Debunking The Anti-Ron Paul Messages

Debunking The Anti-Ron Paul Messages 1. Bob Livingston December 26, 2011 The Republican establishment has become apoplectic over Congressman Ron Paul’s growing strength in Iowa.

Last week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad attempted to delegitimize his own State’s vote when he said that if Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it won’t matter. Of course, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney wins, he won’t say that. In fact, according to Branstad, a secondor third-place finish by Gingrich or Romney will be more important than a Paul win.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states,” Branstad reportedly said. What Branstad did not say was that he’s been offered a potential Vice President spot on a Romney ticket.

Branstad and his elite bedfellows are trying to draw you into an alternate universe. Never mind that two out of the past three winners of the Iowa Caucus have gone on to win the Republican nomination, a Paul win will mean the Iowa vote is irrelevant.

According to a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely Republican caucusgoers, Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. This is the second recent poll showing a Paul lead.

In the ISU poll, Paul is the first choice for 27.5 percent of the registered Republicans and registered independents contacted. That’s up from 20.4 percent in November. Gingrich is the second choice with 25.3 percent, and Romney was third at 17.5 percent.

For months, the Republican elites and corporate media have treated Paul like that cranky old uncle that continues to show up at family gatherings. They’ve tried ignoring him and they’ve tried dismissing him. They’ve been running a continuous communication loop that says, “Ron Paul can’t win.” Yet, here he is, on the cusp of an Iowa victory and showing remarkable strength in New Hampshire.

A common refrain from Republicans is: “I like most of what Ron Paul says, but I can’t vote for

him because of his ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.” When they say that, what are they saying?

After all, many Republicans say they can easily vote for Gingrich even though they don’t agree on some of his positions: i.e. infidelity, national database of gun owners, support for the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the indefinite detention of Americans upon the President’s order, support of cap-and-trade, support of individual mandates to purchase healthcare, support of TARP and bailouts, etc. And many Republicans say they can vote for Romney, the author – essentially — of Obamacare (through his Romneycare), who has flipped and flopped on core Republican issues like a fish in the bottom of a boat. And they say they can vote for Michele Bachmann, who voted for the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA. They are saying, simply, that they have been so terrorized by their government and the mainstream media they are willing to surrender all their freedom and wealth to the military industrial complex and big government so people in a foreign land can be bombed into submission and subjugation. Years of government propaganda and years of war have cemented in their minds the need for perpetual war.

For my conservative friends who don’t like Paul because of his noninterventionist — because that’s what his policy is, and he describes what that means here — foreign policy, consider how long we have been at war in the Mideast.

America and the CIA have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades.

Read The Secret History of The American Empire, by John Perkins. In 1990, after an American ambassador hinted to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not stand in his way were he to take over territory that was in dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush and the United Nations formed a coalition to bloody his nose. We have been in a shooting war in the region ever since.

After 21 years of war in the region, are things any better? Apparently not, because the war has expanded from Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and it is about to expand into Syria and Iran. And American troops are in Central Africa in an “advisory” role. Yet Americans thirst for more war and the top Republican candidates, according to the elites, are advocating more.

“But,” Republicans say, “Iran is about to get The Bomb. We can’t let Iran get The Bomb!” And how do we know that Iran is about to get The Bomb? From those same people who told us — inaccurately, it turns out — that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, which is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, can’t even refine enough gasoline for its own people. It has no reliable missile system. And we are to believe it’s technologically capable of producing a nuclear weapon?

“But what about Israel?” Republicans then ask. Israel has a couple hundred, at least, nuclear weapons sitting at the ready and is perfectly capable of defending herself.

Consider that there is much more at work here than meets the eye. To understand what is really going on, you must peel back the layers of conventional wisdom, like peeling an onion. There are nefarious maneuverings of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) at work. Few are able to escape their normalcy bias to see this.

The plan for the takeover of the vast oil reserves and riches of the region have been in the works for a long time. NGOs have worked behind the scenes and in secret to shape the policy. But the Brookings Institute became so confident the policy had reached the point of no return that it released its blueprint in 2009.

This is why Presidential candidates are vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group before receiving approval to run. They must sign on to the New World Order to receive the proper backing and financial support. And it’s why the knives will be out in full force in the coming weeks to destroy Paul and his candidacy. (Previously debunked claims of racism surfaced again last week.)

Another question to ask yourself: If a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is such a danger to us, what about an actually nuclear-armed North Korea? Why are we the elites not cowering in fear that North Korea could launch a missile at any second? After all, North Korea actually has a missile that can reach our friends and fellow democracies in South Korea and Japan — and can probably reach portions of the U.S. West Coast.

