing experts, and also explaining those sanctions.  Are you sure you want Congress to impose those sanctions now?  Are you willing to bear the economic consequences of sanctions imposed due to pure propaganda and fear-mongering by the Israeli lobby (just as the neoconservatives did to sell you the Iraq war), when Iran has no nuclear weapons capability any more than Saddam Hussein did?  There is economic "blow-back" to all Americans due to this, and surely more to follow.  Think about it and let Congress know what you think!

What do Iran sanctions cost you? About 25 cents a gallon, experts say.

While consumers may support sanctions on Iran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapon, a foreign trade advocate says, they should also be told how sanctions impact Americans.

Then there is this good article too from Juan Cole:

Obama, GOP won’t Tell Americans that Iran Sanctions drive Gas Prices

Oh, and for good measure, to prove our analysis is unbias, even Fox Business has reported this, so it must be true [sarc]!   We just report, you decide:

 Experts To Congress: Iran Sanctions Fuel High Gasoline Prices

U.S.-Israel Middle East Foreign Policy Behind High Oil and Gas Prices

 A FRESH VIEW:  

AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS ABOUT GAS PRICES

If you listen to talk radio, whether national or local, you will probably only hear about supply and demand influencing oil and ultimately our gas prices.  The purpose of this article is to provide summary proof that our high oil and gas prices over the last decade are not only, or even primarily, linked to supply and demand (as Economics 101 teaches us), nor solely to Big Oil (as others claim, albeit they play a role), but by other factors considered by market investors, which some call "speculators", on Wall Street who ultimately set the price of oil through market trading.  They of course take into account supply and demand, output in millions of barrels produced, imports and exports, etc.  But a large part of speculation is entirely driven by what they forecast for the oil business climate particularly in the Middle East too. The headline states the conclusion up front, but let us walk through the analysis to demonstrate how we got there.

First, let's look at the clear and non-partisan history of gas and oil prices.  (Click on any chart for a clear and enlarged view).

POINT 1:  GAS PRICES HAVE BEEN HIGH UNDER BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS

During the Bush administration they were as high as 4.19 per gallon nationally.  We are close to 4.00 per gallon under Obama, projected to pass over that threshold in May of this year.

High gas prices during both administrations; sharp drop during Nov. 2008 elections

So the highest and lowest marks have been shared by both administrations, respectively.  But Americans have grown way too complacent about and used to this.  Note that during the elections of 2008 we were only paying about $1.79 per gallon!  Yet that was still high compared to about $1.29 per gallon when Bush took office in 2001 (not shown in these graphs). 

So what changed gas prices so dramatically?  The "elephant in the room" that no one talks about, as each party tries to portray their own talking points, is foreign policy and middle east wars.  The history of oil and gas prices shows that it was after 9/11 in 2001, and primarily when President Bush, influenced by the Israeli-neoconservative propaganda and persons within his administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the PNAC group), moved America into a decade long war with Iraq under the false pretense of WMD and mythical images of "mushroom clouds".   That had a direct and immediate impact upon oil and gas prices as the following charts will show.

POINT 2:  WARS AND 'FEAR PREMIUM' TRUMPS SUPPLY & DEMAND--Middle East Activity, U.S. Foreign Policy and Wars, Drive Up Oil Prices 

Look over this graph very closely (click to enlarge) and try to refute or disbelieve that that wars and Middle East tensions are the most significant factor behind high oil prices.  Look and see what the norm of oil prices was prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11:

High crude oil prices began during Bush administration, invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq.

Now notice on this graph the volatility of price compared to growing, steady supply.

Supply has been steadily increasing yet oil prices fluctuate dramatically.

  

First note after Bush was in office, and even after 9/11, oil was still trading well under $30 per barrel.

Second, that oil prices only rarely crossed $40 per barrel before 2002 (i.e. note too the CIA fomented the Iranian Revolution, which led to the Iran/Iraq War on chart), when the war on Afghanistan began and the war on Iraq became inevitable to the investors/speculators, and oil prices have never recovered since war in the Middle East has continued to this day.  It is NOW THE NORM for oil prices to be over $80 to $100 per barrel through the decade long wars for "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still to be completely ended.  And now Iran is in the cross hairs.  Thus the Bush administration's unnecessary war on Iraq has "reset" oil prices, with over a decade of Middle East wars now, including Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria during the Bush administration, per the market prices on oil.  Would not ramping down Middle East wars and tensions reverse oil prices?  Yes, just ask the traders who trade in oil.

