Are Leading Toward Global War
by Nancy Spannaus
Nov. 6—Just days after Lyndon LaRouche took the stage at the National Press Club to warn of the British-Saudi drive, along with Obama, toward World War III, two political bombshells dropped in Israel underscored the reality of the imminent danger of that outbreak.
The first was the revelation by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) that Israel had conducted a war game in September, premised on a unilateral attack against Iranian nuclear sites on Nov. 9, 2012—three days after the U.S. Presidential election! The second was the airing of an Israel Channel 2 TV show revealing that in 2010, institutional leaders in the Israeli military and intelligence services blocked an attempt by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to launch a war against Iran.
These war avoidance moves come at a point when the entire Middle East cockpit, for more than a century the playground of British imperial forces, is seething with unrest, centered on the besieged nation of Syria, and now spreading into Lebanon, Turkey, and other nations. One of the prime actors in this violent destabilization is London's key partner in creating and supporting international "Islamic terrorists," the Saudi Kingdom. As the violence escalates, tension is rapidly increasingly between the British-U.S.-NATO grouping on one side, and Russia and China on the other, with the latter determined to prevent new "regime change" measures, and the specter of a thermonuclear confrontation more and more evident.
While a possible defeat for President Obama in the Presidential election might throw the war drive into disarray, given his key role with the British-Saudi crowd in the Libya War and 9/11 Two, there is no guarantee that even that will take the threat of global confrontation off the British agenda—and it's the lunatic monarchical grouping in the British Empire which is ultimately calling the shots.
War on November 9?
The INSS war game scenario called for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, which would be met by a sequence of limited escalations by Iran and some of its allies against Israel. But, the conclusion, as reported by Britons who filmed the game, and talked to the Nov. 5 Daily Telegraph, was that the outcome would be a limited regional conflict, rather than leading to a broader war.
However, in the written conclusions that followed the war game, the INSS reported that some of the players concluded that the Israeli attack would "lead to World War III," particularly because Russia and China took positions in stark contrast with those of both Israel and the United States.
According to a senior U.S. intelligence source deeply involved in war-avoidance efforts, the INSS publication of the war game findings was part of a renewed effort on the part of Israeli military and intelligence circles to push back against the growing threat that Netanyahu will again push for a unilateral Israeli attack. The source also cited the recent Ha'aretz revelations, further documented Nov. 5 on a British independent Channel 4 TV documentary, that in 2010, Netanyahu actually ordered an Israeli preventive air attack on Iran, but was blocked by top Israeli Defense Forces and Mossad officials, as part of the same effort.
According to the Ha'aretz account, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, then the Chief of Staff of the IDF, challenged the prime minister's authority to launch an attack without the approval of either his security cabinet or the relevant committees of the Knesset. Ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan was equally sharp, reportedly telling Netanyahu, "You might be making an illegal decision about going to war.... Only the cabinet is authorized to decide this." Netanyahu was forced to back down, and soon afterwards, Dagan came out publicly with a sharp warning against any Israeli unilateral attack on Iran.
The source went on to warn that, while an attack in the immediate days ahead is not a certainty, if Netanyahu is reelected in January 2013, he will move immediately to define a new "red line" for an Israeli attack, virtually guaranteeing an Israeli military strike early in 2013. Netanyahu is betting that the P5+1 will not reach a negotiated settlement with Iran before that time, and that Israel will be in a better position to pressure the United States—no matter who wins the upcoming elections—to join Israel in attacking Iran.
The London Daily Telegraph's David Patrikarakos interviewed former Iranian nuclear negotiator Dr. Hossein Mousavian on the realism of the game's assumptions and outcome.
According to Patrikarakos, Mousavian says that "in reality Iran would respond by all means, employing the total power of its armed forces to draw Israel into a long-term war...." And, there would be no doubt the Iran would see the U.S. as complicit.
Mousavian said that Iranians "see Israel as just a baby ... one that would never act without US assistance."
He added that even groups like al-Qaeda that are "Iran's enemies" will attack American targets, taking advantage of the Muslim reaction to an attack on a Muslim nation.
"The whole region would be engulfed" in violence and war, Mousavian said, and slammed the "mistake" of assuming that because Iraq and Syria did not react when Israel destroyed their nuclear facilities, that Iran would do the same.
