Iran Showdown Is the Fuse
for a Global Monetary Bomb
by Jeffrey Steinberg
In a pointed warning to those pushing a near-term military confrontation with Iran, Lyndon LaRouche declared, on Feb. 3: "An Iran confrontation or even a more limited military strike against Syria, would be merely a fuse. The bomb, that would be detonated by any such action, is the blowout of the entire global financial and monetary system."
LaRouche further warned that, while leading provocateurs for such confrontation inside the Bush Administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, are wholly ignorant of the "monetary bomb" that they are dangerously close to detonating, "no such naïveté is to be found among the London-centered Synarchist circles who are orchestrating this showdown." "The same City of London-centered Synarchists who are promoting a one-world fascist 'post-Westphalia' bankers' dictatorship," LaRouche added, "have been pulling the strings of certain radical Islamists since the time of the Sykes-Picot Treaty and the 1920s British Intelligence sponsorship of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"We are staring at a confrontation," LaRouche warned, "more hideous than World War I, because the global financial and monetary system is already on the verge of vaporization, and any new military confrontation in the world's oil patch, particularly one involving the possible pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, will trigger global war, chaos, and the unleashing of a full-scale new dark age. The fools in Washington, typified by Vice President Cheney, have no idea what they are detonating. They just blindly follow the orders of Synarchists like George Shultz.
"Nevertheless," LaRouche concluded, "the actions of Cheney and company, who are pushing a military showdown with Iran in the immediate weeks ahead, threaten to destroy the United States as a sovereign Republic, just as their recent antics to install Samuel Alito on the United States Supreme Court represented a large step towards ripping up the U.S. Constitution as a living document. Such actions border on treason."
LaRouche emphasized that London financial circles are operating off a long-standing "Venetian modus operandi" of orchestrated conflict. "In the history of the British Empire, which was launched with the orchestration of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763)," he explained, "London has persistently employed the Venetian method of orchestrating wars across Eurasia, as a means of maintaining the British Empire against challenges from continental rivals.
"Study the history," LaRouche said, "and you see the recurring pattern: The Seven Years' War, the British East India Company-orchestrated French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the British-manipulated U.S. Civil War, the British-backed French invasion of Mexico, then World War I and World War II, the Winston Churchill-orchestrated Cold War, the Indochina War. The British start wars in which they induce two parties to fight it out."
"Sometimes, as in World War I and II, the British participate, and suffer heavy casualties, too; but, that is the price they pay for manipulating their rivals and others alike into the waves of ruinous conflict in which the London-centered imperialist financier faction comes out on top, sooner or later. Right now, in the matter of Iran, Jack Straw and other British are playing the present government of Iran, the U.S. institutions, even many in the Democrtic party, and others, for fools, once again."
"At present," LaRouche continued, "the City of London-centered financier circles know that if the present global financial and monetary system collapses, as the result of a new Persian Gulf-centered confrontation, the financier crowd, through their offshore hedge fund operations, which hold nominal ownership over much of the planet's raw material wealth, will seize control over the world. Under the present system of laws, these London circles will claim ownership over the raw material and productive capacities of the planet, and we will have total globalization, global Synarchist dictatorship."
On Saturday, Feb. 4, the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted 27-3, with five abstentions, to report Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council. The action came after last-ditch efforts by the Non-Aligned Movement to stall the vote were stymied by a compromise, orchestrated by the British government. Within moments, the Iranian government announced that all diplomatic negotiations were closed, and that Iran would resume all aspects of its nuclear reprocessing program, which had been stalled during two years of negotiations, and had been partially resumed on Jan. 10, 2006, thus offering the pretext for the current showdown.
