LaRouche E-mail Dialogue Continues with Leaders in Iran and Egypt
These questions were submitted by Abbas Bakhtiar, an Iranian national and journalist, operating out of Scandinavia, as part of the discussion provoked by Lyndon LaRouche's Sept. 6, 2006 webcast from Berlin, Germany.
Leading Question: The nuclear weapon states have had over 30 years to comply with the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and they haven't disposed of their nuclear arsenal. How can we force them to comply?
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
LaRouche: In addressing the matter of the NPT, it is important to take into account the issue which the original NPT addressed, and avoid seemingly literal interpretations which do not coincide with the original and continuing issues posed in the period of the 1962 missiles-crisis confrontation between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, and, also, the role of the British Empire, as represented during 1945-1963 by Bertrand Russell, in setting up the circumstances under which the relevant expression of the 1962 missiles-crisis occurred.
The original development of nuclear weapons, by, principally, the U.S.A., was prompted by the belief, by President Franklin Roosevelt and qualified scientific advisors, that Nazi Germany had the scientific capability and intention to develop nuclear weapons. That capability did, in fact, exist. Both Germany and the Soviet Union had the scientific and related technological capability for development of nuclear weapons at that time. The Hitler administration, for its own ideological and strategic reasons, scrapped the development of nuclear weapons; the Soviet Union did not have the supporting economic capability to actually develop the nuclear arsenal which was within the scientific capabilities which had been organized by the Academy of Science's V.I. Vernadsky.
However, the death of President Roosevelt resulted in a radical change from Roosevelt's post-war policy, a change to British-directed imperial perspectives, pushed by Winston Churchill and his successors, and adopted by the pro-British Liberal financier establishment who controlled Roosevelt's corrupt successor Harry S Truman. The U.S., under the direction of the British policy crafted by Bertrand Russell, adopted Russell's perspective of a "preventive nuclear" aerial attack on the Soviet Union at a time prior to the Soviets' assumed capability for the actual development of nuclear arsenals. The purpose of this British policy was, and remains today, what Russell described publicly, in September 1946, as the intention to conduct an airborne nuclear attack with the purpose of compelling the Soviet Union, and the world, to accept a form of global, post-nation-state imperialism, which Russell identified repeatedly as "world government," or, the same thing called "globalization" today.
The Soviet development of nuclear weapons, prior to the state of Anglo-American readiness for the planned attack on the Soviet Union, the failure of the Anglo-American intention of the Truman government in Korea, and Soviet priority in developing a thermonuclear weapons capability, led to the dumping of the depraved Truman, and his replacement by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, who successfully avoided the new risk of war which arose as a potential during the 1950s. However, a new Russell policy, called later "mutual and assured destruction (MAD)" led into the 1962 missiles-crisis, and the subsequent adoption, and further elaboration of the NPT treaty.
The intention of the NPT, as installed over the body of the assassinated President John K. Kennedy, combined with the Anglo-American launching, in late 1964, of the U.S. war in Indo-China, created an order, called "détente," an order based on the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), a policy based on the principal nuclear-weapons powers. However, the intent was not to prevent "peaceful development" and use of nuclear technology.
The interpretation of the NPT, and of its promises, must be limited to those general constraints which I have just summarized in their historically defined setting.
The issue today is the continuing intention of those Anglo-Dutch Liberal circles of Europe and North America, to carry through the British imperial intention adopted by the U.S. Truman Adminstration and its accomplices under the 1940s-1960s auspices of the nuclear-warfare policies of Bertrand Russell et al. The continuing intention of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier establishment is the early elimination of all sovereign nation-states, including the U.S.A. itself, in favor of a global imperialism, called "globalization," which is a modern resurrection of the policies of the Crusader alliance of Venice's financier-oligarchy and the Norman chivalry during the so-called medieval period of European history extending from about A.D. 1000 to the collapse of the Venetian financier system during the so-called New Dark Age of the Fourteenth Century.
Take, for example, the targetting of Iran today.
