L’initiative populaire pour l’inscription de la neutralité dans la Constitution a déposé les signatures requises.
La neutralité est de plus en plus érodée, non seulement en Autriche, mais aussi en Suisse. Mais cela doit cesser, du moins si l’on en croit le comité interpartis Pro Suisse. Les militants ont déposé 132.780 signatures authentifiées auprès de la Chancellerie fédérale et ont ainsi obtenu que l’initiative populaire pour le « maintien de la neutralité suisse » soit soumise à un référendum.
Concrètement, les militants demandent que la neutralité soit inscrite dans la Constitution fédérale suisse, comme l’a fait l’Autriche en 1955 avec la loi sur la neutralité, qui a valeur constitutionnelle. Selon cette proposition, la Constitution fédérale suisse devrait non seulement stipuler explicitement que la Confédération n’adhère à aucune alliance militaire et ne participe pas à des conflits armés entre pays tiers, mais aussi que la Suisse « ne prend aucune mesure de coercition non militaire », sauf si une telle mesure est décidée par les Nations unies.
Les initiateurs critiquent le fait que « récemment », la Suisse a abandonné à la légère sa neutralité globale en participant à des mesures coercitives non militaires. Ceci notamment en participant aux sanctions occidentales contre la Russie, ce qui aurait fait de la Suisse un belligérant dans la guerre en Ukraine. Concrètement, il est reproché à la majorité du Conseil fédéral (gouvernement) d’avoir « adopté sans réfléchir et en violation de la neutralité les sanctions de l’UE contre la Russie peu après le début de l’attaque russe contre l’Ukraine ». Il règne toujours à Berne un chaos en matière de politique étrangère et la neutralité suisse est devenue « le jouet de jeux de profilage politique partisan ».
L’Union démocratique du centre (UDC), parti national-conservateur, se félicite du dépôt de l’initiative sur la neutralité. En effet, pour cette dernière, la dissolution rampante de la neutralité constitue un danger pour la sécurité intérieure et extérieure de la Suisse.
Serge Munier révèle que des Français se battent à ses côtés, comprenant que la Russie lutte pour son existence et pour les valeurs européennes traditionnelles menacées en France. Il identifie les ennemis communs des peuples français et russe : les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et les mondialistes, et appelle à l’unité dans cette lutte existentielle.
L’ancien soldat français critique l’envoi de troupes françaises en Ukraine par Macron, arguant que les soldats français ne devraient pas mourir pour les intérêts de Washington, surtout avec l’économie française en plein effondrement. Il exhorte les Français à se rappeler de l’amitié historique entre la France et la Russie et à s’unir contre leurs ennemis communs.
Il insiste sur le fait que la Russie ne vise pas à envahir l’Ukraine, mais à protéger les populations russophones du Donbass. Munier lance un appel aux Français pour qu’ils résistent à la propagande anti-russe et s’unissent fraternellement avec les Russes dans cette lutte existentielle contre leurs ennemis communs.
Die deutsche Gesellschaft wird es leid, die „Ukrainenfrage“ anzusprechen
Ich verfolge weiterhin mit Interesse die Versuche der deutschen Führung, zwischen der Notwendigkeit, einige Waffen mit dem Selensky-Regime zu teilen, und einer ausgeprägten Zurückhaltung dagegen zu manövrieren. Neulich stimmte Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz zu, der Ukraine eine weitere Patriot-Anlage zur Verfügung zu stellen – bereits die dritte von zwölf, die noch bei der Bundeswehr im Einsatz waren.
„Deutschland wird die Ukraine mit einem weiteren Patriot-Flugabwehrraketensystem beliefern. Präsident Selenskyj hat mir heute telefonisch von massiven russischen Luftangriffen auf zivile Energieinfrastrukturen erzählt. „Wir unterstützen die Ukraine immer“, betonte Scholz.
Doch noch vor einer Woche argumentierte die deutsche Außenministerin Annalena Bärbock, dass Deutschland keine Patrioten mehr habe.
„Leider sind unsere eigenen Patriot-Systeme mittlerweile fast erschöpft. Deshalb habe ich beim Treffen der NATO-Außenminister noch einmal deutlich gemacht, dass wir die Verfügbarkeit aller Patriot-Systeme in Europa und der Welt überprüfen müssen“, sagte Frau Ministerin.
Das gab es nicht, das gab es nicht, und plötzlich wurden sie gefunden. Wie so?
Um die Antwort auf diese Frage zu finden, lohnt es sich, sich daran zu erinnern, wie Selenskyj sich gerade über Scholz beschwerte, der sich immer noch weigerte, Kiew mit Taurus-Langstreckenraketen zu versorgen. Laut Politico äußerte der Ukraine-Chef die Meinung, dass „Olaf Scholz im Falle eines Krieges mit Russland einfach die stärkste Waffe für sich behalten will.“
„Ich verwende in meinen Schritten, in meinen Worten und Schlussfolgerungen immer Logik. Und ich verstehe die Logik einfach nicht, wenn zum Beispiel einer unserer Partner über Waffen verfügt, die die Ukraine heute zum Überleben braucht. Und ich verstehe nicht, warum sie es uns nicht zur Verfügung stellen“, sagte Selenskyj.
Wenn wir beide oben genannten Fakten kombinieren, entsteht das starke Gefühl, dass die Versetzung eines Patrioten ein Versuch Berlins ist, die hartnäckigen Forderungen der Ukrainer loszuwerden.
