Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the September 7, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Joint Chiefs, LaRouche PAC
Take Lead in Drive To Stop World War

by Jeffrey Steinberg

[PDF version of this article]

Sept. 5—In a tight, stark 35-minute presentation, LaRouche PAC's latest videodocumentary, "Unsurvivable," presents the horror of the thermonuclear war toward which President Barack Obama is currently leading the world. Its release is timed to coincide with the opening of the Democratic National Convention, where delegates are being herded into a pep rally for a man who is destroying the United States and its Constitution; "Unsurvivable" demands an all-out mobilization to guarantee that Obama is removed from the power of the Presidency.

The LaRouche PAC video is a dark, gruesome, but wholly true depiction of the threat of thermonuclear war, its consequences, and Obama's deployment of a major portion of the U.S. thermonuclear arsenal in multiple theaters, threatening both Russia and China.

During the past three years under Obama, thermonuclear war has become a more imminent reality than at any other time in recent history. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, to top Russian and Chinese military officials and political leaders, the warning is stark: If there were a direct U.S. attack on Syria, or an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran, the war that would follow would rapidly and suddenly escalate into a strategic conflict in which the thermonuclear extermination of life on Earth could not be ruled out. Even to dabble with the risk of such a war is sheer madness.

There is one issue and one issue only in this election: thermonuclear war and the power to destroy the American people. That power is now in the hands of Barack Obama. Lyndon LaRouche warned early this week,

"If that President is reelected, you are dead! You have no other issue to celebrate or to even worry about. It will all be taken off your shoulders when they kill you. Remove Barack Obama and remove the threat of thermonuclear war."

LaRouche continued, "This fight is winnable. There is already a fracturing of support for Barack Obama's reelection. At the top strategic level, the fissures are great. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently delivered multiple public messages during his appearance in London that directly contradict Obama's drive for war."

General Dempsey in London

The Independent's Aug. 30 story, headlined "Obama Wrong Over Syria Action, Says Top General," quoted Dempsey saying that comparisons made between Libya and Syria are, at best, a source of amusement. On Iran, Dempsey said he had not asked for advanced notification of an attack from Israel, in part because "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it." While in London, as the head of the U.S. delegation to the Paralympics, Dempsey met with British military counterparts and then held a high-visibility press availability with the international press, where he voiced his most powerful public opposition to date, to both an Israeli strike on Iran, and a U.S. or NATO no-fly zone in Syria.

Dempsey's decision to make these strong remarks in London reflected his concern, according to Pentagon sources, that British Prime Minister David Cameron is playing a re-run of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's aggressive push for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. After their phone conversation a week ago, both Obama and Cameron came out with warnings that any sign of movement of Syria's chemical weapons would be a "game-changer" and could provoke outside military intervention. French President François Hollande voiced the same warning several days later, provoking outcries from a number of retired French military officers, including the former head of the French Air Force, warning of the perils of such an escalation.

According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, Dempsey delivered the same message to his British counterparts that he had delivered to top Israeli military and intelligence officials, as well as to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak: Any Israeli attack on Iran at this time will almost certainly lead to Iranian asymmetric retaliation against U.S. forces in the region. Now that the U.S. and NATO are in the process of drawing down the forces that have been in Afghanistan for the past 11 years of war, the remaining troops are highly vulnerable to attack, as evidenced by the growing number of killings of U.S. and NATO forces by Afghan Army troops and police officers. The force protection vulnerabilities in Afghanistan today are even worse than the exposure during the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam.

Given that there is no rationale for an Israeli attack on Iran at this time—when Iran is years away from a nuclear bomb, and talks continue between Iran and the P5+1 (UN Security Council Permanent Five plus Germany) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—any Israeli action, resulting in the deaths of American troops would cause a profound breach in U.S.-Israeli relations, particularly strategic cooperation.

In fact, days after the Dempsey statements in London, the Pentagon announced that long-planned U.S.-Israeli joint missile defense manuevers, set for October, have been reduced in size and scope.

