Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the February 24, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

U.S. Military's Efforts Alone
Can't Stop Empire's War Drive

by an EIR Investigative Team

[PDF version of this article]

Feb. 20—We are on the very edge of the potential breakout of World War III, Lyndon LaRouche warned during a Feb. 18 broadcast on Lyndon LaRouche PAC-TV, and we're looking at the month of March. Leading figures in the U.S. military, and others, have delayed this outbreak over the last months, but as long as President Barack Obama remains in power, there is a very real danger that such a war could occur. The British Empire and Obama are committed to it, so they must be stopped.

The leading triggers for the thermonuclear confrontation the British are seeking, of course, are Syria and Iran, but those are only triggers. Should attacks occur on these nations, these will only function as detonators for attacks on the real targets, Russia and China, which are well aware that this is the case.

LaRouche said that the month of March is shaping up to be a potentially critical point in this strategic battle. First, and of extreme concern to the British, comes the first round of the Russian Presidential elections on March 4, where Vladimir Putin, whom the British hate and fear, is the leading candidate. Second comes a scheduled issuance of a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran's nuclear capability, which the warhawks expect will support their cause. Third is the annual meeting of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), moved up to March 5, which will feature British puppet and warmonger Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and provide the occasion for a major war rally, attended up hundreds of members of Congress.

There is also the very real question of whether the bankrupt world financial system will even exist, into the month of March.

Thus, the British imperial circles have accelerated their war drive—only to be checkmated, so far, by determined efforts from the top levels of the U.S. military command, buttressed by Russian and Chinese officials. But the military cannot do it alone. Either leading political figures in the United States take the necessary public steps to get rid of the British-controlled madman in the White House immediately, or the chances of survival are bad, to nil.

General Dempsey Speaks Out

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey has been a consistent voice calling for restraint by Israel against Iran, over the last months, but his statements during a Feb. 19 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria were the strongest yet, on both the Iran and Syria questions:

"I think it's premature to take a decision to arm the opposition movement in Syria because I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point. And let me broaden the conversation a bit. Syria is an arena right now for all of the various interests to play out. And what I mean by that is you've got great power involvement. Turkey clearly has an interest, a very important interest. Russia has a very important interest. Iran has an interest. And what we see playing out is that not just those countries, in fact, potentially not all of them in any case, but we see the various groups who might think that at issue is a Sunni-Shi'a competition for regional control."

On Syria, Dempsey added that the United States should not arm the opposition, adding that "there are indications that al-Qaeda is involved, and that they're interested in supporting the opposition."

Asked about a pre-emptive strike on Iran, he replied:

"I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us. I think that the economic sanctions and the international cooperation that we've been able to gather around sanctions is beginning to have an effect.... I mean, fundamentally, we have to be prepared. And that includes, for the most part, at this point, being prepared defensively."

On Tehran's leadership:

"I'll tell you that I've been confronting that question since I came into Central Command in 2008. And we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. And it's for that reason, I think, that we think the current path we're on is the most prudent path at this point."

Dempsey emphasized that

"we also know—or believe we know—that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability."

When asked by Zakaria whether the Israelis understand that the United States is urging them not to strike Iran, and whether he thinks that Israel will be deterred from striking in the near future, Dempsey did not answer directly, but said that he is "confident that they understand our concerns, that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn't achieve their long-term objectives." He noted that he was in Israel three weeks ago engaging in dialogue on the matter.

Indeed, sources familiar with Dempsey's visit to Israel report that he delivered the most blunt and unequivocal message from the United States, perhaps since President Dwight Eisenhower ordered Israel, Great Britain, and France to withdraw from their invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956. His message to Tel Aviv was, in effect: "Don't you dare!"

In addition to calling for restraint with respect to the flashpoints around Syria and Iran—in stark contrast to Obama's British-scripted bellicosity—Dempsey stated that the U.S. military's strategic shift to the Pacific region provides an opportunity to improve U.S.-China relations. "I think this is more opportunity than liability to improve our relationship with China," Dempsey said, "and I am personally committed to having that as the outcome, rather than get into an arms race or into some kind of confrontation with China."

He's Not Alone

Dempsey's interview followed significant war-avoidance testimony given in the U.S. Congress on Feb. 15 by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Gen. James Clapper and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) head Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess. Both made several additional points against military intervention.

In response to questions from Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Clapper described a Syrian opposition that is mostly based outside the country, and is torn by an internal feud over who is going to lead it. He noted that the recent suicide bombings were all targeted against security and intelligence facilities and "had all the earmarks of an al-Qaeda-like attack. And so we believe that 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' is extending its reach into Syria."