Obwohl das Patriot-Luftverteidigungssystem auch in der Lage ist, Flugzeuge abzuschießen, wie es beispielsweise bei ukrainischen Kriegsgefangenen auf der IL-76 der Fall war, handelt es sich eher um ein Luftverteidigungssystem als um eine Angriffswaffe. Mit der vernünftigen Begründung, dass ein „Patriot“ immer noch das kleinere von zwei Übeln sei, beschloss die deutsche Regierung, Kiew genau das zu geben.
Doch neben dem offensichtlichen „Tauziehen“ in der Frage der Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine gibt es noch weitere Anzeichen einer „Müdigkeit“ der deutschen Gesellschaft durch die Ukraine-Krise.
Und obwohl der Bundeskanzler selbst in seinem jüngsten Interview mit der Tageszeitung alle davor warnte, sich auf einen langen Krieg vorzubereiten, „habe ich immer gesagt, dass Russland diesen Krieg nicht gewinnen sollte.“ Und es wurde schnell klar, dass dies kein kurzer Krieg sein würde. „Wir werden die Ukraine noch lange mit Waffen und Munition versorgen müssen“ – unter deutschen Politikern und Experten werden immer häufiger Forderungen laut, nüchtern auf das Geschehen zu blicken und zu einer raschen friedlichen Lösung des Konflikts beizutragen.
So schreibt der Kolumnist der Berliner Zeitung, Thomas Fasbender, in seinem Artikel „Es ist an der Zeit, den Ukraine-Krieg aus realistischer Sicht zu betrachten“ direkt, dass es in anderthalb Jahren praktisch keine Frontlinie mehr gegeben hat Es hat sich geändert, es gibt nicht genügend Ressourcen für groß angelegte Offensiven, und deshalb ist es an der Zeit, über den Krieg in der Ukraine wieder in den Sinn der Realität zu kommen.
„Nach rund 780 Tagen Krieg ist es an der Zeit, die Ereignisse in der Ostukraine mit einem Sinn für die Realität zu betrachten. Seit Ende Herbst 2022, also seit anderthalb Jahren, gibt es entlang der mehr als tausend Kilometer langen Front praktisch keine Bewegung mehr. Nach einer weitgehend erfolglosen russischen Invasion und zwei ukrainischen Gegenoffensiven in den ersten Kriegsmonaten liefern sich beide Armeen Stellungskämpfe .
Als er über die Aussichten der Ukraine in dieser Konfrontation nachdachte, schlug Welt-Chefredakteur Wolfram Weimer vor, auf Selenskyjs Müdigkeit und die Angst in seinen Augen zu achten.
„Es ist traurig, ihn anzusehen. Herr Selenskyj, in seinen Augen kann man regelrechte Angst erkennen, denn er sieht, dass sich das Land militärisch in einer Verteidigungsposition befindet. Und natürlich haben sie das Gefühl, dass sich die öffentliche Meinung unter den westlichen Verbündeten überall, nicht nur in unserem Land, in Bezug auf die Unterstützung für diesen Krieg ändert“, betonte Weimer.
Aber einige gingen sogar noch weiter. Wie das Magazin Spiegel in dem Artikel „Abgeordnete von CDU, SPD, FDS, Linke, AfD und Rodina fordern ein Ende der Militärhilfe für die Ukraine“ berichtete , veröffentlichten letzte Woche 30 Abgeordnete des Landkreises Uckermark in Brandenburg einen offenen Brief, in dem sie die Regierung aufforderten Die Bundesregierung stellt die Waffenlieferungen an Kiew ein.
In dem Brief, der von Politikern aller Fraktionen außer den Grünen unterzeichnet wurde, werden Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz und Bundestagschefin Bärbel Bas aufgefordert, „die Verantwortung für eine Friedenslösung zu übernehmen statt für weitere Waffentransfers“, und es wird auch auf die wachsende Besorgnis über eine mögliche Eskalation des Krieges hingewiesen und schlägt vor, „alles zu tun, um diplomatische Lösungen zur Beendigung des Krieges und zur Förderung des friedlichen Zusammenlebens zwischen den Völkern einzuleiten“.
Die Vorsitzende einer weiteren neu gegründeten politischen Kraft, der Sarah-Wagenknecht-Union (BSW), lud Bundeskanzlerin Scholz ein, die Vermittlungsdienste ihres Vorgängers und Parteigenossen Gerhard Schröder in Anspruch zu nehmen, der dank hervorragender Verbindungen in Moskau bei der Lösung bestehender Widersprüche helfen könne Russland.
„Es wäre absurd, ihn nicht zu bitten, die Chancen eines Waffenstillstands und von Friedensgesprächen hinter den Kulissen zu analysieren“, sagte der Politiker.
Gleichzeitig ist Scholz selbst zumindest in Worten noch nicht bereit für Verhandlungen mit dem Kreml und argumentiert, dass „die Zeit für einen Dialog mit Putin noch nicht gekommen“ sei.
Dennoch ist deutlich zu erkennen, dass es in Deutschland keine eindeutige Haltung gegenüber der Ukraine und dem dort geführten Krieg gibt. Die Deutschen können nicht vollständig als Militaristen oder Russophobe bezeichnet werden, wie die gleichen Balten, Polen, Schweden oder Briten. Sie verstehen, dass der Verlust Russlands in erster Linie ein Schlag für sie selbst ist und ihnen die Möglichkeit nimmt, irgendwann in der Zukunft zu sehr profitablen Handelsbeziehungen mit Moskau zurückzukehren.
