U.S. Hawks Hover Over Iran

“It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.” says William Kristol.

by ­William Echols
Global Research
October 20, 2011

Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.

William Kristol in the set of Fox News one of the "official" homes of neoconservatives.

History seems to be repeating itself as the hawks who called for the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein are now rattling their sabers for war against Iran. But why are those who once called for a new American Century hopelessly stuck in a bygone era?

­In a bellicose diatribe published in the latest edition of the Weekly Standard, senior editor William Kristol accuses Iran of having the blood of American soldiers on its hands. Claiming that “force” is the only language the regime understands, he proceeds to call on the US Congress to “consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”

In an October 17 Foreign Policy initiative (FPI) Bulletin, executive director Jamie Fly toes the same line, proclaiming:

“Until now, the president has chosen to be the hapless victim of Iran’s machinations. It is time for President Obama to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and stand up to tyrants who kill Americans and threaten our interests.

“It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.”

Speaking to Fox News on Monday, former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said it was “unfortunate” that Iran did not fear a possible military response in light of recent allegations of an Iranian assassination plot on US soil. Somewhat ironically, Bolton also described President Barack Obama’s recent decision to send 100 troops to stem off a humanitarian crisis in Central Africa as “damaging to our efforts to preserve our military budget.”

It is little wonder that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserts the latest accusations that Iran sought to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US was eerily reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction claims which provided the casus belli for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“In the past the US administration claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They said it so strongly, they offered and presented documentation and everyone said ‘yes, we believe in you, we buy it’,” Ahmadinejad said in a live interview on Al Jazeera television.

Ahmadinejad’s cause for alarm might seem justified under the circumstances. Ever since George W. Bush’s January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address, wherein Iran (along with Iraq and North Korea) were labeled as the “Axis of Evil”, neo-conservative policy wonks and senior-level government officials have had the country in their sights. And much like Iraq, the case for war is as mercurial and adaptive as the public opinion it caters to.

Kristol for his part was one of the key proponents for regime change in Iraq, outlining the case in a 2003 book he co-authored entitled The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission. But his desire to effect regime change in the Middle East has earlier roots.

In a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, William Kristol, challenging what he believed was “a tepid consensus that accepts decline of US power in the world as inevitable,” called for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy which would pursue “benevolent hegemony” and “wield its authority unabashedly.”

By June 1997, William Kristol, along with several other prominent neo-conservatives who would have high-level administrative positions in the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Elliot Abrams), not to mention his brother Jeb Bush, signed off on a statement of principles intended to usher in this halcyon era of American military strength and moral clarity. This statement of principles would come to define the Project for a New American Century.

The four key principles called for increased defense spending and force modernization, the strengthening of ties with democratic allies and the willingness to confront regimes hostile to American interests, the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad, and the “need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

Subsequently, on January 26, 1998, the group sent a letter to then-President Bill Clinton urging his administration to implement “a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power.”

The history of what happened when a sympathetic Bush administration coupled with the tragic events of 9/11 provided the pretext for implementing this neo-Reaganite foreign policy is well-trodden territory. The question is, why are they doing it again?

On most counts, the allegations against Iran seem to defy logic. Writing for Time Magazine, former CIA field officer Robert Baer claimed that the plot as described by FBI Director Robert Muller was something one might find in “a truly awful Hollywood script.” He went on to say that “none of it measures up to Iran’s unsurpassed skill in conducting assassinations.”

But while the idea of an Iranian-American used-car salesman attempting to organize a hit on the Saudi Arabian ambassador via the proxy of a Mexican drug cartel seems out of character for the fiercely professional Quds Force – a special unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for extraterritorial operations – the far-fetched tale seems a perfect match for the American imagination. Such a flourish for the theatrical has been on display before, most notably, when then US Secretary of State Colin Powell held up a vial he said could contain anthrax while speaking to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003.

However, with US national debt at some 15 trillion dollars, a potential $1 trillion in defense spending cuts on the table, and a recent report carried out by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University predicting that the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq could reach some $4 trillion, does the American public have the stomach or the means to prosecute another war?

When taking all of those factors into account, the murky world of realpolitik and multilateralism that many neo-conservatives helped bring about by aggressively pushing America towards the brink of imperial overstretch during the Bush years does not sit well with an ideology that views the world within a good vs. evil binary. Kristol for his part saw America sinking into the abyss during an era when the United States economic and military dominance ushered the term hyperpower into the collective consciousness.

But as an entrenched economic crisis limits the United States’ ability to project its military dominance and a decade of war has evaporated its moral currency around the world, it has become clear that many of the neo-conservatives pushing for war against Iran now ultimately have their own chief ideologues to blame for America’s precipitous decline. Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.