What about a nuclear-armed Pakistan, which likes us less and less with each drone strike and violation of their territorial integrity?

What about Russia and China, who will be very offended if the United States leads an assault on Iran and Syria? Russia has already stationed warships near Syria, and China is unhappy with President Barack Obama’s military buildup in Australia and is responding by beefing up its military in the Indian Ocean. And you think this militarism is making the United States safer?

Finally, my conservative friends, one last question for you to consider: If Paul’s foreign policy is “crazy,” as many of you say, why have members of the military given more to his campaign than to anyone else’s? Could it be they have seen the dark core that lies beneath?

And before the “Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. We must elect someone who can defeat Obama,” chorus chimes in, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows Paul faring the same against Obama in a head-to-head matchup as the “more electable” Romney. Gingrich fares far worse.

The Secret History of The American Empire: The Truth About Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and How to Change the World

by John Perkins October 9, 2009 The Republican establishment has become apoplectic over Congressman Ron Paul’s growing strength in Iowa.

Last week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad attempted to delegitimize his own State’s vote when he said that if Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it won’t matter. Of course, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney wins, he won’t say that. In fact, according to Branstad, a second- or third-place finish by Gingrich or Romney will be more important than a Paul win.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states,” Branstad reportedly said. What Branstad did not say was that he’s been offered a potential Vice President spot on a Romney ticket.

Branstad and his elite bedfellows are trying to draw you into an alternate universe. Never mind that two out of the past three winners of the Iowa Caucus have gone on to win the Republican nomination, a Paul win will mean the Iowa vote is irrelevant.

According to a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely Republican caucusgoers, Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. This is the second recent poll showing a Paul lead.

In the ISU poll, Paul is the first choice for 27.5 percent of the registered Republicans and registered independents contacted. That’s up from 20.4 percent in November. Gingrich is the second choice with 25.3 percent, and Romney was third at 17.5 percent.

For months, the Republican elites and corporate media have treated Paul like that cranky old uncle that continues to show up at family gatherings. They’ve tried ignoring him and they’ve tried dismissing him. They’ve been running a continuous communication loop that says, “Ron Paul can’t win.” Yet, here he is, on the cusp of an Iowa victory and showing remarkable strength in New Hampshire.

A common refrain from Republicans is: “I like most of what Ron Paul says, but I can’t vote for him because of his ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.” When they say that, what are they saying?

After all, many Republicans say they can easily vote for Gingrich even though they don’t agree on some of his positions: i.e. infidelity, national database of gun owners, support for the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the indefinite detention of Americans upon the President’s order, support of cap-and-trade, support of individual mandates

to purchase healthcare, support of TARP and bailouts, etc. And many Republicans say they can vote for Romney, the author – essentially — of Obamacare (through his Romneycare), who has flipped and flopped on core Republican issues like a fish in the bottom of a boat. And they say they can vote for Michele Bachmann, who voted for the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA. They are saying, simply, that they have been so terrorized by their government and the mainstream media they are willing to surrender all their freedom and wealth to the military industrial complex and big government so people in a foreign land can be bombed into submission and subjugation. Years of government propaganda and years of war have cemented in their minds the need for perpetual war.

For my conservative friends who don’t like Paul because of his noninterventionist — because that’s what his policy is, and he describes what that means here — foreign policy, consider how long we have been at war in the Mideast.

America and the CIA have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades.

Read The Secret History of The American Empire, by John Perkins. In 1990, after an American ambassador hinted to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not stand in his way were he to take over territory that was in dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush and the United Nations formed a coalition to bloody his nose. We have been in a shooting war in the region ever since.

After 21 years of war in the region, are things any better? Apparently not, because the war has expanded from Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and it is about to expand into Syria and Iran. And American troops are in Central Africa in an “advisory” role. Yet Americans thirst for more war and the top Republican candidates, according to the elites, are advocating more.

“But,” Republicans say, “Iran is about to get The Bomb. We can’t let Iran get The Bomb!” And how do we know that Iran is about to get The Bomb? From those same people who told us — inaccurately, it turns out — that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, which is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, can’t even refine enough gasoline for its own people. It has no reliable missile system. And we are to believe it’s technologically capable of producing a nuclear weapon?

“But what about Israel?” Republicans then ask. Israel has a couple hundred, at least, nuclear weapons sitting at the ready and is perfectly capable of defending herself.