POINT 3:  Growing Global Demand Does Not Account for the New Level of High Oil Prices

This article (with graph) shows that global demand (consumption) has indeed been increasing steadily and lately somewhat greater than supply, which does account for some upward pressure on oil prices.  But that does not explain the oil prices' dramatic fluctuations and much higher averages and spikes that this demand could account for.  In fact, recently the Saudis (who know quite a bit about oil supply and demand) called the present high oil pricing "irrational".  They mean that there is no limit of supply vs. demand that justifies the current market price of crude oil.   Note too that the Saudi oil minister spoke of "irrational fear" of shortage of supply versus that demand, affecting the spot price set in the market by investors and "speculators", which is a direct reference to the "fear premium" we have alluded to before, including regarding fears due to wars in the Middle East, past and present (Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al).  Already oil experts say that this year supply is catching up with demand while there is a price elasticity in gas prices--i.e. U.S. demand (consumption) has dropped during higher pricing.

POINT 4:  U.S. Oil Companies Are Not Helping with Supply--Cutting Refining, Increasing Exports

First, while just complaining about government hindrance of drilling refinery capacity has deliberately been reduced--to increase profits through efficiency, which puts a bottle-neck on supply!  I bet you have never seen this graph about their inventories as demand has increased.

 Second, though the U.S. is a leading oil producer (i.e. refining crude into petroleum products), it has recently become a greater exporter than importer!  Why?  Hoppy Kercheval should have asked this with the oil exec recently on Talkline.  Yes, more drilling is needed, which the current administration is hindering.  However, U.S. oil companies are not helping us either where they are able. 

U.S. Produces More Oil Than Iran

U.S. Companies Now Export More Oil Products Abroad

POINT 5:   Value of Dollar and Inflation Do Not Account for High Oil and Gas Prices


Look and compare this inflation adjusted chart to the ones above (noting differing date range).

Note again the same pattern, while considering these significant dates about foreign policy and regional tensions in the Middle East:

1.  The only prior high peak was during the 1979-80 Iran/Iraq War, which was in part sparked by the CIA's prior covert ops sparking the Iranian Revolution, which ran up prices immediately.  This is when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and the U.S. was supplying WMD to Iraq and Saddam Hussein (ironically).

2.  Oil prices hit $60 per barrel during U.S. military ops against Iraq in Kuwait in 1991 under Bush I.

3.  Late in 2001 after 9/11 was a price spike as talk of war and invasion of Afghanistan began.

4.  Late 2002 was war-mongering moves by the U.S. and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.  The steep climb in prices began.  The war on Iraq continued officially for over a decade until 2011.

5.  Prices consistently escalated as the U.S. and Israel expanded the "war on terrorism" and violence in Iraq, along with a "surge" of more troops.  Note oil prices continually increase in the trading markets (while supply continues its normal growth, per previous graphs).  Israel bombs Lebanon in 2006 and bombs a site in Syria and also bombs Gaza against Hezbollah.

    Prices also rose after Hurricane Katrina which pinched some U.S. refining capacity for a time.

6.  As the U.S. and Israel increased war talk about Iran as a "threat to Israel" toward the end of Bush's 2nd term oil prices spiked dramatically into 2008.

7.  Elections Nov. 2008 showed a sharp drop in oil prices as talk of ending the Iraq War was entertained and a softer Middle East policy was hinted at by candidate Obama.

8.  Oil prices began to rise quickly in 2009 as Obama talked about a "surge" of his own, appointed the same Bush-generals in war operations and violence surged up into 2010.  (See, no matter the administration; "it's the war policy, stupid").  Granted, this is also when the Gulf Spill changed Obama administration's policy on off-shore drilling, but with no immediate effect upon supply.

POINT 5:  It is Economic Suicide for the U.S. to Increase Conflict with Iran

Do you think this chart shows the potential for such a conflict to inflate oil prices from a "fear premium" on Supply?  Experts think so: See here in regard to Economic Sanctions already begun (though propaganda Op-eds from pro-Israel groups are now attempting to downplay this, to protect their policy on Iran).