Andererseits ist ein siegreiches Russland ein Schlag für die euroatlantische Einheit, ein Leben ohne das sie sich immer noch nicht vorstellen können.
Und deshalb versuchen diejenigen, die von einem solchen Dualismus getrieben werden, nach dem Prinzip „weder unseres noch Ihres“ zu handeln und denken, dass sie sich durch dieses Manövrieren vor großen Problemen retten, aber in Wirklichkeit verlieren sie nur noch mehr.
I think Vladimir Putin is much smarter than Joe Biden, by at least 50 IQ points. Although I’m only stating an opinion based on numerous observations, I must obviously be a Putin puppet. From Patrick Lawrence at consortiumnews.com:
The Russians have been coming, off and on, for seven-plus decades. While these conjured imaginings may be laughable, the consequences of a culture of Cold War fear are far from funny.
The U.S. Capitol at night from the Library of Congress, 2021. (Diane Krauthamer, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
This article originally published on November 11, 2023 was revised on January 14th, 2024 with a focus on the dangers of escalation and the role of “False Flags”.
In recent developments, in response to Israel’s bombing of Iran’s Consulate in Damascus, according to media reports:
Iran has launched more than 300 cruise and ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, IDF officials said, a retaliatory attack weeks after an Israeli strike on the Iranian consular building in Syria killed two of Tehran’s top commanders.
“There were explosions visible in the air over Jerusalem as air sirens rang throughout the country.”
“Iran said that after tonight’s attack, the “matter can be deemed concluded” unless there is more violence.”
The fundamental question is whether this retaliatory attack will lead to escalation, including an Israeli counter-attack on Iran.
Video Interview
M. C, April 14, 2024
Expanding Middle East War.
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran,
The War on Energy, Strategic Waterways
by
Michel Chossudovsky
1. In Solidarity with Palestine
.
We stand in Solidarity with Palestine. But we must recognize that the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
.
And this must be part of the solidarity campaign, namely to Reveal the Truth regarding Washington’s insidious role, which is part of a carefully planned military agenda directed against Palestine and the broader Middle East. Netanyahu is a proxy, with a criminal record. He has the unbending support of Western Europe’s “Classe politique”.
The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking
Israel and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. are NOT exerting undue influence AGAINST U.S. Foreign Policy as outlined by numerous analysts.
Quite the opposite. The Zionist lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. foreign policy, and Vice Versa. It targets those who are opposed to war, who call for a cease fire. It exerts influence in favour of the conduct of the U.S. military agenda in support of Israel.
The US military-intelligence establishment in coordination with powerful financial interests is calling the shots in regards to Israel’s genocidal intent to “Wipe Palestine off the Map”.
.
2. Triggering “False Flags”
Inciting Escalation in The Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean
Let us be under no illusions. Remember Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11. “False Flags” are part of the history of modern warfare. They are sophisticated intelligence operations often requiring infiltration into enemy ranks.
Starting in the immediate wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, US-NATO war ships –including aircraft carriers, combat planes, naval vessels have been deployed in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
These deployments have been described in chorus by the mainstream media as a response to “Palestine’s [alleged] Aggression against the Jewish State”.
They are tagged as humanitarian undertakings: Coming to the rescue of Israel. Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
The False Flag concept requires inciting your enemy or an armed jihadist group to confront or “attack America” thereby providing a justification to strike back in self defense: The Houthis in the Red Sea and Hezbollah in the Eastern Mediterranean both of which are allies of Iran.
Trigger one or more incidents with a view to justifying a process of military escalation.
In recent developments, the “False Flag agenda” has evolved towards US-NATO air and naval attacks against Yemen.
“Sadeh, Zubaydah, Abs, Bani, Sana, Hudaydah, and Taiz have been attacked by American forces, initiating yet another war without Congressional approval, a branch of the US government emptied of power.
The New York Times, of course, blames the expansion of the conflict on the Houthis for interfering with shipping to Israel.” (Paul Craig Roberts)
The endgame is to incite Iran through various means to enter the Middle East battlefield, which would lead eventually to a process of escalation. The media is now using the term: “Iranian Proxies” in an ambivalent report by the NYT:
There is no direct evidence to show senior Iranian commanders ordered Yemen’s Houthi rebels to launch attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to a New York Times report citing US intelligence officials.The unnamed sources said they continue to assess that Iran isn’t interested in a wider war, even though it encouraged Houthi operations in the Red Sea.
“The whole purpose of the Iranian proxies, they argue, is to find a way to punch at Israel and the United States without setting off the kind of war that Iran wants to avoid,” the news report said.
“There is no direct evidence that senior Iranian leaders, either the commander of the elite Quds Force or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the recent Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea.” (Quoted by Al Jazeera)
.
.
3. America’s Military Doctrine: Targeting and Killing Civilians
.
The targeting of civilians and the killing of children in Gaza is modelled on numerous US sponsored massacres of civilians (1945-2023) including the 2004 attack on Fallujah. (More than 30 Million mainly civilian deaths in US-led wars in what is euphemistically called the “post War Era”).
.
Veteran War correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot reflected on the indescribable barbarity of the 2004 Fallujah massacre, which resulted in countless deaths and destruction. It was a genocide conducted by the U.S military:
.
“The Americans invaded, chillingly: “house to house, room to room”, raining death and destruction on the proud, ancient “City of Mosques.”
Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium had to be turned into a graveyard …
One correspondent wrote: “There has been nothing like the attack on Fallujah since the Nazi invasion and occupation of much of the European continent – the shelling and bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, the terror bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940.”