Consider that there is much more at work here than meets the eye. To understand what is really going on, you must peel back the layers of conventional wisdom, like peeling an onion. There are nefarious maneuverings of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) at work. Few are able to escape their normalcy bias to see this.

The plan for the takeover of the vast oil reserves and riches of the region have been in the works for a long time. NGOs have worked behind the scenes and in secret to shape the policy. But the Brookings Institute became so confident the policy had reached the point of no return that it released its blueprint in 2009.

This is why Presidential candidates are vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group before receiving approval to run. They must sign on to the New World Order to receive the proper backing and financial support. And it’s why the knives will be out in full force in the coming weeks to destroy Paul and his candidacy. (Previously debunked claims of racism surfaced again last week.)

Another question to ask yourself: If a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is such a danger to us, what about an actually nuclear-armed North Korea? Why are we the elites not cowering in fear that North Korea could launch a missile at any second? After all, North Korea actually has a missile that can reach our friends and fellow democracies in South Korea and Japan — and can probably reach portions of the U.S. West Coast.

What about a nuclear-armed Pakistan, which likes us less and less with each drone strike and violation of their territorial integrity?

What about Russia and China, who will be very offended if the United States leads an assault on Iran and Syria? Russia has already stationed warships near Syria, and China is unhappy with President Barack Obama’s military buildup in Australia and is responding by beefing up its military in the Indian Ocean. And you think this militarism is making the United States safer?

Finally, my conservative friends, one last question for you to consider: If Paul’s foreign policy is “crazy,” as many of you say, why have members of the military given more to his campaign than to anyone else’s? Could it be they have seen the dark core that lies beneath?

And before the “Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. We must elect someone who can defeat Obama,” chorus chimes in, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows Paul faring the same against Obama in a head-to-head matchup as the “more electable” Romney. Gingrich fares far worse.

Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?"

The war has already begun, total war is a possibility.

by Tony Cartalucci While the corporate owned media has the plebeians arguing over whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons or if it intends to commit genocide against the Jews (the

1. largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel actually resides in Iran), the debate is already over, and the war has already quietly begun. Before it began, however, someone meticulously meted out the details of how it would unfold. That "someone" is the mega-corporate backed Brookings Institute.

Background "Which Path to Persia?" was written in 2009 by the Brookings Institute as a blueprint for confronting Iran. Within the opening pages of the report, acknowledgments are given to the Smith Richardson Foundation, upon which Zbigniew Brzezinski sits as an acting governor.

The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support "indigenous democratic political movements and transitions" in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma.

Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.

The Brookings Institute itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America's biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institute's board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.

Full details can be found within the pages of their 2010 annual report here.

To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.

Motivations Should be Obvious We must look into the minds of those that shape US foreign policy and sweep aside the distracting rhetoric they feed us. US foreign policy is shaped by organizations like the Brookings Institute which consist of members of the largest corporations and banks on earth. These corporations are not only disinterested in security, but thrive on the war and conflict insecurity breeds. (See "War is a Racket" and Eisenhower's Warning.)

Iran not only possesses massive oil reserves and an economic, political, and militarily strategic location in relation to Russia and China, it also boasts a population of 76 million. This is a large population that if left sovereign and independent can viably compete against the West's degenerate casino economy, or if invaded and corrupted, can become 76 million more consumerist human cattle.

The sheer scale of the military options considered by Brookings' strategy would be a boom alone for the defense contractors that sponsor it, whether the operation was a success or not. The incentive to domineer over Iran is quite obvious and only made more attractive from a corporate American point of view when considering all the risks of such domineering are completely "socialized," from the dead troops, to the broke tax payers. No matter how insane the following report may sound, keep in mind, "they have nothing to lose."

The globalists run think-tanks all over the world like Brookings where their policy wonks generate an immense amount of strategic doctrine. This doctrine then converges to form a general consensus. Knowing the details of this doctrine beforehand can give us clues as to what to look for on the geopolitical chessboard as their gambits play out.

Green revolutions, resigning admirals, bizarre troop build-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist attacks within Iran, and high profile assassinations all make sense if you are aware of the playbook they are working from. The hyped and very fake "war on terror" being ratcheted up on the home-front is also a telling and alarming sign, perhaps the most alarming of all.

Page 1: Bottom Line With frank honesty, the report opens by declaring Iran a confounding nation that undermines America's interests and influence in the Middle East. Not once is it mentioned that the Islamic Republic poses any direct threat to the security of the United States itself. In fact, Iran is described as a nation intentionally avoiding provocations that would justify military operations to be conducted against it.