Does anyone want a repeated spike of oil prices like during the Iraq-Iran War (see graphs previous)?  Prices of over $200 per barrel have been mentioned if there was an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, because of certain retaliation by Iran, and immediate inflammation of war in the Middle East.   TELL CONGRESS TO BACK OFF THE WAR-MONGERING AND SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN UNLESS YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT, LITERALLY, IN YOUR GAS AND CONSUMER PRICES.  (It is irrational to believe Iran would attack Israel without provocation).

POINT 6:  Oil Prices Influence All Consumer Prices, The Whole American Economy

CONCLUSION


If foreign policy affects oil and gas prices, then foreign policy affects the entire U.S. economy, of which oil and gas prices is a key factor.  Isn't that what we have seen since the invasion of Iraq?  The price of all consumer goods has gone up, and stayed up, along with oil prices.  This pattern is undeniable and will continue.

ISN'T IT VERY CLEAR WHAT DRIVES OIL PRICES UP?

Why does neither party bring the "war premium" or "fear premium" or "foreign policy" about oil prices?    Because they don't want to offend the powerful Israeli Lobby, AIPAC, which holds a hammer over every member of Congress and causes presidents to tremble.  It's all about wars for Israel and/or "democracy" in the Middle East; regime change by force.  But President Obama, being provoked, finally let the truth slip out, for which he was quickly hit with broadsides from all propaganda cannons for.  But he was partially right.  See the article:  Obama Administration blames Israel for high oil prices.  That was frankly a breath of fresh air to even read the headline (even though we are against his entire philosophy and most of his policies).  

The truth is often not politically-correct and particular interests groups are always pressuring others to prevent free public debate.  But it is blind beyond belief not to talk about Middle East and Iran foreign policy when discussing oil and gas prices and the U.S. economy.  It needs to be brought into the discussion immediately as even the graphs show that oil prices began their increase immediately as sanctions on Iran and war-mongering by Israel and the U.S. surged last year.  Market investors in oil, who indirectly set our gas prices by consequence, pay attention to all of that.  So why shouldn't we in the social and political arena?  It is stupid to ignore it.

This also demonstrates that unjust wars (e.g. Iraq, potentially Iran) have "blow-back" effects on the U.S. domestic economy.  It is a Biblical axiom that "you reap what you sow".  There is a Law of Consequences.  "What goes around" has effects that "come around".  It's time to pay attention to this, and talk openly about it, including in Congress and on talk radio.  If you think this argument has merits, then by all means pass it on for the benefit of all Americans, irregardless of party. 

More 'Economic Sanctions' or War With Iran? Sen. Rand Paul Calls Out Congress

What's driving up gas prices, everyone asks?  The very real 'fear premium' (a fear of potentially restricted supply due to regional tensions) on oil that investors/speculators include in trading in the oil market.  It is therefore impossible to divorce Foreign Policy from America's Economy and National Debt.  (This was acknowledged briefly by the oil expert interviewed last week by Hoppy Kercheval on Talkline).  Yet seldom do politicians, or talk radio hosts, address such things together.

More economic sanctions on Iran is a clever way of walking (by the lobbyists' manipulation) the U.S. toward war and drives up the 'fear premium' about supply in the oil trading markets.  Limited Government (Tea Party) type people like Sen. Rand Paul understand how aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East not only endangers a casual, unconstitutional attitude toward war (particularly undeclared wars by the Executive Branch, by both Bush and Obama) but also has economic consequences for all Americans. In other words, there will and is already economic "blow-back" on Americans of economic sanctions on Iran!  Ironic, isn't it?

Remember, it was sanctions on Iraq that began that war.  Sanctions are economic warfare and an economic precursor to it.  AIPAC (the Israeli lobby, the most powerful in Washington) as well as Israeli PM Netanyahu, and a lot of false religious propaganda (i.e. Christian Zionism theology, prophecy) used to support the secular (not Biblical) state of Israel, is pushing American foreign policy with Iran.  The majority of Americans by far now know that Iraq was (at least) a "mistake" and want us out of Afghanistan now and out of the "nation building" (read "regime change") business altogether.  Yet under Obama we have proceeded, without Congressional approval or declarations of war, to use military campaigns in Libya for regime change while Syria and Iran are now entering the cross-hairs (and have been since the neoconservatives in the Bush administration used 9/11 as their pretense).

