With nothing much (other than ongoing stuff) in Malaysiakini the last few days, I posted The 'O' in SWOT regarding the 3 'I'-s in the ME yesterday, where I observed the Iran question looming large in the US presidential race.
I mentioned one of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates, Rudy Guiliani, being advised by neocon advisors. Zionist neocons had dominated the Bush Administration as well. The engagements of such hawkish neocon advisors have invariably led to a generally liberal Guiliani adopting a hardline stand against Iran.
According to Professor Paul Rogers writing in OpenDemocracy, this has put the Democratic Party’s leading candidate, Hilary Clinton under (presidential wannabe) peer pressure. There is a sneaky suspicion she may show she's equally capable of being aggressive against President Ahmadinejad, well, at least to demonstrate her don’t-f*-around-with-the-USA credentials.
In my post, I had also mentioned Israel’s strategic objectives of neutralizing or enervating Iraq and Iran, coincidentally two of Bush’s original Axis of Evil. I guess putting Syria as a 3rd would be plain too obvious, so North Korea was ‘volunteered’.
In my opinion, nuclear-capable Pakistan should logically be among the Axis of Evil as it is far more dangerous to the world than nuclear-incapable Iran or nuclear-big-question-mark North Korea.
This is not due to kaytee’s brilliance in strategic affairs but from my reading of a French article, translated of course ;-), that saw Pakistan and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as the terrible twins of militant Islam - the Islamist sword and money, so to speak.
But alas, nuclear-irresponsible Pakistan (remember Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan) is not a threat to the Hebraic Holy Land of Israel, apart from being one of USA client states.
Israel has already successfully achieved 50% of its strategic ambition, and I fear that Bush may give the Israelis a presidential farewell gift by bombing Iran’s nuclear plants, and even combining the bunker busting attack with the use of tactical (small yield) nuclear weapons to deny access to the site for salvage operations or recovery of the facilities for years (as a result of radiation).
Also have a look at my previous postings:
(1) Bush plans N-strike against Iran - 10 April 2006
(2) Bush's N-backfire - 12 April 2006
This drastic possibility (minus the crazy N-strike which the Bush Administration's Zionist camp undoubtedly wants) isn’t all that remote, given the wannabe presidential candidates for the US 2008 general election will be vying with each other to show the American voting public their take-no-shit-from-Islamic-nations credentials, while American Zionists at the same time must undoubtedly be striving for their last chance to exploit the big ‘O’ while Dungu Dumbo Dubya is still around.
No, the big 'O' in this case is not Roy Orbison – do read my previous post The 'O' in SWOT regarding the 3 'I'-s in the ME.
Hitting Iran, or to be more specific, Iran's future nuclear capability, is not a new US political fad but has long been conceived by so-called conservative US think-tanks, most of which are nothing more than stalking horses for Israel to ensure American foreign policies dovetail with or directly serve the strategic interests of the Land of Hebrews.
Reading the online Denver Post (Tuesday, 6 November 2007) shows the Rumsfeld scare campaign and his (the Administration) obsession with getting Iran:
WASHINGTON — In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor," and he wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.
The memos, often referred to as "snowflakes," shed light on Rumsfeld's brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. A sampling of his trademark missives obtained Wednesday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.
Rumsfeld produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said. The memos are not classified but are marked "for official use only."
In a 2004 memo on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Rumsfeld said negative news reports simply result from the wrong standards being applied, he wrote in one of the memos obtained by The Washington Post.
Under siege in April 2006, when a series of retired generals denounced him and called for his resignation, Rumsfeld produced a memo after a conference call with military analysts. "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists," he wrote.
People will "rally" to sacrifice, he noted after the meeting.
Based on discussion with military analysts, Rumsfeld tied Iran and Iraq. "Iran is the concern of the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran," he wrote in his April 2006 memo.
Rumsfeld declined to comment, but an aide said the points in that memo were Rumsfeld's distillation of the analysts' comments.
"You are running a story based off of selective quotations and gross mischaracterizations from a handful of memos - carefully picked from the some 20,000 written while Rumsfeld served as Secretary," Rumsfeld aide Keith Urbahn wrote in an e-mail
Well, well, well, Rumsfeld and his "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists."
And we all know that Donald Rumfeld was Dick Cheney’s man.
Maybe Bush may be reminded of the Biblical verses in Daniel 11:2-4:
"Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.”
“Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parcelled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.”
Amen!
With the international political stalemate caused by China and Russia's protecting Iran, Israel may not wait around for the US to take action.
ReplyDeleteIsrael may feel sufficiently threatened to launch a pre-emptive strike, as they did in Operation Opera (where they destroyed the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981).
More recently, the target of Operation Orchard which Syria made a big fuss about - yet suspiciously neither Syria nor Israel wanted to declare much about the strike or the hit area - may have been North Korean imported nuclear technology.
The really cool before-and-after satellite pix of the suspect site add to the whiff of conspiracy and cover-up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
Syria's air defences are regarded as tighter than Iran's, so it's pretty conceivable that Israel might go ahead and trash whatever Iran has already going on - just in case.
K-T,
ReplyDeleteYou ended your article with these words,
Maybe Bush may be reminded of the Biblical verses in Daniel 11:2-4:
"Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.”
“Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parcelled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.”
You quoted these verses from the Bible and wished that Bush might be reminded.
What exactly is the message in these Biblical verses that you wish Bush to be reminded of?
You didn't inform us what relevance those Biblical verses has for Bush or USA or any one else today? Surely you would have some specific purpose in mind with those Biblical verses. Please tell us.
After hearing your mind, I may like to make some comments. Thanks.
singh
Singh,
ReplyDeletethe beauty or obscurity of biblical verses lie in their ancient origin, which means today we can interpret them any which way, as I have been recently advised in a post. Obviously there is both a religious (pro or anti) and historical/secular (more objective) interpretation.
I am the blogger, putting it there to tickle my readers' interpretation, so go ahead and decide what you make of it. Happy interpretation.
singh asked you to justify your usage of those bible verses in your post's context.
ReplyDeletekings appearing? empires breaking?
these phrases placed within such close proximity with your other writings of zionist and pro-israel conspiracies could be misinterpreted. to your disadvantage.
please be advised that the bible (and other holy books) have been misquoted to the favor of extremists and the death of innocents.
here is a fun example. matthew 27:5 and luke 10:37 quoted back to back would read:
"and he went away and hanged himself. Then Jesus said to him, go and do the same."