I've posted this document before, and I'm going to post it one last time to try and get people to see what is no longer hidden from them, but out in
This is the document called 'Which Path to Persia? from the Saban Center of Middle East Policy, 2009
These people work in line with the likes of the PNAC, people like Dov Zakheim and Paul Wolfowitz with incredible influence over American policy. They
have an agenda that they do not hide.
A critical challenge for this policy (American airstrikes) option is that, absent a clear Iranian act of aggression, American airstrikes against Iran
would be unpopular in the region and throughout the world.
So basically, unless Iran DOES SOMETHING, then American action against Iran would be unpopular. This is important because if we think back to
September 2000, The PNAC's RAD document stated without an event, like a 'new Pearl Harbour', the process of transformation would take a lot longer.
We then had 9/11.
Especially in the absence of a clear Iranian provocation, averting this paradoxical danger would be a major task for U.S. diplomats in the run-up to
such an air campaign.
This is where we are RIGHT NOW, the charades that Obama is playing regards 'diplomacy', it's spelt out as American foreign policy in 2009 and planned
well before. They can't just bomb Iran, it wouldn't look good, so they're playing this game of 'diplomacy', which they know will fail. Just as they
are funding rebels in Syria they know full well a peace plan will never work. It is all about deception and making people think war is the only
The hidden suggestion to a false flag event throughout the document is unsettling-
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an
Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more
unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.
In a time when America is amending the NDA to legalise propaganda against their own people, this is a time to wake up people, because the plan is
Chapter 5 of this backbone of American foreign policy is called (I'm not making this up)-
LEAVE IT TO BIBI- Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike
Regarding an air attack, which Israel is planning to do against Iran's nuclear facilities, they go on to say (again with more reference to potential
They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American
airstrikes or even an invasion).
How at this point in time, can people still believe the Necons and Zionists are not pushing for war with Iran, they have spent millions on developing
policy that can bring the war to being.
On a regime change through a planned uprising or coup (1953 spring to mind anyone?)-
The true objective of this policy option is to overthrow the clerical regime in Tehran and see it replaced, hopefully, by one whose views would be
more compatible with U.S. interests in the region.
The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize
domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power.
I thought this line of though was reserved for 'conspiracy' lunatics?! But here they are, openly discussing what they have planned many, many times
in the past- CIA led uprisings, it happened in Libya and is happening in Syria right now.
However, they point out Iran is much stronger and would need military intervention anyway-
This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The
biggest challenge to regime change would be its feasibility. For all its many shortcomings, the Iranian government is well entrenched.
Chapters 6 and 7 ensure we know that the idea of a coup will not work with Iran, which leaves the alternative being an all out invasion-
Iran also has multiple centers of power, which would make a coup far harder to pull off than in 1953.
Consequently, any plan to aid a coup would first require a major effort to build up American intelligence on Iran,
which would itself be time consuming and difficult given the inherent nature of Iranian society
and the paranoia of the regime.
What, in their own words was achievable in 1953, is not possible with Iran today.
Part four is regarding 'containment' and how this no longer works as a policy. They make the argument of the Nuclear threat, that Iran would give a
nuclear weapon to terrorists. This is the current policy of Obama- diplomatic solutions, sanctions etc, and as the document points out, is no longer
working because it leaves Israel threatened as Iran gets closer to their nuclear weapon.
In conclusion of the document, they make it quite clear which strategy they prefer-
Efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an
excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.
Bear this in mind with this quote-
Absent some dramatic Iranian provocation, it seems very unlikely that those same countries (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Britain, in particular)
would allow the United States to use those same facilities for an invasion of Iran, potentially further lengthening the time required for the invasion
Just like in 2000, they are making it known something is being planned to start this war. With reference to 'Britain in particular', it doesn't take
a genius to connect the dots. Throughout the entire document we have inference to a false flag event, be it to speed up the process, gain
international support or to justify an American military response, most likely all 3.
Who are the authors?
Kenneth Pollack- Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, worked for NSC.
Martin Indyk- He served in several senior positions in the U.S. government, most recently as Ambassador to Israel.
Daniel Byman- He has held positions with the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the
United States (9/11 Commission), RAND Corporation, and the U.S. government.
Michael O’Hanlon- A former defense budget analyst who advised Members of Congress on military
spending, he specializes in Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan,homeland security...
Bruce Riedel- He served as Chairman of President Obama’s Strategic Review of U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan
and Pakistan. 30 years service at the CIA including postings overseas in the Middle East. He was a senior
adviser on the region to the last four presidents of the United States as a staff member of the National
Security Council at the White House.
These aren't just some academics speculating foreign policy, they are highly influential people, just like Dov Zakheim and Paul Wolfowitz.
Influential in terms of their positions in US government and the CIA and organisations such as the NSC-
edit on 17-6-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-6-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason
edit on 17-6-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)