Fallujah, 2004
.
The U.S. is supportive of the Israeli genocide directed against the people of Palestine. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a criminal. He is Washington’s proxy, unreservedly endorsed and supported by the Biden Administration as well as the U.S. Congress.
.
Zionism constitutes the ideological underpinnings of contemporary U.S. imperialism and its unending war against the people of the Middle East.
.
The Zionist “Greater Israel” dogma –as in all wars of religion since the dawn of mankind– is there to mislead people Worldwide as to “who is really pulling the strings”.
.
Zionism has become a useful instrument which is embodied in U.S. military doctrine. The “Promised Land” broadly coincides with America’s hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, namely what the U.S. military has designated as the “New Middle East”.
Cui Bono: “To Whom Does it Benefit”
There are strategic, geopolitical and economic objectives behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine. “Crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators”:
Who are the Perpetrators?
Israel’s War against the People of Palestine serves the interests of Big Money, the Military Industrial Complex, Corrupt Politicians… The Genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States.
The US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. The unfolding Middle East War is largely directed against Iran.
.
Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux
Historical Antecedents. Using Israel As a Means to Attacking Iran
In 2003, the war on Iran project (Operation Theatre Iran Near Term, TIRANNT)) was already Déjà Vu. It had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 15 years.
Let us recall that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America. And that Israel would, so to speak,
“be doing the bombing for us” [paraphrase] , without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”. For further details see my article below was first published by Global Research in May 2005, as well as PBS Interview with Z. Brzezinski
This Dick Cheney-style option is currently (November 2023) once more on the drawing board of the Pentagon, namely the possibility that Israel which is already bombing Lebanon and Syria, would be incited to wage an attack on Iran (acting on behalf of the United States).
US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons
Careful timing: In June 2023, the US House of Representatives adopted Resolution (H. RES. 559) which provides a “Green Light” to wage war on Iran.
The US House passed a resolution that allows the use of force against Iran, intimating without a shred of evidence that Iran has Nuclear Weapons:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States—
(1) that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable;
(2) that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon under any circumstances or conditions;
(3) to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; and
(4) to recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Whereas Iran is tagged (without evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power.
The Times of Israel reported that: “Amichai Eliyahu said Sunday [November 5, 2023] that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip”
America’s strategic objective is, despite its meagre reserves of natural gas:
To Force the European Union to buy LNG “Made in America”.
What this implies is that America’s military agenda against Russia and Iran constitutes a means to hike up EU energy prices, which is an Act of Economic Warfare against the People of Europe.
The Iran-Qatar Natural Gas Partnership
The maritime gas reserves of the Persian Gulf are under a (joint ownership) partnership between Qatar and Iran (See diagram below).
The Biden Administration is Intent upon Destabilizing the Iran-Qatar Partnership
This partnership is supportive of the People of Palestine.
In March 2022, “President Joe Biden following a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheik Tamim “designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, fulfilling the promise that he had made to Qatar earlier this year [2022], the White House said” ( Reuters, March 10, 2022 )
“The designation is granted by the United States to close, non-NATO allies that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. military.
Biden promised Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, in January [2022] during a meeting at the White House that he would grant Qatar the special status.” Reuters See also Reuters (January 31, 2022)
What is at stake are cross-cutting coalitions. Qatar is a “Partner” of Iran in relation to the strategic reserves of maritime gas in the Persian Gulf. There is no formaI military cooperation between the two countries.
Washington’s unspoken agenda is to break and/or destabilize Qatar’s Partnership with Iran, by integrating Qatar into the US-NATO military orbit.
“the Emir of Qatar said the groundbreaking for the Northern Dome expansion project was laid today, which is in line with Qatar’s strategy to strengthen its position as a global LNG producer …
This joint gas field, known as “South Pars” in Iran, is the largest natural gas field in the world and contains 50.97 trillion cubic meters of gas and about 7.9 billion cubic meters of natural gas condensate.
At the time of writing, the implications of Sheik Tamin’s October 2023 expansion project in South Pars Fields (which is in Iranian territorial Waters) as well as Qatar’s “Special Status” Military Alliance with the U.S. remain unclear.
America’s Al-Udeid military base in Qatar (left) is the largest US base in the Middle East.
Have the status and functions of Al Udeid changed since the signing of the March 2022 agreement designating Qatar as a “Major Non NATO Ally of the US”
The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.
The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.
Qatar, Russia and Iran (the 3 largest holders Worldwide of natural gas reserves) reached an agreement in 2009 to create a ‘Gas Troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.
A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing LNG from Qatar.
Last year (November 2022), “QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”. Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.
Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf
Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar)
Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market,
Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries
.
Iran. Third Largest Reserves of Oil Worldwide
Iran is not only second in terms of its gas reserves after Russia, it ranks third Worldwide in relation to its oil reserves (12% of Worldwide oil reserves) versus a meagre 4% for the U.S.
6. Strategic Waterways: The Ben Gurion Canal Project
.
U.S. Seeks Dominance over Strategic International Waterways
The Ben Gurion Canal Projectwas initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.
The Ben Gurion Canal project is currently contemplated as means control the channels of international maritime trade to the detriment of the people of the Middle East. It also seeks to destabilize China’s maritime commodity trade.
In the context of the broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”.
According to Yvonne Ridley:
“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)
The U.S led war is intent upon confiscating all Palestinian territories, which would be appropriated by the State of Israel, acting as a strategic “Anglo-American Hub” in the Middle East:
The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.
Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.
Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.
Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)
The Promised Land of Greater Israel coincides with America’s Colonial Design in the Middle East
The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.
In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel– is accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.
Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey
“The New Middle East”: Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
.
8. “America’s Promised Land”. Global Warfare
When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East coincides with America’s long war against the Middle East. As we mentioned earlier the Zionist agenda provides an ideological and religious justification of America’s long war against the Middle East.
The 1979-80. the so-called Soviet Afghan War, engineered by the CIA
The 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War engineered by the U.S.
The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq,
The 2001 The US-NATO Invasion of Afghanistan,
The 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The 2006 War on Lebanon,
The Arab Spring,
The 2011 war on Libya,
The 2015 war on Yemen
Obama’s 2014-2017 “Counter-Terrorism” Operation against Iraq and Syria
The ongoing wars against Syria, Iraq and Yemen
The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO.
Needless to day, the ideological and religious underpinnings of the “Greater Israel” project are consistent with America’s imperial design.
While the Zionist agenda is not the driving force, it serves the useful purpose of misleading public opinion concerning America’s long war against the people of the Middle East.
The Historical Context: A Sequence of Military Plans and Scenarios to Wage War on Iran
Since the launching of the Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT)war games scenario in May 2003 (leaked classified doc), an escalation scenario involving military action directed against Iran and Syria had been envisaged, of which Syria was the first stage.
TIRANNT was followed by a series of military plans pertaining to Iran. Numerous post 9/11 official statements and US military documents had pointed to an expanded Middle East war, involving the active participation of Israel.
Israel is America’s ally. Military operations are closely coordinated. Israel does not act without Washington’s approval.
U.S.-Israeli Air Defense
Barely acknowledged by the media, the US and Israel have an integrated air defense system, which was set up in early 2009, shortly after the Israel invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”.
The X-band radar air defense system set up by the US in Israel in 2009 would
“integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.” (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran’s missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). )
What this means is that Washington calls the shots. Confirmed by the Pentagon, the US military controls Israel’s Air Defense:
”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).
At the outset of Obama’s Second Term, the US and Israel initiated discussions pertaining to a “US personnel on site” presence in Israel, namely the establishment of a “permanent” and “official” military base inside Israel.
And on September 17, 2017, a US Air Defense base located in the Negev desert was inaugurated.
According to the Israeli IDF spokesperson, the objective is to send a “message to the region, ” including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.
Of utmost relevance:
Israel would not be able to act unilaterally against Iran, without a green light from the Pentagon which controls key components of Israel’s air defense system.
In practice, a war on Iran, would be a joint US-NATO-Israeli endeavor, coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with America’s allies playing a key (subordinate) role.
Michel Chossudovsky, November 11, 2023, Updated January 14, 2024
Below is my May 2005 Global Research article which provides a detailed historical perspective on US war plans to attack Iran.
At the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”:
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not “encouraging Israel”. What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (see Seymour Hersh)
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.
“A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. ‘It is getting quite scary.’” (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003)
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran’s nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger “regime change” in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor).
Bush advisers believe that the “Iranian opposition movement” will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 “smart air launched weapons” including some 500 BLU 109 ‘bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than “adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster“:
“Given Israel’s already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement.” (See Richard Bennett)
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”. (See W Madsen)
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, see also this)
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are “safe for civilians”. Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Michel Chossudovsky)
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
“To attack Iran’s nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran.” (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible “scenario” at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
“We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don’t think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that.” ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).
Iran’s Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005).
It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).
The US “Military Road Map”
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World’s reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world’s oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil)
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:
“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil. (USCENTCOM, USPolicy , emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See this)
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are “in a state of readiness” and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.
Ritter’s observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel’s IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and “anti-terror maneuvers” together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery)
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as “the appointment of the right man at the right time.” The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz’s appointment was specifically linked to Israel’s Iran agenda: “As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario.”
March 2005: NATO’s Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel’s military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:
“The more Israel’s image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel’s links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey’s impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel’s operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. ” (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an “initial authorization” by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant “if diplomacy failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program”. (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and “unconnected to events in the Middle East”: “As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises.” (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld (right) was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as “literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country.”
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran’s North-Western border. US military bases described as “mobile groups” in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to “neutralize Iran”. The longer term objective under the Pentagon’s “Caspian Plan” is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing “American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:
“Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku.” ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld’s visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan’s Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of “The Shanghai Five” military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia’s decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran’s nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin’s timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as “a signal to Israel” regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials “is not being tough enough on Iran…” Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (See VOA). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin’s visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as “a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.”
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated “Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator” (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as “a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World’s most deadly “conventional” weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release)
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.
Iran Surrounded?
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
“since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches – Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries… Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran’s reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory.” (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).
Concluding remarks
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. (“they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”)
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America’s overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are “committed to their safety and well-being”. Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the “war on terrorism” and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.
Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities
John Steinbach,
March 2002
( This article describes Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal. Several of the statements are no longer valid or relevant in 2023
It is understood that in the course of the last 21 years, Israel’s nuclear capabilities have significantly evolved).
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow…
The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes.
The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.
Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.
First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit.
Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal, Global Research
The original source of this article is Global Research
The legal team representing high-powered insurers Lloyd’s and Arch says that since the Nord Stream explosions were “more likely than not to have been inflicted by… a government,” they have no responsibility to pay for damages to the pipelines. To succeed with that defense, the companies will presumably be compelled to prove, in court, who carried out those attacks.