Iran's motivations are listed as being ideological, nationalistic, and security driven - very understandable considering the nations to its east and west are currently occupied by invading armies. This is the crux of the issue, where it's America's interests in the region, not security, that motivate it to meddle in Iran's sovereignty, and is a theme that repeats itself throughout the 156 page report.

Page 11: The Nuclear Non-Threat The report concedes that Iran's leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The possession of nuclear weapons would be used as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of RAND note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists." The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of nonstate actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on page 24, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran's national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests.

Page 23: Persuasion The first option on the table is a means to coerce the Iranian government, without regime change, through crippling sanctions verses incentives. The incentives, in turn, seem more a relief from American imposed torment than anything of actual substance.

One incentive in particular is very telling. Brookings suggests "security guarantees" from an American invasion to address the very real concerns that would motivate Iran to construct nuclear weapons in the first place. Brookings notes that concrete action would would be needed by the US in order to fulfill this incentive, including drawing down US forces in the Middle East, a concession Brookings itself admits is highly unlikely over the next several decades.

Brookings interjects at this point, a brazen admission that under no circumstance should the US grant Iran a position of dominance nor should there be any ambiguity about what the US sees as Iran's role in the region. It is most likely postures like this that have driven Iran to such extremes to protect itself, its interests, and its very sovereignty.

This option of "persuasion" appears to have already played out and failed, both in drawing concessions from Iran through meaningless offers and at marshaling the international support needed to make additional sanctions effective.

Page 65: Total War Indeed a conventional war with Iran is currently impossible. The globalists at the Brookings Institute acknowledge that. What is worrying is that they believe it would not be impossible if only America was presented with the "proper" provocations. Brookings' experts go on to say that Washington could take "certain actions" to ensure such provocations took place.

Furthermore, Brookings states that Iran has already gone through extreme measures specifically not to react to American provocations, raising the specter that provocations may take the shape of a staged event instead, should full-scale invasion be sought.

This is where the tireless efforts of 9/11 Truth have paid off and now stand between the American people and a costly, unprecedented war. They have at the very least made the term "false flag" mainstream, raising the stakes exponentially for anyone attempting to stage provocations.

Page 103: Supporting a Color Revolution Hailed as the "most obvious and palatable method" of bringing about the Iranian government's

demise, Brookings suggests fostering a popular revolution. It brazenly admits the role of the "civil society organizations" in accomplishing this and suggests massive increases in funding for subversive activities in Iran.

Of course the United States has already passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, directly funding Iranian opposition groups inside of Iran with the explicit objective of overthrowing the current government. The passage of the act was followed by the 2009 "green revolution," which Iranian security forces were able to put down.

Currently, the "green revolution" in Iran is gearing up again. The US State Department and corporate sponsored Movements.org has been following and supporting the US-backed Iranian uprisings since the beginning. Iranian-American Cameran Ashraf, described as a senior fellow at Movements.org, participated in the 2009 event. Movements.org featured on their front page recently, information on the upcoming "green" revolution set to feed off the US backed overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Indeed this option is currently being pursued. Brookings specifically mentions threatening Iran with instability as a means to leverage concessions from the government. It goes on to explicitly call for the promotion of unrest within Iran's borders, and when coupled with the crippling sanctions Iran is already under, constitutes an overt act of war as pointed out numerous times by Congressman Ron Paul.

Brookings also suggests the use of military force in conjunction with their staged color revolutions, recognizing Iran's well developed internal security apparatus. This was not done in 2009, but should be considered and looked out for each time the "green" revolutionaries come out into the streets.

Page 113: Supporting Real Terrorism Despite the shameless bravado displayed throughout the entire report, no section is as shocking as the one titled "Inspiring an Insurgency." Brookings is outright advocating the funding, training, and triggering of a a full-blown armed insurgency. The report specifically mentions Ahvazi Arab separatists, which would later be the subject of Seymour Hersh's "Preparing the Battlefield" where he exposes the option as already being set in motion within Iran.

Kurds in the north, and Baluch rebels near Pakistan in the east are also mentioned as potential receipients of US aid in conducting their campaigns of armed terror against the Iranian people.

The CIA is selected to handle supplies and training, while Brookings suggests that options for more direct military support also be considered.

In their subsection, "Finding a Proxy," Brookings describes how the use of ethnic tensions could fuel unrest. It laments the fact that many ethnic minorities still hold nationalism as a priority along with their fellow Persians. And despite being on America's official terrorist list for having previously killed US military men, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) are given ample consideration within Brookings' report.

In their subsection, "Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven," Brookings describes various methods of harboring their stable of US funded terrorists within the nations currently occupied by US troops and how to ferry them in and out of Iran between operations.