The Iranian government had further helped fuel the British-orchestrated showdown by repudiating its support for a compromise solution put forward by the Russian government, through which Russia and Iran would jointly provide enriched material for Iran's nuclear power plants on Russian soil, thus providing assurances that Iran would not be able to develop its own weapons-grade material for building a nuclear bomb. After Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary General Ali Larijani had visited Moscow in late January 2006, and signalled his support for the Russian offer, that support was abruptly rescinded once Larijani returned to Tehran. And to make matters worse, Iran intervened in a dispute between Russia and Georgia over oil and gas supplies, by announcing, on the eve of the meetings of the five Security Council permanent members, that they would guarantee Georgia's energy supplies. Russian President Vladimir Putin read the Iranian action as a slap in the face to Moscow, and as a clear signal that Iran was not prepared to reach a deal on the nuclear enrichment and reprocessing protocol.
These actions by the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad leadership in Tehran merely served to demonstrate that they are nothing but half-witted pawns in the greater British game—like the Shultz-steered Cheney crowd in Washington.
The clock is now ticking towards a March 6 IAEA session, at which Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei will deliver his report on Iran's nuclear program. But the Feb. 4 vote virtually assures that, regardless of the content of the IAEA report, Iran will be referred to the Security Council for action, including sanctions or even military strikes.
To fully comprehend the events now unfolding and to appreciate the Venetian intrigues being orchestrated out of London, through the Blair government, one needs to have a grasp of history. Although in the past, the British Foreign Office's infamous Arab Bureau pulled the strings of Islamic potentates and radicals, through the hands-on presence of British "advisors" and proconsuls, much of today's orchestrated "crisis" has been managed through in-depth psychological profiling of key players and institutions on both sides of the looming confrontation.
According to numerous media accounts, the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program was locked in on Jan. 31, at a private ministerial dinner in London at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Straw proposed to his counterparts from the United States, France, Russia, and China—the five permanent members, along with Great Britain, of the United Nations Security Council—that the Iranians be immediately referred to the Council for action "backing up the IAEA."
Public accounts of the private dinner are sparse, but it is clear that Straw put the sanctions issue on the table, and then mediated between the "extremes" presented by Washington, on the one side, and Russia and China, on the other. According to news accounts, U.S. Secretary Condoleezza Rice pressed for an immediate Security Council referral and sanctions, while Russia and China insisted that the IAEA process be allowed to play out through March, while continued negotiations between Russia and Iran, with backup from Beijing, sought to head off a Security Council showdown.
Rice had gotten her cue from longtime mentor and leading Synarchist figure George Shultz. Shultz and R. James Woolsey, former CIA Director and leading neo-conservative, are now co-chairs of the Committee on the Present Danger, a notorious Cold War-era Anglo-American imperial front group, which issued a Jan. 23, 2006 white paper, demanding regime change in Tehran, and emergency action to shut down Iran's nuclear program. Beyond the demand for immediate UN and American sanctions, the paper also demanded: an embargo of petroleum products to Iran; the convening of an international tribunal, to prosecute Iran's Grand Ayatollah Khamemei and President Ahmadinejad; and an agressive campaign of covert and overt aid to anti-regime "dissidents" inside Iran.
Keep Your Eyes on London
The recent Iranian elections, in which Ahmadinejad won a majority of the estimated 25% of the Iranian eligible voters who turned out, set the Iranians on a confrontation course perfectly in sync with Britain's global game. Sources familiar with the ongoing internal power struggle in Tehran report that the Revolutionary Guard and militia circles behind Ahmadinejad, are out to provoke what they presume will be a "limited" military strike against the Islamic Republic, a strike that will enable them to consolidate power.
The essentials of the Washington/Tehran showdown were fully set as early as August 2005. At that time, LaRouche exposed Dick Cheney's "Guns of August," which were already aimed for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's purported nuclear weapons program. But the U.S. military institutions then intervened to leak details of the Administration's plans for a Strategic Command aerial attack on Iran, with a possible use of nuclear weapons, to knock out "hardened" targets. LaRouche's intervention at the time prevented such an attack while the U.S. Congress was in recess.