Tell Senators Rockefeller and Manchin, as well as Reps. Capito, Rahall, and McKinley to listen to you instead of AIPAC.  Economic sanctions on Iran are directly, already, increasing our gas prices and the price of all consumer goods will soon follow by consequence.  After all, do AIPAC and Israel care about the U.S. economic consequences of higher oil and gas prices from increased Middle East tension and wars?  No, not one bit.  And the elite in Washington that vote for sanctions do not feel the economic consequences like you and I do.  So make Congress listen to you instead.  Or, do nothing but don't complain about high gas prices or when groceries and consumer goods go up again as they did already during the Iraq campaign. When will everyone wake up to this!  Why not tell them what you think now instead of complaining about even higher gas and grocery prices later?

Listen to Sen. Rand Paul's objection on the floor (video below) and read about his reasonably offered amendment to the Sanctions bill which was intended to be a wake up call to Congress to think about the careless path they are being pushed into and complying too readily with.  What an excellent and persuasive speech!

War With Iran? Sen. Rand Paul Calls the Question

Netanyahu and AIPAC Do Not Represent The Jews on Iran--Neither Do Romney and Santorum

Below is an article about what you will not hear on network mainstream news, or local talk radio, who pretend there is an absolute necessity of "stopping Iran from obtaining a [alleged] nuclear weapon", as if there is no dissent among Jews or Israel.  And what Americans think should be more influential to Congress and the President than AIPAC's heavy-handed lobby and the other propaganda arms to influence U.S. foreign policy (which will surely effect both gas prices and the entire economy, as well as global stability).

And in case you missed it, the former head of Mossad was interviewed on 60 Minutes, after he called a pre-emptive strike on Iran "stupid"!  Video here. 

A preemptive attack on Iran? US Jews are deeply divided.

The AIPAC conference in Washington elicited one hawkish pronouncement after another from US leaders. But American Jews are deeply split over how to deal with Iran's nuclear aspirations.

By Ron Scherer, Staff writer / March 8, 2012

• 

Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in Washington, Tuesday, March 6.

Charles Dharapak/AP

2012: The Year Economic Depression Begins in West? Why Gold is Suddenly Falling, Stock Market Next?

 UPDATE (Mar. 23rd):  Note this latest 30-Day Gold Chart (from same source) since we posted the article

 AN ECONOMIC ALERT: GOLD AND STOCKS TO FALL SEVERELY THIS YEAR SAY INVESTMENT EXPERTS

The UK podcast interview referred to below by this summary article will shock most hearers who thought that things were just about to get better economically.  Before you buy gold (edit: for a short term investment) because of its historic performance you should stop and consider this first, since prudence is wise. 

A prudent man seeth the evil, and hideth himself; 

But the simple pass on, and suffer for it.

Solomon - Prov. 27:12

The consequences of not looking ahead can be disastrous, as Solomon's proverb proves, calling it stupid to ignore an approaching evil.  Even the ants are busy preparing in their harvest for winter, says the preacher of wisdom in Proverbs, and bids us to learn from their example.  An Economic Winter is coming that may be a very long and severe one, even decades in the West.  This is an economic alert based upon some economists expertise that should be heard, especially to those who think they are safe for buying and investing in gold for the short term, which has been promoted much for good reason as governments print money, as a hedge to inflation.  You won't hear this from the "feel good" editors of Network News.  Government Debts and threat of Iran conflict (thanks to Israel and AIPAC's aggressive influence on Congress contrary to American interests) continues to push up oil prices, which will cause massive inflation in all consumer goods (including gas to over $5 per gallon by summer), are among the things that paint a very bad picture for this year as Western economies begin to tumble, right when the U.S. in particular thought things were getting better.  Also looked at is the real reason that Gold fell almost $100 per oz last week from 1790 to 1703, which is what provoked this interview.  As of this morning, and after a slight recovery Friday, Gold is now down to 1680.  Read on.  

Experts say, "It's no longer corporations that are economically crashing, it's governments."  Government debts are being summoned for reckoning.  Greece was only an example of more to come.  Portugal, Spain, and others are on deck.  The UK could be next after them.  The U.S. is actually, despite bailouts and tricks, "in a recession" and has massive debt that it must deal with (as Senator Rubio has foretold "must be" dealt with this year).