Page 145: Bringing it all Together Brookings suggests that no single option is meant to stand alone. It suggests that options be pursued concurrently. Apparently Brookings' advice has been taken to heart as we have seen in the news, from Seymour Hersh's reports of covert US-backed terrorists, to the overtly staged "green" revolutions, to the sabotage and assassinations plaguing Iran's nuclear program.

While it is quite obvious that many of Brookings' policies are being carried out verbatim, what is most alarming is what's suggested next should these combined ploys fail.

From the report itself, page 150: "A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency for extreme circumstances. Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end.

Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past. Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold.

For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime.

Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion."

Considering Operation Northwoods, the falsified Gulf of Tonkin event, the myriad of lies that brought us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan, not the least of which was 9/11 itself, it is truly a frightening specter to think about what might come next.

We already see the absurd security apparatus being put into place across America and the various declarations by European leaders that "multiculturalism" has failed, setting the stage for a "clash of civilizations." There is also an uptick in rhetoric by American leaders warning of an impending terrorist attack. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US might attempt

to provide their own "provocation" for war in the Iranians' stead.

Final Thoughts It is quite obvious Brookings' suggestions and their execution are detrimental to all involved, from our brave but gravely misled troops, to the tax payers fleeced by underwriting the war, to the decimated Iranian people. Boycotting the very corporations sponsoring this policy undermines their self-serving objectives regardless of the means by which they try to accomplish them. Their very ability to fund studies like this, let alone carry them out is a direct result of our daily patronizing of their mega-corporations. Raising awareness that corporate interests, not security concerns, are the prime motivations for conflict with Iran is also essential in convincing citizens of both countries to step back from the brink.

In this world today, events seem astronomically bigger than any one of us. We feel there is no certainty we can succeed against such odds. What is essential to understand though, is that while acting does not guarantee success, not acting most certainly guarantees defeat. Follow the brave example of 9/11 Truth and other activists in the growing alternative media - fight against the manufactured consensus by adding yourself to a consensus on truth.

Which Path to Persia?: Redux The war has already begun, total war is a possibility.

by Tony Cartalucci Bangkok, Thailand May 18, 2011 - While the "easier" nations of Tunisia and Egypt were picked apart by 1. foreign-funded color revolutions, the global corporate-financier oligarchs knew well in advance nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran would be fundamentally different. Nations including Belarus, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Thailand, come next, posing similar hurdles, and of course Russia and China remain at the end of the road and will require the most vigorous of all campaigns to effect regime change and assimilate them into the Wall Street/London corporatefinancier dominated "international community."

For all intents and purposes this is the final battle between nation-states and this abhorrent, illegitimate "international community." The battle is building up to what many geopolitical analysts call World War III, but with an insidious twist. It is a battle where festering imperial networks operating under the guise of "civil society" and "NGOs" are turning populations against their governments and serving as impetus to usher in stooge replacements. National institutions will be supplanted by this global "civil society" network, which in turn will interface with contrived international institutions like the parasitic IMF, the World Bank, and the increasingly farcical United Nations.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were meant to serve as the moral and rhetorical backdrop for successive and increasingly more violent and costly campaigns against Libya, Syria, and Iran.

In Libya's case, nearly 30 years of on-and-off armed insurrection, fully backed by the US, UK, and America's Arabic foreign legion of Al Qaeda have defined the campaign against Qaddafi. When the call was made on February 17, for a "Day of Rage" by Libyan leaders exiled in London, war was already a foregone, fully provisioned conclusion. So too are operations against Syria and Iran. These are admitted facts articulated clearly within the global elite's own think-tanks and parroted verbatim by the feckless puppets that constitute the governments of the West.

Laying to rest any doubt regarding the global elite's designs toward the remaining sovereign nation-states of the world, is the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report.

Previously covered, the report has more meaning now than ever, defining verbatim the approach, the tactics and the outcomes expected in this next, decidedly more violent phase of geopolitical reordering worldwide. We can see the stratagems and methodology defined within this report have played out not only in Iran, but in Libya and Syria as well, with preparations and posturing being made in regards to targets further along China's "String of Pearls" and along Russia's vast borders.

As we reexamine this treacherous plot, funded by some of the largest corporations and banking interests on earth, we can see the playbook the global elite have been clearly using, starting in Iran, and creeping its way toward Moscow and Beijing.

Understanding this report, disseminating it to both the people beneath the governments criminally pursuing it and those desperately defending against it, may balk what is perhaps the greatest attempted geopolitical reordering in human history.