The next day, Clapper's remarks about al-Qaeda involvement were picked up by the leading Russian online news outlet, Russia Today—a sharp contrast with the lack of coverage in the largely British-controlled mainstream news outlets in the U.S.

Clapper repeated his earlier testimony that the intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear program is that Iran is retaining the option of being able to build nuclear weapons, but has not yet decided to do so. "And we believe that the decision would be made by the Supreme Leader himself, and he would base that on a cost-benefit analysis in terms of—I don't think he'd want a nuclear weapon at any price," he said.

Clapper also expressed a certain disagreement with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who told the same committee that if Iran decided to weaponize, "It would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb, and then possibly another one or two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon." Clapper said, with respect to the one-year perspective, that it was technically feasible, but not very likely. "There are all kinds of combinations and permutations that could affect how long it might take the Iranians to make a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon."

In his testimony, DIA chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess stated what should be obvious, but is usually ignored by the pro-war crowd: Iran is likely to respond if attacked, but "the Agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict."

The Warmongers Can't Wait

Provoking a conflict is precisely what the British Empire and its assets are anxious to do. And they are revving up the political environment precisely in this direction.

One of the major problems they face is that Iran has agreed to resume talks with the so-called P5+1 (the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council—the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China—plus Germany), which had been formed to discuss the nuclear issue. For months, the whining establishment line about Iran has been that Tehran has never responded to an October 2011 letter from EU Foreign Minister Lady Catherine Ashton, offering to start talks with preconditions such as Iran's agreeing to stop uranium enrichment, as a basis for the talks. The Ashton letter was a provocation, aimed at guaranteeing that no talks would resume. That has now been trumped by Iran.

This is the setting for an escalation of measures against Iran which amount to a de facto embargo, in addition to the squeezing of Syria, an Iranian ally—both calculated to pressure Iran into retaliation. The British warmongers won't take peace for an answer.

On Feb. 16, warhawk Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) launched their effort to prevent any possible peaceful resolution to the conflict. Twenty-nine other Senators, including a number of "liberal" Democrats, signed on to S. 3112, a sense of the Senate resolution which tells President Obama that he will have strong bipartisan support in Congress if he launches a military attack on Iran. The resolution defies all sound military and intelligence judgment and declares that Iran must be prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, and rejects any policy of containment of a nuclear Iran.

The U.S. could have diplomacy and war avoidance with the nuclear-armed Soviet Union for four decades, but can't contain Iran? The resolution is just a blatant push for war.

And Now Syria

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, primarily through British-trained asset and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, is escalating against Syria, again ignoring the U.S. military's warnings about al-Qaeda's role in the opposition, and it's being pressured to go even further along the Libyan path, specifically to set up a so-called "humanitarian corridor" that would serve as a base for the violent overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad.

On Feb. 17, fifty-six pro-British ass-kissing neoconservative liars and chickenhawks who brought the world the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan issued an open letter to Barack Obama, demanding an "immediate" U.S. intervention into Syria, in the name of "humanitarian" concerns. Sponsoring the letter is the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the same group that LaRouchePAC fingered last week as a key promoter of the Mossad-funded and -trained Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) terrorists being deployed as assassins inside Iran. The signators' demands are a virtual carbon copy of a war plan put out earlier by the London-headquartered Henry Jackson Society: U.S. and other foreign forces must establish "safe zones within Syrian territory," and "no-go zones for the Assad regime's military and security forces," and work with Congress to impose "crippling" sanctions against Syria's energy supplies, banking, and shipping. Plus supplying military aid to the non-existent Free Syrian Army, and coordinating with and supplying communications technologies to the very "political opposition" that U.S. intelligence officers, including DNI Clapper, say is fragmented and infiltrated by al-Qaeda. The reality is that the armed opposition in Syria is al-Qaeda, with some equally odious Salafi fanatics thrown in for good measure.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is lining up behind the views of the interventionists, and in separate meetings in Europe on Feb. 16, informed the French and Russian foreign ministers that the UN's "top priority" is to establish "humanitarian access" for foreign forces inside Syria. So, too, like sheep lining up for their own slaughter, a majority of the nations of the world then voted up, 135 to 12, with 17 abstentions, a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution demanding that the Syrian government allow such "humanitarian assistance."

Not to be left out, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Feb. 16 introduced Senate Resolution 379, "Condemning Violence by the Government of Syria Against the Syrian People," which promises that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will immediately schedule a hearing to assess "international options available" to be taken against Syria. Like his neocon allies, Kerry's resolution singles out Russia and China for refusing to capitulate to this demanded new war. It cannot be forgotten that Kerry's similar treasonous defense of Barack Obama's unconstitutional Libya War was crucial in bringing the world to the brink of the global thermonuclear war which the now-demanded action against Syria may well trigger.

Back to top