Estados Unidos Sí negocia con Terroristas y Narcos

Por Luis R. Miranda

¿Ha escuchado usted los rumores de que los EE.UU. son el principal comerciante de drogas en todo el mundo? ¿Qué tal el rumor que cuenta cómo el ex jefe de New York Stock Exchange se fue a Colombia para pedir a los narcos que invirtieran en la Bolsa de Nueva York? Que rumores, ¿verdad? Nope. Hay pruebas suficientes para saber que, efectivamente, los Estados Unidos no sólo es el mayor operador y co-productor de drogas del mundo. También existen pruebas suficientes de que Richard Grasso, ex jefe de la Bolsa de Nueva York viajó a Colombia para reunirse con jefes del narcotráfico local para ofrecer que intercambiaran sus drogas por dinero para alimentar el mercado financiero.

En la actualidad, los Estados Unidos vigila y ayuda en el cultivo de cocaína en Afganistán,-según lo informado por Fox News y Gerald

El Ejército Norteamericano vigila sigilosamente los campos cultivados en Afganistán.

o Rivera. Hay por supuesto una buena explicación para la doble moral. Si los EE.UU. no ayuda al hermano del presidente Karzai para ganarse la vida de la venta de drogas, entonces los terroristas lo harían y usarían el dinero para atacar al “mundo libre”. Casualmente, esto es exactamente lo que ocurre en Colombia. Como informó el Washington Post, el hermano del presidente colombiano, Santiago Uribe, era el jefe de un escuadrón de la muerte en la parte norte del país, que operaba desde una finca que perteneció a la familia Uribe. Santiago, también conocido por sus vínculos con cárteles de la droga, asesinaba delincuentes menores, simpatizantes de la guerrilla y sospechosos de subversión.

Pero las negociaciones con los narcos no se limita a Colombia o Afganistán. La “gloriosa” guerra contra las drogas llega a los más altos mandatarios de la actual administración Obama. El asesor de Obama, George Soros es un hombre de negocios conocido por su intención de querer legalizar todas las drogas. Como parte de la guerra contra las drogas, Colombia entregó parte de un territorio montañoso a las FARC, un grupo paramilitar que estaba entonces supuestamente siendo desmantelado como parte del proceso de negociación para poner fin al comercio de la guerra.

Richard Grasso abraza al jefe de las FARC, Raul Reyes en 1999.

Como el documental American Drug Waro Guerra Contra Las Drogas en America expone, los EE.UU. tiene una larga historia de traficar drogas en todos los continentes, especialmente de América del Sur al Norte, y más recientemente de Asia a América. Desde que el presidente Nixon legalizó el tráfico de drogas por el gobierno de los EE.UU. a través del establecimiento de la guerra contra las drogas, el negocio de la trata y el transporte de drogas ha crecido de manera exponencial y el resultado ha sido el blanqueo de miles de millones de dólares por los bancos de Wall Street, que se utilizan para financiar operaciones secretas ilegales en todo el mundo. Estas operaciones se llevan a cabo para capturar países que no colaboran, o sea, no se rinden ante los banqueros; y son llevadas a cabo con guerrillas y contratistas militares de operaciones especiales.

El ex detective de Narcóticos de la Policía de Los Ángeles, Mike Ruppert, envió ondas de choque alrededor de los Estados Unidos cuando le dijo al director de la CIA John Deutch y una sala llena de reporteros, que la organización había encabezado el trafico de drogas por mucho tiempo. Amadeus, Pegaso y Atalaya son los nombres de tres operaciones que la CIA utilizó para comercializar drogas en todo Estados Unidos. Él mismo había sido reclutado para ayudar a proteger las operaciones de la agencia. Ruppert desafió a Deutch a investigar las operaciones secretas de y decir la verdad al público.

Catherine Austin Fitts-, ex Secretaria Asistente de Vivienda-Comisionado Federal de Vivienda en la primera Administración Bush, describe la visita de Grasso a Colombia:

Supongo que el viaje de Grasso no tuvo éxito en cambiar el curso del flujo de caja. Por lo tanto, el Plan Colombia se introdujo para mantener un buen ritmo para tratar de mover los depósitos narco fuera del control de las FARC y de nuevo al control de nuestros aliados tradicionales y, si esto no funciona, se aumenta la cuota de mercado de Citibank y la de los otros bancos de EE.UU. en América Latina.

En su ensayo Narco Dólares, Fitts expone cómo funciona el trasiego de dinero en el comercio de drogas ilícitas. Según Fitts, el poder de Narco Dólares viene cuando se combina el tráfico de drogas con el Mercado de Valores. Señala que las drogas no son siempre un bien, pero a veces se convierten en una moneda. Cuando la industria militar vende armas a un grupo terrorista, por ejemplo, se puede o no pagar en dólares. Cuando el papel moneda es escaso, existe la opción de pagar con las drogas. Es por eso que la CIA lleva drogas a los EE.UU. como pago por la venta secreta de armas a Colombia y otros gobiernos títeres en América Latina.