Which Path to Persia?

Virtually a handbook for overthrowing nations, the 156 page report focuses on effecting regime change within Iran.

However, it is quite clear it draws on a body of knowledge derived from the AngloAmerican empire's long history of fomenting unrest, division, insurgencies, coups, and regime change around the world. It is irrefutable proof that the global elite, not our legislators, are the arbiters of Western foreign policy.

1. Which Path to Persia? .pdf ....

It is also irrefutable proof that indeed the global elite are capable and willing to foment popular street protests, use murderous terrorism against sovereign nation-states, buy off treasonous legions within a foreign military to effect coups, and use violence of their own creation as a pretext to intervene with full military force.

Sanctions Sanctions, page 39 (page 52 of PDF): "For those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made for trying this option first. inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it.

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing

a very good deal."

Regime change and perhaps even military operations against Iran are talked about as a foregone conclusion, with Brookings using the pretext of sanctions as merely a means of incremental escalation to tip-toe the world into backing regime change, including war with the nation if need be. This is exactly what has been done in regards to Libya, with disingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, and now talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion.

A repeat scenario is playing out in Syria where foreign-fueled violence is being used as a means to engage in broader intervention. While Western governments feigns inaction and hesitation in the face of a bloodbath they themselves instigated, in reality they are creating the same sense of "bringing it upon themselves" for Syria as Brookings talks about in regards to Iran.

Invasion Justifying Invasion, page 65 (page 78 of the PDF): "If the United States were to decide that to garner greater international support, galvanize U.S. domestic support, and/or provide a legal justification for an invasion, it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation, then the time frame for an invasion might stretch out indefinitely. With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all."

This is nothing less than US policy makers openly talking about purposefully provoking a nation in order to justify a full-scale invasion that would otherwise be untenable. If such treachery at the cost of thousands of American lives and perhaps millions of Iranian lives is openly talked about within the halls of these corporate-funded think-tanks, what do they talk about that isn't on record? For those who reject out-of-hand the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, on grounds that Western policy makers are not capable of such a horrific calculus, the evidence is here, starring back from pages of this Brookings Institution report for all to see and to come to grips with.

In Libya, provocations for NATO bombardment were a rash of entirely unverified reports coming from the rebels themselves and verified lies about aircraft strafing unarmed protesters.

With the targeted assassination of Qaddafi resulting in the death of his son and three of his grandchildren, NATO appears to have taken "actions that might make it more likely" for Qaddafi

to be provoked into justifying some sort of wider NATO ground invasion. If the litany of lies that set the groundwork for the current NATO campaign is any indication, even if Qaddafi does nothing, a provocation will be manufactured for him. With the operations against Syria still in their opening phases, we can be sure as military options are brought to the table, so will appropriate provocations, induced or manufactured.

United Front Against Iran An Iranian Sponsored 9/11 & a change of leadership throughout the Middle East, page 66 (page 79 of the PDF): "Most European, Asian, and Middle Eastern publics are dead set against any American military action against Iran derived from the current differences between Iran and the international community—let alone Iran and the United States. Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds. For many democracies and some fragile autocracies to which Washington would be looking for support, this public antipathy is likely to prove decisive. For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take.

Given that this situation has not been enough to push the GCC to support military operations against Iran, what would? Certainly Iran testing a nuclear device might, but at that point, it almost certainly would be too late: if the United States is going to invade Iran, it will want to do so before Iran has developed actual nuclear weapons, not after. It is hard to know what else Iran could do that would change GCC attitudes about the use of force unless new leaders took power in the Gulf who were far more determined to stop Iran than the current leadership is."

Quite obviously, "new leaders" are taking power throughout the Gulf now via the US-created "Arab Spring," with Saudi Arabia being tacitly threatened with destabilization in Bahrain and Yemen, while Iran's axis of influence through Syria and into Lebanon is being destabilized.

Egypt and Northern Africa are being thrown into precarious political chaos as well, with globalist puppets poised to take over and eagerly pursue any dictate coming from Washington. This confirms the worst fears of geopolitical analysts like Dr. Webster Tarpley who predicted as far back as mid-February 2011 that the US-created "Arab Spring" was an attempt at reordering the Middle East against Iran and eventually against China and Russia.

Manufacturing Provocations Goading Provocations for an Air Strike, page 84-85 (page 97-98 of the PDF): "...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an

unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

This suggests that this option might benefit from being held in abeyance until such time as the Iranians made an appropriately provocative move, as they do from time to time. In that case, it would be less a determined policy to employ airstrikes and instead more of an opportunistic hope that Iran would provide the United States with the kind of provocation that would justify airstrikes. However, that would mean that the use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran (even if it were Washington’s fervent preference), but merely an ancillary contingency to another option that would be the primary policy unless and until Iran provided the necessary pretext."