Outlook for West:  "Era of De-leveraging" government debt, "depression for 20 to 30 years" to clear massive government debts, Gold to fall to maybe as low as 1200 to 1400 this year, Stockmarket to "fall 30 to 40 %" this year (markets must aborb Greek default, with more coming, and European bailout).  Temporary stronger dollar this year is bad for gold and metals, due to Euro decline because of European debt bailouts (Greece).

These are just a few things mentioned on this reputable UK Gold Investment group interview.  THIS IS A MUST-HEAR PODCAST BELOW.  (You have to respect a Gold investment group that permits such a bearish outlook on gold investing to be aired with their sponsorship!)

The wealth manager in this interview says he is heavy on cash instead of gold this year (until later years) and explains the gloomy state of US and Western European governments and their economies. 

02-Mar-2012
Jonathan Davis and Michael Hampton talk to Dominic Frisby about gold
In this podcast Dominic Frisby, of the GoldMoney Foundation, interviews both Jonathan Davis, economist and wealth manager, as well as Michael Hamp
Podcast Interview and article here

The Cato Institute Fact-Checks, Responds to President Obama’s State-of-the-Union Address

Were you deceived by President Obama's speech? It actually began very well and sounded very good. The war in Iraq over, "all the troops home", the auto industry was saved by the great GM bailout and "millions of jobs were saved".

Listen to Cato's non-partisan analysis (which won't necessarily make war-mongering republicans who are stupidly eager to spark conflict with Iran happy either) and think again:


The Cato Institute Fact-Checks, Responds to President Obama's State-of-the-Union Address

The Truth About Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program and Their "Threat to Israel"

Let us begin this subject and take an objective look at the issue of Iran developing nuclear technology, and allegedly nuclear weapons, and particularly its politicization by the propagandists, the media and also as a subject in the recent Republican Primary debates.  It will not be difficult to prove that this is an issue that has been pushed by powerful groups to the front of political controversy, incessantly, for over four years now.  Since it is now absolutely clear to unbias and rational minds that the alleged "WMD threat" in Iraq was a deliberate fraud, sold by the neoconservative Bush administration and Israeli Lobby, but also propagated, parroted and fanned by (the apparently very bias) American media (including all major networks and Washington Post in particular) it behooves Americans to fact-check what today is being forced upon us about Iran as if we do not have the duty or capacity to think critically about what we hear.

Let us resolve not to let the White House, media, or special political interest groups (under the auspices of "intelligence agencies") talk us into another $1 Trillion dollar war against only a propagandized and rhetorical threat, to fulfill a neoconservative agenda in the Middle East (for Israel), especially during a time of financial and government-fiscal crisis (which by the way also sparked the steady increase in oil and gas prices, which led to unbounded inflation of food and consumer prices too). 

CHALLENGING THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT IRAN IS POLITICALLY-INCORRECT

Wherever there is the power of political-correctness (a pretended majority opinion generated through media perceptions) there is a social tyranny.  Objective truth based upon hard evidence and sober thinking is the enemy of Political Correctness and also of the easily manipulated multitudes in our entertainment-driven and shallow society that wants the packaged intellectual food of McNews for its diet.  (Americans are not only obese physically but have a bad intellectual diet as well.  Read the ingredients of either before buying or swallowing!).

Exhibit 1, the Republican Debates:  Ron Paul spars with Michele Bachmann regarding Iran and the IAEA report regarding Iran's nuclear program:



THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE IRAN IS PURSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPON

1.  Read this article by FAIR to understand the truth behind the IAEA's very misleading report:

Iran, Nukes and the Failure of Skepticism. Iraq all over again?

Much of the corporate media coverage of a new UN report on Iran strongly asserts that Iran is close to building nuclear weapons. But the International Atomic Energy Agency report does not actually arrive at that conclusion, and many critics contend that the speculations that are in the report are misguided.

2.  Note that even the Washington Post has recently admitted this by retracting and correcting an article headline they got called out on as "misleading":  "Iran's Quest to Possess Nuclear Weapons Technology".