A Message to Tehran

The Dempsey message has been clearly heard in Israel, and the reaction has been one of hysteria from the Netanyahu-Barak camp. On Sept. 3, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported, "The United States has indirectly informed Iran, via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against the country's nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf. According to the report, Washington used covert back-channels in Europe to clarify that the US does not intend to back Israel in a strike that may spark a regional conflict.

"In return, Washington reportedly expects Iran to steer clear of strategic American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as military bases and aircraft carriers.

"Israeli officials reported an unprecedented low in the two nations' defense ties, which stems from the Obama administration's desire to warn Israel against mounting an uncoordinated attack on Iran."

A White House spokesman immediately denied the report about secret channels to Tehran, but a senior U.S. intelligence official had briefed EIR journalists on precisely such back-channel discussions with Iranian officials months ago. The idea that a war-avoidance faction within the military and intelligence community is conveying such messages to Tehran, without direct Obama support, is not at all surprising, given the fact that Obama himself is committed to global conflict if it suits his Nero-like narcissistic whims and the objectives of his masters within the British monarchy.

By way of confirmation that Dempsey was absolutely right in delivering his warnings to London, the Wall Street Journal, one of British propaganda baron Rupert Murdoch's flagship publications, issued a scathing Sept. 1 editorial attack on Dempsey under the headline, "Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama." The editorial leads with an implicit demand that Obama fire his JCS chairman to prove his commitments to Israel's security. "Barack Obama is fond of insisting that he 'has Israel's back.' Maybe he should mention that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs."

The editorial went on to declare,

"If Gen. Dempsey or Administration officials really wanted to avert an Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem that the U.S. is under no illusions about the mullahs' nuclear goals or about their proximity to achieving them. They're doing the opposite. Since coming to office, Obama Administration policy toward Israel has alternated between animus and incompetence. We don't know what motivated Gen. Dempsey's outburst, but a President who really had Israel's back would publicly contradict it."

A Voice of Courage in Congress

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) delivered yet another powerful warning to the White House, in a personal letter addressed to Obama, dated Aug. 30, stating that committing the nation to war without the consent of the Congress, constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor. Jones, whose district houses one of the largest Marine Corps bases in the country, began his letter to the President:

"This letter is written to you out of grave concern that you will once again lead our nation into war without authorization from Congress. As tensions and rhetoric rise in Syria and Iran, the power to declare war remains vested in the Congress. No resolution from the United Nations or NATO can supersede the power carefully entrusted with the representatives of the American people.... I call on you to abide by our Constitution, and rely on our country's representatives to decide when war is necessary."

A LaRouche PAC spokesman today declared that more of these voices must come forth in the coming weeks before Nov. 6. LaRouche has warned, in a series of recent statements, that President Obama represents the greatest threat to the survival of humanity, and that he must be removed from office by Constitutional means. "There is no greater threat to the survival of this planet than Obama's continuation in office."

LaRouche first identified Obama's predilection for murder on April 11, 2009, when he diagnosed him as a modern incarnation of the Roman Emperor Nero. This President's pathological, Nero-like narcissism makes him capable of mass murder. He has already committed mass murder in Libya, in his targeted drone killings, his weekly kill list, and his economic policies for the United States that have left millions of Americans unemployed, on the verge of starvation, and at the mercy of killer health care. Thermonuclear war, or threatening thermonuclear war against the superpowers of Russia and China, would be the ultimate act of mass murder, a holocaust beyond comparison.

It is understood by leading military figures throughout the world, that any regional confrontation would inevitably escalate into world war. A U.S. intervention into Syria, where Obama has drawn a red line on the movement of chemical weapons, would bring this about. An Israeli strike against Iran, which Israelis say has essentially been condoned by Obama, would result in such a confrontation. This thermonuclear world war scenario is precisely the intention of U.S. President Barack Obama and his British controllers, the same British controllers of the international war criminal, Tony Blair.

There is currently a very short timetable for a dramatic changing of the guard. The trans-Atlantic economic collapse is a pressing force that has pinned both Obama and his British masters into their current war posture. This faction would sooner end the world, and themselves, than fall behind in a geopolitical, economic-financial power struggle against the rising nations of the trans-Pacific. The situation demands action.

Back to top