Here we see again, the plotting of a deceitful gambit to goad a sovereign nation into war, a nation Brookings notes time and time again has no interest in armed conflict with the United States.

Also notice the first mention of "covert regime change efforts" used as a means to apply sufficient pressure to exact a particular reaction used for further political escalation and subsequent military intervention.

Such a gambit has been recently used in Libya and now in Syria where foreign-support created violence, to which regimes were forced to react to - the subsequent violence then serving as an impetus for expanded US intervention. Brookings notes that such goading must be done in such a way so as to not raise suspicions of the "game" throughout the world. Hopefully, as people read this written and signed confession of criminal conspiracy, they will never fall for this "game" again.

Foreign-Funded Color Revolution Finding and Building up Dupes for a Color Revolution, page 105 (page 118 of the PDF): "The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.”

Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime short comings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian-language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership."

Here Brookings makes outright calls to create the conditions within Iran, or any target nation for that matter, that are more likely to create unrest. They then call for funding and organizing that unrest and using domestic, and quite obviously foreign media to manipulate public perception and perpetuate US-backed propaganda. We see this in nearly every country targeted for destabilization, generally funded by organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), so-called "independent media" organizations and human rights NGOs that "make

otherwise obscure critics more prominent."

The NED-funded Project on Middle East Democracy is one such propaganda outlet operating throughout the Middle East, propagating the official US narrative in regards to unrest fomented from Egypt to Syria. Voice of America is openly mentioned by Brookings within this report, while examples in Eastern Europe include Radio Free Europe, a subsidary with VOA under the Broadcasting Board of Governors upon which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits as a member. Also note worthy is Southeast Asia's NED-funded Prachatai of Thailand.

Together this nefarious global network feeds the mainstream, corporate-owned media their talking points which are then repeated verbatim or cited outright as reputable sources. It should be remembered though, that within the 156 pages of the "Which Path to Persia?" report it is explicitly and often stated that these gambits are to protect and expand US interests throughout the region while diminishing Iran's ability to challenge said interests in any shape, form, or manner - not promote democracy, protect freedom, or even protect America from a genuine security threat.

Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): "Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." "This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions� that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.

Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it."

Quite clearly, after previously conspiring to implement foreign-funded unrest, the predictable crackdown by Iranian security forces to restore order "requires" some form of deterrent or military support to be employed to prevent the movement from being crushed. We see that this exact scenario has played out verbatim in Libya, where "protesters" were in fact armed rebels from the very beginning, the recipients of decades of US and UK support, and shortly after their rebellion began, NATO forces were brought in via a clumsy series of staged pretenses to prevent the armed uprising from being crushed by Qaddafi's forces.

A lead-up to the exact same scenario is playing out in Syria, where US and UK puppet politicians are menacing the Syrian government with threats of military intervention under the "Libyan Precedence." We see in reality, this "precedence" had been clearly articulated in this 2009 report, and is based on a familiar "problem, reaction, solution" methodology used by imperialists throughout human history.

In both Libya, Syria, and Yemen, and in other immovable targeted nations like Thailand, armed militants are brought in by opposition groups to augment street protests. Often these armed elements are brought in without the knowledge of the protesters themselves, and in some cases, especially in Syria and Yemen, it appears armed groups of "mystery gunmen" are clashing with both security forces and protesters in order to escalate violence and unrest further. Should the escalating violence fail to tip the balance in the protesters' favor, the violence itself will become the pretext for the next level of more overt US intervention.

US Sponsored Terrorism & Armed Insurrection Arming, Funding, & Using Terrorist Organizations, page 113 (page 126 of the PDF): "The United States could work with groups like the Iraq-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. Although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed."

"Potential Ethnic Proxies," page 117-118 (page 130-131 of the PDF): "Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer antiAmerican and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of

foreign terrorist organizations."

Certainly if the United States went through with arming and funding MEK (and they apparently did), they themselves would become "state sponsors of terrorism" - even as they fight amidst a decade long war against supposedly just that. MEK is unequivocally a terrorist organization that murders and maims civilians indiscriminately along with their political opponents. MEK is even on-record having targeted and murdered Americans. Yet for some reason, they are considered a potential proxy, and considerations for their removal from the apparently meaningless "foreign terrorist organizations" list, is based solely on their utility toward advancing US foreign policy.