Bandar and Syria
While the British imperial controllers of the war faction in Israel—backed by the British-puppet Obama Administration—drives recklessly toward launching war against Iran, their junior partners in the Saudi monarchy are doing their part to stoke the flames of war in the rest of the region. The Saudis are pouring money and weapons in massive amounts into the jihadi rebels in Syria, some of whom are explicitly al-Qaeda, and others not, in the attempt to smash not only the Assad regime, but, more important from the British imperial standpoint, to smash Russian resistance to their assault on national sovereignty.
Note, for example, that, according to the SITE Monitoring intelligence website, citing two videos posted on Islamist websites, al-Qaeda's nominal leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has called on Muslims to join the uprising against the Assad government, and accused Western powers of giving Assad a license to kill his opponents, by failing to use all military means to have overthrown him already.
At the center of the bloody enterprise is Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former British-trained Saudi ambassador to the United States, who personally was involved in funneling monies and providing protection for the 9/11/2001 hijackers (see p. 4). Bandar, who is Tony Blair's partner in crime, was made the Saudi intelligence chief on July 19, 2012, at the height of the Syrian crisis, not only to strengthen the arming of the terrorists against Syria's Assad regime, but also to bring to the fore an anti-Assad, Saudi-run administration in Lebanon, which borders Syria. The objective is to push more arms and terrorists inside Syria.
Bandar's position also puts him in the middle of the spreading of the jihadi violence into Lebanon, where he has played a prominent role in mobilizing the Sunni population into actions against the Assad and Lebanese governments, which have struggled to prevent the conflict in Syria from spreading. The recent assassination of top Lebanese intelligence official Wissam al-Hassan, by unknown assailants, led to a destabilization of Lebanon, into which Bandar stepped as an alleged mediator among the religious factions. In truth, Bandar is bankrolling a new Sunni militia to challenge Hezbollah. The last time such an effort was made, during the George W. Bush Presidency, Saudi Arabia kicked in a reported $25 million, but the militia disintegrated in the first moment of confrontation with Hezbollah fighters.
In Their Own Name
One additional new development in the enflamed region is the direct intervention of British Prime Minister David Cameron, who visited Saudi Arabia and the UAE this week, promoting the overthrow of the Assad government in Syria, denouncing Russia and China for blocking that regime-change drive, and peddling renewal of the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms-for-oil deals. Cameron has been pressing the Saudis to commit to a major new purchase of BAE-made British fighter jets, and has been running into competition from French President François Hollande, who is peddling EADS competitor jets. According to one senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the Al-Yamamah dealings, Cameron is hoping that the new head of Saudi Intelligence, British agent Prince Bandar, will have the final word on the jet sales contract, not King Abdullah.
On Nov. 5, Cameron spoke to university students in the UAE, asserting, contrary to U.S. intelligence estimates, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and must be stopped. Cameron attacked Russia and China for blocking UN Security Council approval for another military regime-change effort, as was conducted in Libya, and blaming Russia and China for the bloodshed in Syria. Cameron also hinted that Britain might redeploy some of the troops withdrawing from Afghanistan into the Persian Gulf, to add to the pressure on Iran.
The Russians Remain Firm
The Russian government has no illusions about what is happening, especially in terms of the arming of the violent terrorists who are carrying out atrocities in Syria—and who have also been deployed, whenever possible, into the Muslim regions of their own country. On Oct. 24, Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov pointed out that the Syrian rebels are now wielding U.S. Stinger missiles—although Makarov declined to commit himself on the conduits by which they would have received them.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is carrying out non-stop diplomacy to try to deal with the Syria crisis. Arriving in Cairo on Nov. 4, and following his meeting with international Syria envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and Arab League head Nabil El-Araby, Lavrov said:
"The main thing is saving life. For this, however, the conflicting Syrian sides must be made to start talks and agree on how they carry out a transition to democracy in their country. This is the main point of the Geneva resolutions on Syria. Russia unconditionally supports these resolutions. It is the only participant of the Geneva conference that conducts talks with both the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government.... Several Western and other countries continue to push a UN resolution which would only make matters worse and create conditions for a regime change in Damascus. Attempts to bring about a forcible regime change would perpetuate bloodshed in Syria. This is a reality which Russia cannot influence in any way."
Subsequently, Lavrov had a meeting with the Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr, and traveled on to Jordan, for talks with King Abdullah II and Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, on the Syria crisis in particular.