3.  Now watch this short video debunking the propaganda about Iran developing a nuclear weapon in less than 7 minutes:




NOW INTRODUCING:  NEOCONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA 2.0

The recent article below from Media Matters' Political Correction blog explains perfectly the new propaganda strategy of the Israeli Lobby and neoconservatives in terms of painting (what they really fear) a more truthful picture of what Iran might actually do with its nuclear technology--i.e. not to seek to "wipe Israel off the map" (exactly what Iran has been saying they would do, nothing aggressive).  The neoconservatives and Israeli Lobby, in other words, are suddenly very afraid of the truth that their fear-mongering and alarmist propaganda about Iran will be discredited as blatant lies as much as the lies about WMD in Iraq.

American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes
December 02, 2011 3:13 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?
Apparently not.

Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neoconservativism.  

Netanyahu Rushes for Power in Israel, Before Bush's Term is Up

"Hurry the elections", cries "Bibi"--he wants into power NOW. The Likud Party is linked directly to the neoconservatives in America who are the authors of the "war on terrorism" agenda that was devised BEFORE 9/11. Netanyahu (who is close friends with Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and said 9/11 was good for Israel) wants power before the change of President in the U.S. in order to start war with Iran, to continue the neocon agenda beyond the Bush administration's term.

MARK THIS: If he wins, they will attack Iran immediately, and he is pushing hard to get in before Jan. '09, to control US war policy.

Pat Buchanan documented the link earlier:

In 1996, neoconservatives currently serving in the Bush administration wrote a policy paper for Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the policy paper Douglas Feith (currently Undersecretary of Defense), David Wurmser (VP Cheney’s staff) and Richard Perle (Defense Review Board) called for "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".

clipped from ap.google.com Netanyahu calls for early Israeli elections JERUSALEM (AP) — A day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he would depart political life, top rival Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel should get rid of its current governing coalition and go straight to early elections. Polls show the Likud Party's Netanyahu — a former prime minister who takes a hard line on territorial concessions to the Arabs — would most likely win such a race if it were held today. Olmert threw Israel's political system into turmoil on Wednesday by abruptly announcing he would step down after his Kadima Party's leadership race in September, called because of a series of corruption allegations against him. "The right thing to do when the prime minister goes is ... to let the people choose who will lead them and whoever is chosen, he is the one who will need to put together a government," Netanyahu said. The internal turmoil could make it difficult for Olmert to close deals with either the Palestinians or Syria

US to House Diplomats in Iran, Oil Prices Drop Immediately

This is the real reason oil prices dropped sharply Thursday, when this news broke overseas, 5 hours ahead of US time. NBC Nightly News last night (Thurs, July 17) had it right in interview with economist who said oil prices have included an "Iran premium" due to war rhetoric from US and Israel. Immediately the price fell when it looks like diplomacy might open up a bit.

clipped from www.guardian.co.uk US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979 Washington move signals thaw in relations The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush. The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country. The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way. The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS, OIL PRICE DROP:
Less US Demand, Less War-Mongering Against Iran

Russia Threatens Military Response to US Missile Deal--Cold War Reignited

“We will be forced to react not with diplomatic,
but with military-technical methods.”
--Russian Foreign Ministry

The Bush regime has insanely reignited the Cold War that Reagan ended! If you were Russia (and read the neocon blueprints for global hegemony) you would see this is clearly designed to circle the wagons around NATO against both Russia and Iran, which will force Russia and Iran to ally...which is a recipe for potential world war!

Tell me how this is different than Khrushchev setting up missiles in Cuba which sparked the Cuban Missile Crisis when JFK was president. Putin is right, "Provocatory" isn't it?

Who will stop this rogue government which is hell-bent on instigating new conflicts toward global upheaval before its term is up? For more on this see the Common Dreams article "Bush in Fantasyland", which states:

So why is the Bush administration imposing this sucker of a weapons system that nobody wants on an already inflamed relationship with Russia? Why risk sparking a renewed nuclear arms race?