In response to the appointment of the U.S. British intelligence asset Henry A. Kissinger to the positions of, first, National Security Advisor to the Nixon Administration, and later, Secretary of State, the British intelligence services assigned its Arab Bureau chief, former Glubb Pasha associate Bernard Lewis, to a U.S. posting, for the purpose of shaping the policies of the U.S. Nixon Administration. Lewis has shaped the U.S. Middle East and related policies of three most notable, British-intelligence-trained U.S. figures, Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Samuel Huntington. All three were among those trained by British Intelligence in a special, London-directed unit at Harvard University under William Yandell Elliott. All three have shared a common principal interest in the region of Southwest Asia associated with the Anglo-Dutch and Czarist Russia (Nicholas II) interests in the relevant area of Southwest Asia since the days of British asset Al-Afghani and the evolution of the Sykes-Picot agreement, through to the present day.
All of the questions, restated below, which you have placed with me, must be understood in no other way than in the strategic context which I have just described.
Bakhtiar: How can a country like Iran have an "inalienable right" under the NPT to research, develop, and produce full-cycle fuel enrichment and yet be threatened with sanctions and war? What do you think about this problem? ... Do you think the U.S. will attack Iran? What would the consequences be for the U.S. and the region? What are the politicians in the U.S. thinking about? What is your opinion on Iraq?
LaRouche: At the present moment, the Anglo-American interest expressed in part by Vice-President Cheney and his wife's long-standing connections to British intelligence circles associated with the like of British Baroness Liz Symons, is committed to either a medium-term (e.g., February 2007) or an earlier, mid-October 2006 heavy aerial assault on Iran. The high risk that the already prepared assault might be launched without warning during the second half of October 2006, involves issues of both the November 2006 general mid-term election, and the extreme likelihood of a general financial-chain-reaction collapse of the world's present monetary-financial system during the weeks immediately ahead. Therefore, the "worst case" assumption of a mid-October assault must be the standard point of reference.
Bakhtiar: What are your views on Israel?
LaRouche: Israel has been a key Anglo-Dutch/American puppet-entity during virtually the entire sweep of the existence of the state of Israel. During the Ba'ath celebration which I attended in Iraq during April 1975, I had the occasion to warn my hosts and their relevant guests, that Henry A. Kissinger was behind the intention to launch a civil war within Lebanon during the immediate period ahead. Within a week, my warning had been realized. The sustained disruption of the entire region of Southwest Asia, has been the policy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction, including its U.S. agents, consistently over the entire period, especially since the assassination of U.S. President Kennedy.
All sane figures of importance in the region, have understood that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, whether as a matter of one, or two states, is a prospect on which the possibility of stability of the entire region continues to depend. The assassination of Israel's Prime Minister Rabin may have been conducted by a homicidal lunatic, but that action, and its immediate aftermath, expressed a long-standing policy defined for the region, a policy crafted by the Anglo-Dutch Liberals of Britain, but supported by their collaborators inside the U.S.A.
Bakhtiar: How can the U.S. and Iran solve their existing problems?
LaRouche: The replacement of both President George W. Bush, Jr. and his Vice-President, simultaneously, is the only hope for a durable peace, and, indeed, the only hope that the entire planet will not be plunged into a prolonged new dark age by the presently onrushing general disintegration of the world's present monetary-financial system as a whole.
Bakhtiar: How do you see the U.S.-Russia relationship will develop over the next ten years? And with China?
LaRouche: My prospect, as set forth summarily in my Sept. 6th international webcast, is the adoption of a reform with two principal elements: a.) The early replacement of the present, hopelessly bankrupt, present world monetary-financial system, and b.) A new system of long-term cooperation in the scientific-technological development of Asia through cooperative efforts from western and central Europe.
Bakhtiar: How soon do you think the economy will collapse, and why?
LaRouche: It is presently in an advanced phase of an already ongoing general, global collapse. The relevant developments which have broken out, as I had warned, during September, signal this collapse as already ongoing. The collapse, unless reversed, will pass through several successive phases of a general breakdown of the entire world economy, with no part of the world an exception to this.