Todos recordamos el escándalo Irán-Contra. El corazón del escándalo es el hecho de que Oliver North y la Casa Blanca (Consejo Nacional de Seguridad) comercializó drogas a través de Mena, Arkansas para facilitar envíos de armas. Mena fue por supuesto un gran contribuyente a Bill y Hillary Clinton en varias campañas a nivel local regional y nacional.Otros ejemplos en los que las drogas se usaron para el comercio de armas son los conflictos en Vietnam, Kosovo, México, y así sucesivamente. En todos estos casos, las drogas, el petróleo, el gas y las armas son las monedas utilizadas para el intercambio. “Si se añade el oro, una moneda y la cuota de mercado de los bancos y usted tiene mi lista para entender cómo el dinero funciona en cualquier guerra o” conflicto de baja intensidad “en todo el mundo”, dice Fitts.

Todos recordamos el escándalo Irán-Contra. El corazón del escándalo es el hecho de que Oliver North y la Casa Blanca (Consejo Nacional de Seguridad) comercializó drogas a través de Mena, Arkansas para facilitar envíos de armas. Mena fue por supuesto un gran contribuyente a Bill y Hillary Clinton en varias campañas a nivel local regional y nacional.Otros ejemplos en los que las drogas se usaron para el comercio de armas son los conflictos en Vietnam, Kosovo, México, y así sucesivamente. En todos estos casos, las drogas, el petróleo, el gas y las armas son las monedas utilizadas para el intercambio. “Si se añade el oro, una moneda y la cuota de mercado de los bancos y usted tiene mi lista para entender cómo el dinero funciona en cualquier guerra o” conflicto de baja intensidad “en todo el mundo”, dice Fitts.

En el otro lado de la moneda tenemos los Bush. George H.W. Bush fue director de la CIA y presidente de Estados Unidos. Sus hijos Jeb y

Junto con los Clintons, la familia Bush es una de las más corruptas en la historia Estadounidense.

George W. fueron los gobernadores de dos de los mayores mercados de drogas en los Estados Unidos: Texas y Florida. Los otros dos estados son Nueva York y California. Más tarde, George W. Bush se convirtió en presidente de los Estados Unidos. ¿Puede ser una coincidencia que los hijos de un ex jefe de la mafia ocuparon exitosamente esas funciones durante uno de los períodos de tráfico de drogas más intenso en la historia del país?

¿Por qué las personas que usaro drogas son enviadas a la cárcel, entonces? Bueno, el narcotráfico es un negocio redondo. Las mismas corporaciones que se benefician del tráfico de drogas también se benefician del sistema penitenciario. Tomemos por ejemplo la CCA, o Corrections Corporation of America. En su página web auto califican su trabajo como un servicio para construir y administrar las cárceles. “Nuestro enfoque de asociación público-privada en las prisiones combina el ahorro de costes y la innovación de las empresas con las estrictas directrices y la supervisión constante del gobierno.” De los más de 2 millones de personas en prisión en los Estados Unidos, más del 80 por ciento están en la cárcel por fumar, vender o comprar marihuana, por ejemplo. El negocio del tráfico de drogas, simplemente recoge los beneficios de todos los puntos posibles. Desde la plantación, hasta la cosecha, el transporte, la venta y el encarcelamiento de quienes las usan. Por supuesto, no es suficiente que la gente sea enviada a la cárcel. Mientras están ahí, estos infractores también son obligados a trabajar en los campos de esclavos con el fin de multiplicar los beneficios que obtiene el complejo industrial de prisiones. ¿Es esto un monopolio criminal o no?

As it turns out, the U.S. does negotiate with Terrorists and Drug Traffickers

By Luis R. Miranda

Have you heard the rumors that the U.S. is the main carrier of drugs around the world?  How about the one that tells how the former New York Stock Exchange boss went to Colombia to ask the Narcos to invest in the NYSE?  All rumors, right?  Nope.  There are enough trails to know that indeed the United States is not only the largest carrier and co-grower of drugs in the world.  There is also enough proof that Richard Grasso, the former NYSE’s head traveled to Colombia to meet with local narcotrafficking bosses to offer ‘his exchange’ to hide their money.

The U.S. military closely guards the largest poppy plantation in the world.