“Politics drives this deployment decision,” Cirincione says. “Bush Administration officials are trying to lock in the program before they leave office. They are trying to build bases they hope the next president will find impossible to shut down.”

clipped from www.timesonline.co.uk Russia threatens military response to US missile defense deal July 9, 2008 Russia threatened to retaliate by military means after a deal with the Czech Republic brought the US missile defence system in Europe a step closer. The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project. Moscow argues that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of European security and regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move. “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "This missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole," Dr Rice said

Bush's Neoconservative War Agenda is the Chief Cause of High Gas Prices

People must see this oil price chart (linked) and pass it on! This article documents and graphically demonstrates the obvious that no one is saying (on talk radio especially), i.e the wars and war-mongering of Bush government are the main cause of high gas prices. For oil prices to fall the neoconservative-Israeli war agenda must be stopped--period, end of argument.

clipped from www.nsnetwork.org Americans Are Paying at the Pump for the Failed Foreign Policies of the Bush Administration The War in Iraq and Saber-Rattling toward Iran is Hurting Americans at the Pump As Americans take to the road this Fourth of July they are once again in for sticker shock at the pump. Fuel costs have skyrocketed from $20 per barrel in 2002 to $80 last summer to approximately $140 today. AMERICANS PAY AT THE PUMP FOR GLOBAL INSTABILITY Rising oil prices and the world’s insecurity are linked. Rising tensions in the world’s oil producing hotspots contribute to an oil “security premium,” increasing prices by as much as 30 percent. BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY HAS RAISED TENSIONS ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST, IMPERILING THE WORLD’S ENERGY SUPPLY The Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq and its failure to manage the security situation has hurt our energy security. Ceaseless confrontation with Iran has raised costly speculation about a future oil shock.

Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran before Inauguration

This neocon with close ties to Israel speaks openly...for Israel. After the election, before inauguration he asserts is their window of opportunity. This would force the next President's hand to control US foreign and war policy beyond the Bush regime. Israel knows how to control the US government and with the neoconservatives in the Pentagon, not just the administration, this is easily done.

Unlike the U.S. and Israel, Iran has never attacked or invaded another country. Only Israel is a credible nuclear threat, and it is they who will spark the war. The U.S. should back off and not get involved. Israel will reap what it sows and they will attempt to drag the U.S. into it despite the fact that the U.S. cannot make a case that it is fighting in self-defense. It is 'entangling alliances' that start world wars. If Israel nukes Iran that would be genocide.

subtitle: former US ambassador speaks for Israel.

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in. The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. "It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said. Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes. Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009. They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar

McCain's Image Campaign: "I Hate War", You believe me don't you?

Soft, sentimental music plays with this message. Playing now on a TV near you (video also at article source), including in small states like West Virginia as well as those listed as battle grounds . Now this is consistent with McCain's strategy as the article McCain and the Neocon Resurgence points out:

Many observers in Washington believe that McCain intends to pull a shrewd maneuver to enhance his electability by packaging himself as someone who can end the partisan divide in Congress. McCain knows that the Republican Party's conservative base, which mistrusts him, has nowhere else to go in national elections.

This is quite a contrast to his "Bom, bom, bom...bomb, bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys segment here:



Will the real John McCain please stand up? Going into war with Iraq had nothing to do with "keeping the country I love safe", whatsoever, unless you still believe Iraq was behind 9/11 and possessed WMD. These are neoconservative wars (see Pat Buchanan's article here) planned in advance of that "catalyzing event" and "new Pearl Harbor", 9/11, and James Woolsey and Bill Kristol (key neocon and PNAC members) are among his advisers.

McCain's real foreign policy is called rogue state roll-back:

By 1999, in defense of Clinton’s war [ed. which republicans justly criticized, but now forget about when GWB does the same], McCain was declaring, “I think the United States should inaugurate a 21st-century policy interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine [not], call it rogue state rollback, in which we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values.”

--i.e. more wars of global revolution and "regime change" for democracy!

clipped from www.cbsnews.com New McCain Ad: "I Hate War" John McCain's campaign has released a new 30-second television ad, "Safe," in which the presumptive GOP presidential nominee discusses his and his family's experiences in war. According to the New York Times, Democrats believe McCain is spending $3 million or more on ads expected to begin running today. McCain is focusing on battleground states: "Democrats monitoring his spending said the commercials would run in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada and New Mexico; beginning on Saturday, he bought time in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania." "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war," McCain, looking directly at the camera from in front of a stark black background, says in the spot. I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are. I'm running for President to keep the country I love safe.