With this we are given full insight into the unfathomable depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It turns out that the degenerates behind "Which Path to Persia?" including Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Susanne Maloney, Michael O'Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, most of whom are regular contributors to the US's largest newspapers, would see their plans brought to life. According to Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article "Preparing the Battlefield," MEK had already been receiving weapons and funding as of 2008 for the purposes described within the Brookings report that would come out a year later.

It would seem even as "Which Path to Persia?" was being compiled many of the options on the table had already gone operational. Baluchi rebels residing in eastern Iran and western Pakistan were also mentioned in both the Brookings report and Hersh's article. US support for this group is quite ambitious. In addition to using them in terrorist operations against Tehran, they are also being built up and directed toward destabilizing and Balkanizing Pakistan.

Fomenting a Military Coup Staging a Coup, page 123-124 (page 136-137 of the PDF): "Mounting a coup is hard work, especially in a state as paranoid about foreign influence and meddling as Iran is. The United States would first have to make contact with members of Iran’s military (and likely its security services as well). This by itself is very difficult. Because of Iranian hypersensitivity to Americans, the United States would likely have to rely on “cutouts”—third party nationals working on behalf of the United States—which invariably introduces considerable complexity.

Then the United States would have to use those contacts to try to identify Iranian military personnel who were both willing and able to stage a coup, which would be more difficult still; it would be hard enough for Americans to make contact with Iranian military officers, let alone make contact with those specific individuals willing to risk their lives and their families in a coup attempt.

Of course, it is possible that if Washington makes very clear that it is trying to support a coup in Iran, the coup plotters will reach out to the United States. But this is very rare: history shows that coup plotters willing to expose themselves to another national government are usually discovered and killed; furthermore, most of those coming to the United States to ask for help overthrowing this or that government tend to be poseurs or even counterintelligence agents of the targeted government."

If readers are wondering whether or not there is a historical precedence of the United States "mounting a coup," the Brookings report itself provides Operation Ajax as notable example: "Although many coups are homegrown, one obvious historic model of a foreign-assisted coup in Iran is Operation Ajax, the 1953 coup d’Êtat that overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstated the rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi. To carry out the coup, the CIA and British intelligence supported General Fazlollah Zahedi, providing him and his followers with money and propaganda, as well as helping organize their activities."

The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were apparently assisted by members of the military, with similar defections being sought out in Libya and Syria to help along the collapse of the embattled regimes. Nations of Western interest might want to take time to reevaluate military officers who have had historically close ties to the United States or who have reason or possible motivations for turning on their nation during a spate of foreign-engineered upheaval.

It should be noted that the Brookings report suggests that all of these options - popular revolution, insurgency, and coup - be used concurrently in the hopes that at least one may succeed. It also suggests that "helpful synergies" might be created among them to further mire the targeted regime. (page 150, page 163 of the PDF.) Conclusion It is inconceivable that one could read the pages of "Which Path to Persia?" and not understand the current "international community" as anything less than absolutely illegitimate. They contrive a myriad of laws with which to restrain and eliminate their competition with while they remain entirely uninhibited themselves in their own overt criminality. We also understand that the United States is not engaged in diplomatic relations with the world's nations as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, but rather engaged in extorting and coercing the world to conform to it's "interests."

This report represents a full array of options not only for use in Iran, but throughout the world. In hindsight of the US-funded "Arab Spring" it is quite obvious that the methodology laid out in the report has been drawn on to destabilize and depose regimes as well as instigate wars of aggression. Upon studying this report, its implications for Iran and the surrounding region, we can understand better conflicts yet to unfold beyond North Africa and the Gulf. It is essential that reports like this are made public, their methodology exposed, and the true architects behind Western foreign policy revealed. As the report itself states numerous times, the vast majority of their gambits require secrecy, "plausible deniability," and that their dark deeds be done "without the rest of the world recognizing this game."

The world must realize who the true brokers of power are, and that by understanding their agenda, we can wholly reject it and pursue instead one of our own, locally, self-sufficiently, independently, and in true freedom.

The American War-Machine, A Lesson in Blowback, and The Greatest Speech Ever Written. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7Hz7WCQE8 Imagine This ... then research 'Blowback' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xznl3kqZpGM You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo Ron Paul: I'm the ANTI-Racist! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMQmInReYlI TerrorStorm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y Martial Law 911-Rise of the Police State http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIzT6r56CnY American Dictators http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fr5QC6u2EQ The Masters Of Terror http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvWftOi_u98 Don't Tread On Me: Rise of the Republic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4BDQde4XnI