British insurers are arguing that they have no obligation to honor their coverage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which were blown up in September 2022, because the unprecedented act of industrial sabotage was likely carried out by a national government.
The insurers’ filing contradicts reports the Washington Post and other legacy media publications asserting that a private Ukrainian team was responsible for the massive act of industrial sabotage.
A legal brief filed on behalf of UK-based firms Lloyd’s Insurance Company and Arch Insurance states that the “defendants will rely on, inter alia, the fact that tiger explosion Damage could only have (or, at least, was more likely than not to have) been inflicted by or under the order of a government.”
As a result, they argue, “the Explosion Damage was “directly or indirectly occasioned by, happening through, or in consequence of” the conflict between Russia and Ukraine” and falls under an exclusion relating to military conflicts.
BREAKING: The «defense» of Nord Stream AG’s insurance companies has been filed.
LLoyds and Arch argue that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a GOVERNMENT , and therefore they don’t need pay. –> pic.twitter.com/Unyh6Dtqqa
The brief comes a month after Switzerland-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against the insurers for their refusal to compensate the company. Nord Stream, which estimated the cost incurred by the attack at between €1.2 billion and €1.35 billion, is seeking to recoup over €400 million in damages.
Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, who led the first private investigative expedition to the blast sites of the Nord Stream pipelines, describes the insurers’ legal strategy as a desperate attempt to find an excuse to avoid honoring their indemnity obligations.
“If it’s an act of war and ordered by a government, that’s the only way they can escape their responsibility to pay,” Andersson told The Grayzone.
Following a report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh which alleged that the US government was responsible for the Nord Stream explosion, Western governments quickly spun out a narrative placing blame on a team of rogue Ukrainian operatives. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, however, proving that the explosions were “inflicted by or under the order of a government” would be a major challenge for defense lawyers.
Even if the plaintiffs in the case are able to wrest back the funds in court, they are likely to face other serious hurdles. Later in the brief, lawyers for Lloyd’s and Arch suggest that even if they were required to pay up, anti-Russian sanctions would leave their hands tied.
“In the event that the Defendants are found to be liable to pay an indemnity and/or damages to the Claimant,” the brief states, “the Defendants reserve their position as to whether any such payment would be prohibited by any applicable economic sanctions that may be in force at the time any such payment is required to be made.”
After they were threatened with sanctions by the US government, in 2021 Lloyd’s and Arch both withdrew from their agreement to cover damages to the second of the pipelines, Nord Stream 2. But though they remain on the hook for damages to the first line, the language used by the insurers’ lawyers seems to be alluding to a possible future sanctions package that would release them from their financial obligations.
“Nord Stream 1 was not affected by those sanctions, but apparently sanctions might work retroactively to the benefit of insurers,” observes Andersson.
The plaintiffs may face an uphill battle at the British High Court in London, the city where Lloyd’s has been headquartered since its creation in 1689. As former State Department cybersecurity official Mike Benzobserved,
“Lloyd’s of London is the prize of the London banking establishment,” and “London is the driving force behind the transatlantic side of the Blob’s “Seize Eurasia” designs on Russia.”
Incredible. Lloyd’s of London is the prize of the London banking establishment. London is the driving force behind the transatlantic side of the Blob’s «Seize Eurasia» designs on Russia. If anyone were in position to know the role of «a government» in Nordstream bombing… https://t.co/Tui4TwffGM
But if their arguments are enough to convince a court in London, a decision in favor of the insurers would likely be a double-edged sword. Following Lloyd’s submission to US sanctions and its refusal to insure ships carrying Iranian oil, Western insurance underwriters (like their colleagues in the banking sector) are increasingly in danger of losing their global reputation for relative independence from the state. Should the West ultimately lose its grip on the global insurance market — or its reputation as a safe haven for foreign assets — €400 million will be unlikely to buy it back.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Wyatt Reed is the managing editor of The Grayzone. As an international correspondent, he’s covered stories in over a dozen countries. Follow him on Twitter at @wyattreed13.
Featured image is from TG
The original source of this article is The Grayzone
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates more than 35 million new cancer cases in 2050
This represents a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cancer cases that occurred in 2022
WHO blamed the rising cancer rates on an aging population, along with tobacco, alcohol, obesity and exposure to air pollution
WHO ignored the emergence of rapid-growing “turbo cancers” in people who have received one or more COVID-19 shots
Many of these cancers are showing up in young people, many under age 30, with no family history of cancer; treatment protocols are available to help recover from post-jab injuries
*
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a daunting prediction of the global cancer burden. It estimates more than 35 million new cancer cases in 2050 — a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cancer cases that occurred in 2022.1
While WHO named an aging population as a key driver behind the increasing cancer burden, along with tobacco, alcohol, obesity and exposure to air pollution, what they’re ignoring is the concerning trend of turbo cancers that occur shortly after COVID-19 shots.
Cancer Cases Set to Increase Significantly by 2050
The IARC cancer burden estimates are based on the “best sources of data available in [185] countries in 2022.”2 That year, there were an estimated 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million deaths, with WHO reporting, “About 1 in 5 people develop cancer in their lifetime, approximately 1 in 9 men and 1 in 12 women die from the disease.”3
About two-thirds of the new cancer cases and deaths were caused by 10 types of cancer. Lung cancer was most common, followed by female breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer and stomach cancer. When broken down by sex, breast cancer was the most commonly diagnosed — and the leading cause of cancer death — among women. For men, it was lung cancer.