Bakhtiar: Who is running the show in the U.S.?
LaRouche: The Anglo-Dutch Liberal system which came to power as an empire of Lord Shelburne's British East India Company in the Paris Treaty of February 1763. This Liberal current, organized in the semblance of what biologists recognize as a slime-mold, a form copying the characteristics of the medieval Venetian financier oligarchy, is also the presently hegemonic political power over the U.S.A. Only if the U.S. frees itself from the grip of that financier oligarchy, is there a chance of survival for civilization anywhere on this planet during the period of successive crises immediately ahead.
Bakhtiar: How can the U.S. cope with mounting social security/pension debt?
LaRouche: Only by changing the current U.S. system as I have specified this in considerable detail. Otherwise, the entire U.S. system will spin into a prolonged general state of financial chaos.
Bakhtiar: Can going back to the gold standard be a way out?
LaRouche: "Gold standard" is an unfortunate term. The proper concept is the Bretton Woods "gold reserve standard," based on a bullion reserve, not a gold-currency system.
Bakhtiar: Considering the fact that six companies have monopolized all media access, how can you (we) get your message to the people?
LaRouche: That is an obstacle, but you greatly overrate its power.
Bakhtiar: How can we reduce the power of people such as Rupert Murdoch?
LaRouche: By ridicule, as, perhaps: the Australian, who like a bad kangaroo, picks other people's pockets.
Bakhtiar: The politicians need money for elections, the money that they have to pay the media, etc. The current system is based on whoever spends more will win (3 out of 4). A two-party system with a monopolized mass media and rich lobbying groups is not a democracy. It is the dictatorship of the rich. How can this be changed, since it needs the very same people who are part of the problem, to change the system?
LaRouche: The only remedy is that prescribed by the intent of the U.S. Federal Constitution, by political parties which keep faith with the majority of the American people and their posterity, as the ruling political parties have not only failed, but continue to refuse to do over the course of the recent thirty-odd years.
Mr. Ebrahimi, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB):
What do you think about Iran's nuclear energy program? Which country in the Persian Gulf region should play a leading role?
LaRouche: Without the proliferation of nuclear-fission and, beyond that, thermonuclear fusion technologies, there is no adequate long-term solution for the oncoming problems of any nation.
We require a regional agreement which eliminates all traces of the legacy of Sykes-Picot from the region as a whole. This means, primarily, a system of cooperation of the sovereign nation-states of the region, built around the cooperation of Iran and Turkey, but with equitable roles assured for the Arab peoples. This must be an economic development perspective, to assure that the family's children and grandchildren will live better and in a better world than their ancestors have lived before.
Man must see himself in the likeness and as the servant of the Creator. To this end, he, or she must serve the process of continuing creation. We, who are mortal, must fulfill the mission of a better world for our descendants.
Dr. Mahmoud Khallaf, retired general, Cairo:
The problem of any attempt to build peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Israel and the U.S. understand only one language: using force to terrify the Arabs, "shock and awe" strategy. Then they think they can reform the Middle East however they want. They never learned any lessons from Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, since the neo-cons believed in unilateral power to solve political problems. Yet, they have had bad results so far. On top of that, the U.S. is losing the hearts and minds of the Arabs and the Islamic world. I believe that none of the neo-cons understands what the meaning of this is, and what kind of threats lie ahead against U.S. interests in the Middle East.
What is the meaning of "Islamo-fascist"? How is Mr. Bush thinking? Who can trust him as a founder of peace in the Middle East? I think the first step in talking about peace in the Middle East, is to start with confidence-building measures. That is the only start which works, before thinking of Madrid (II) or stabilizing Iraq.
LaRouche: Bush is, in fact, insane. His mental condition, always bad, has been deteriorating recently at an accelerating rate.
As for the opinion of the world, the so-called neo-cons do not care in the least. They are like an infestation of rodents, which we must expel from our houses out of consideration for the future of our children and grandchildren.