Currently, the United States guards and aids in the growth of poppies in Afghanistan, -as reported by Fox News’s Geraldo Rivera.  There is of course a good explanation for the double standard.  If the U.S. does not help President Karzai’s brother to make a living of it, then terrorists would grow it and use the money to attack the ‘free world.’  Coincidentally, this is exactly what happens in Colombia.  As reported by the Washington Post, Colombian president’s brother, Santiado Uribe, was the head of an infamous death squad in the northern part of the country, right out of a estate that belonged to the Uribe family.  Santiago, also known for his ties to drug cartels, took it upon himself to murder petty thieves, guerrilla sympathizers and suspected subversives.

But negotiating with Narcos is not limited to Colombia or Afghanistan.  The ‘glorious’ war on drugs reaches the highest heads of the current Obama administration.  Obama’s advisor George Soros is a known narco businessman too.  Soros is one of the most vocal people who want all illegal drugs to be legalized.  As part of the drug war, Colombia surrendered part of a mountainous territory to the FARC, a paramilitary group which was then allegedly dismantled as part of the negotiating process to end the war trade.

NYSE Richard Grasso embracing FARC leader Raul Reyes in 1999.

As the documentary American Drug War exposes, the U.S. has a long history of running drugs across the continents, especially from South America to the North, and more recently from Asia to America.  Since President Nixon legalized the trafficking of drugs by the U.S. government through the establishment of the war on drugs, the business of dealing and transporting drugs has grown exponentially and the result has been the laundering of billions of dollars by Wall Street banks which is then used to finance illegal intelligence secret operations around the globe.  Such operations are carried out to capture non collaborating countries, using guerrilla forces and special-ops military contractors.

Former Los Angeles Police Narcotics Detective Mike Ruppert sent shockwaves around the United States when he told CIA Director John Deutch and a room full of reporters that the organization he headed had been running drugs for a while.  Amadeus, Pegasus and Watch Tower are the names of three operations the CIA used to run drugs around the United States.  He himself had been recruited to help protect the agency’s dealing of drugs.  Ruppert challenged Deutch to investigate classified operations and to tell the truth to the public.

Catherine Austin-Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration, says of Grasso’s visit to Colombia:

I presume Grasso’s trip was not successful in turning the cash flow tide. Hence, Plan Colombia is proceeding apace to try to move narco deposits out of FARC’s control and back to the control of our traditional allies and, even if that does not work, to move Citibank’s market share and that of the other large US banks and financial institutions steadily up in Latin America.

In her essay Narco Dollars for Dummies, Fitts exposes how the money works in the illicit drug trade.  According to Fitts, the power of Narco Dollars comes when you combine drug trafficking with the Stock Market.  She points out that drugs are not always a commodity, but sometimes it becomes a currency.  When the military industry sells weapons to a terrorist group, for example, they may or may not pay in dollars.  When the green back is scarce, there is the option of paying with drugs.  That is why the CIA brings drugs into the U.S. as payment for the secret sale of arms to Colombia and other puppet governments in Latin America.

We all remember the Iran-Contra scandal.  The heart of the scandal was the fact that Oliver North and the White House (National Security Council) dealt drugs through Mena, Arkansas to facilitate arms shipments. Mena was of course a large contributor to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s multiple campaigns at the local regional and national levels.  Other examples of the drugs for arms trade are the conflicts in Vietnam, Kosovo, Mexico, and so on.  In all these cases, drugs, oil, gas and arms are the currencies used to deal.  “Add gold, currency and bank market share and you have the top of my checklist for understanding how the money works on any war or “low intensity conflict” around the globe,” says Fitts.

Along with Bill Clinton, the Bushes are some of the most corrupt elements of the American elites.

On the other side of the coin we have the Bushes.  George H.W. Bush was CIA director and U.S. President.  His sons Jeb and George W. were the governors of two of the largest drug markets in the United States: Texas and Florida.  The other two states are New York and California.  Later, George W. Bush became president of Unites States.  Can it be a coincidence that the sons of a former CIA Mafia boss successfully held office during one of the most intense drug trafficking period in the history of the country?

Why are people who used drugs put in jail then?  Well, drug trafficking is a round business.  The same corporations who benefit of the drug trade also run the prison system.   Take for example the CCA, or Corrections Corporation of America.  On its website they label their work as a service to build and run prisons.  “Our approach to public-private partnership in corrections combines the cost savings and innovation of business with the strict guidelines and consistent oversight of government.”  From the more than 2 million people in prison in the United States, more than 80 percent are non-violent offenders, who are in jail for smoking, selling or buying marihuana, for example.  The drug trade business simply collects profits from every possible point.  It plants the drugs, harvests them, transports them, sells them and imprisons those who use them.  Of course it is not enough with sending people to prison.  While innocent or non-violent offenders are inside the gulags, they are also obligated to work in slavery camps in order to multiple the profits for the prison industrial complex.  Is that a monopoly or what?