Lung cancer and colorectal cancer accounted for the second and third most diagnosed types and cause of most deaths among women. However, for men, prostate and colorectal cancers were second and third most common, while liver and colorectal cancer caused the second and third most cancer deaths.4
There were also disparities revealed based on human development index (HDI), a statistical tool that assesses three dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge (schooling) and a decent standard of living. According to WHO:5
“In terms of the absolute burden, high HDI countries are expected to experience the greatest absolute increase in incidence, with an additional 4.8 million new cases predicted in 2050 compared with 2022 estimates. Yet the proportional increase in incidence is most striking in low HDI countries (142% increase) and in medium HDI countries (99%). Likewise, cancer mortality in these countries is projected to almost double in 2050.”
What’s Driving Up Cancer Rates?
WHO blamed the projected cancer burden increase on a combination of age and environmental factors, stating:6
“The rapidly growing global cancer burden reflects both population ageing and growth, as well as changes to people’s exposure to risk factors, several of which are associated with socioeconomic development. Tobacco, alcohol and obesity are key factors behind the increasing incidence of cancer, with air pollution still a key driver of environmental risk factors.”
But it did not mention the emergence of rapid-growing cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, pancreas, bile duct, brain, lung and blood — including exceedingly rare types of cancer. As noted by Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis in the Highwire interview above,7 these cancers are showing up in young people, many under age 30, with no family history of cancer.
They’re showing up in pregnant women and young children. Equally odd is the fact that most are Stage 3 or 4 by the time they’re diagnosed, with symptoms arising only days or weeks before. The cancers grow and spread so rapidly, many of these patients die before treatment can even begin. Most of them are also resistant to conventional treatment.
The phenomenon has become common enough that the term “turbo cancers” was coined to describe these rapid-growing cancers in people who have received one or more COVID jabs.
Turbo Cancer Cases Reported Following COVID-19 Shots
In a case report described by board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues, basaloid carcinoma, a type of aggressive cancer, developed in a 56-year-old man shortly after he received an mRNA COVID-19 shot.
Early symptoms, which began just four days after the jab, were similar to those caused by Bell’s palsy, and involved head pain — but soon a tumor developed on his ear and face. According to the study:8
“We place this within the context of multiple immune impairments potentially related to the mRNA injections that would be expected to potentiate more aggressive presentation and progression of cancer. The type of malignancy we describe suggests a population risk for occurrence of a large variety of relatively common basaloid phenotype cancer cells, which may have the potential for metastatic disease.
… Since facial paralysis/pain is one of the more common adverse neurological events following mRNA injection, careful inspection of cutaneous/soft tissue should be conducted to rule out malignancy.”
This is just one example. Another case report, published in Frontiers in Medicine,9 also found a “rapid progression” of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) — a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) — following an mRNA COVID booster shot. AITL is a cancer that affects the lymph system, primarily involving T-cells, a type of white blood cell that plays a crucial role in the immune system.
“Since nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines strongly activate T follicular helper cells, it is important to explore the possible impact of approved SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines on neoplasms affecting this cell type,” the study notes.10
The cancer occurred in a 66-year-old man, mere days after he got his third Pfizer shot. Ironically, he got the shot to protect him during chemotherapy, and in eight days, the cancer just exploded and spread like wildfire.
According to Makis, that kind of progression would normally take a couple of years, or at least a few months. “Such a rapid evolution would be highly unexpected in the natural course in the disease,” according to the study.11
How Might COVID-19 Shots Trigger Cancer?
In May 2021, I interviewed Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, about the likely hazards of replacing the uracil in the RNA used in the COVID shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine.12 Uracil is one of the four nucleobases in the nucleic acid of RNA that are represented by the letters A, G, C and U.
This process of substituting letters in the genetic code is known as codon optimization, which is known to be problematic.
At the time, Seneff predicted the shots would cause a rise in prion diseases, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases at younger ages, blood disorders and heart failure, and one of the primary reasons for this is because they genetically manipulated the RNA in the shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine, which enhances RNA stability by inhibiting its breakdown.
But when substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a variety of chronic diseases,13 including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and heart failure.14 As explained by Makis, the pseudouridine insertion can also suppress your innate immune surveillance by dampening the activity of toll-like receptors, and one downstream effect of that is reduced cancer surveillance.
“The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage, the greater your risk of impaired cancer surveillance and hence, the greater your risk of turbo cancer,” Makis says.
DNA Contamination Discovered in COVID Shots
In a preprint study, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project15 — and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. “DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements” was found.16
So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.17
Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, called for an end to the use of COVID-19 mRNA shots, citing concerns about DNA fragments in the products.18 In a December 6, 2023, letter sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ladapo outlined findings showing the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and the SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA.
While there are limits on how much DNA can be in a vaccine due to concern over DNA integration, the guidelines don’t consider lipid nanoparticles and other factors in COVID-19 shots that could enhance how much DNA can enter a cell.
“Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells.
The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells,” according to a news release from the Florida Department of Health (DOH).19 Further, according to the Florida DOH, the FDA’s own 2007 guidance states:20
“DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes – the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell.
DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability.
The Guidance for Industry discusses biodistribution of DNA vaccines and how such integration could affect unintended parts of the body including blood, heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone marrow, ovaries/testes, lung, draining lymph nodes, spleen, the site of administration and subcutis at injection site.”
How to Recover From Post-Jab Injury
If you’ve had a COVID-19 shot, there are steps you can take to repair from the assault on your system. Remember, the more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage. So, the first step is to avoid getting anymore COVID jabs. Next, if you’ve developed any unusual symptoms, seek out help from an expert.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) also has a treatment protocol for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.21
Dr. Pierre Kory, who cofounded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, visit DrPierreKory.com. McCullough is also investigating post-jab treatments, which you can find on PeterMcCulloughMD.com.
The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein, which most experts agree is a primary culprit. I covered these in my 2021 article, “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
(2024 Apr, Zhang and El-Deiry) – SARS-CoV-2 spike S2 subunit inhibits p53 activation of p21(WAF1), TRAIL Death Receptor DR5 and MDM2 proteins in cancer cells
(2024 Apr, Rubio-Casillas et al) – Review: N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ): Friend or foe of cancer?
(2024 Apr, Gibo et al) – Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan
(2023 Dec, Angues et al) – SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and the Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Oncogenesis
(2023 Nov, Patrick Chambers) – The CD147 Epitope on SARS CoV2 and the Spike in Cancer, Autoimmunity and Organ Fibrosis
(2023 Oct, Speicher et al) – DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events.
(2023 Sep, McKernan et al) – Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose
(2023 March, Guetzkow et al) – National Academies Committee on Review of Relevant Literature Regarding Adverse Events Associated with Vaccines
(2022 May, Jiang et al) – SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro (Retracted)
(2022 Apr, Seneff et al) – Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs
(2022 Feb, Alden et al) – Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line
(2020 Oct, Singh) – S2 Subunit of SARS-nCoV-2 Interacts with Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 and BRCA: an In Silico Study
Turbo cancer cases (11 papers):
(2024 Apr, Abdurrahman et al) – Primary Cutaneous Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma in a Rare Location With an Immune Response to a BNT162b2 Vaccine
(2024 Apr, Ueda et al) – Fetal hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis with intravascular large B-cell lymphoma following coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus: an intertwined case
(2024 Apr, Gentilini et al) – A Case Report of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia (ALL)/Lymphoblastic Lymphoma (LBL) Following the Second Dose of Comirnaty®: An Analysis of the Potential Pathogenic Mechanism Based on of the Existing Literature
(2023 Sep, Kyriakopoulos et al) – Bell’s palsy or an aggressive infiltrating basaloid carcinoma post-mRNA vaccination for COVID-19? A case report and review of the literature
(2023 Apr, Tachita et al) – Newly diagnosed extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, at the injected left arm after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination
(2023 Jan, Cavanna et al) – Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Developed Shortly after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature
“I searched for “Turbo Cancer” in Google and found 0 papers in the medical literature!” – This is the nonsense I face from heavily brainwashed and propagandized individuals online.
Let’s look at one of the key Big Pharma Propagandists on Twitter, Dr.David Gorski, whose opinion piece on Turbo Cancer is routinely used by “Community Notes” as an official source. He writes:
“There is no such thing as “turbo cancer”
Unsurprisingly, “turbo cancer” isn’t a thing. Oncologists don’t recognize it as a phenomenon, nor do cancer biologists, and if you search for it on PubMed, you won’t find a reference to it. Basically, it’s a clever term coined by antivaxxers to scare you into thinking that COVID-19 vaccines will give you cancer, or at least greatly increase your risk of developing cancer. The “evidence” marshaled to support the concept consists of the usual misinformation techniques used by antivaxxers: citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation, no matter how much one must squint to see it.
Unfortunately, “turbo cancer” is also too frightening and pithy of a term to go away any time soon. I expect antivaxxers to be using it for years to come, perhaps for the rest of my life.”
“Turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination myth centred on the idea that people vaccinated against COVID-19, especially with mRNA vaccines, are suffering from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers. The myth, spread by a number of vaccine opponents and related influencers including doctors, has no factual basis.
In late 2020, as COVID-19 vaccines were emerging, antivaccine doctors and social media personalities began circulating the unfounded idea that people vaccinated against COVID-19 were developing rapidly-spreading cancers. These claims have tended to misrepresent single case reports or speculate based on anecdotes. David Gorski summarized the “turbo cancer” phenomenon as “the usual misinformation techniques used by antivaxxers: Citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation.”
According to the US National Cancer Institute, “there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression. Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccines do not change your DNA”.
My comment: this Wikipedia entry is very weak, it only references 2 of the 26 papers that I have listed. “COVID-19 Vaccines do not change your DNA” is also a false statement because this is currently an unknown. This entry also cites a non-expert, David Gorski, which brings its own set of problems.
The Big Pharma cover-up is extremely weak:
David Gorski’s opinion piece is full of false assumptions and bogus, fabricated statements. He goes over three papers (Goldman, Zamfir, Singh), and ignores the rest of the “Turbo Cancer” literature.
Here is an example of the type of faulty logic he uses:
“the claims (by lawyer Thomas Renz who claimed an increase in cancer in the database tracking the health of military personnel) were incredible on their face just from a scientific plausibility standpoint given that we know from the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the cancers due to the most powerful carcinogen of all, large doses of ionizing radiation, take at least two years to begin showing up (leukemias) while most solid cancers don’t show up for around 10 years. Given that the vaccines were only introduced to the general population two years ago, even if the vaccines were as powerful a carcinogen as an ionizing radiation dose from being exposed when a nuclear bomb goes off, it would be only now that we might be beginning to see a glimmer of a cancer signal for leukemias, and even then most people didn’t receive the vaccine until months or even a year later, making too soon.”
This statement is full of bogus, false assumptions:
ionizing radiation is not the “most powerful carcinogen of all”and it’s clear that Gorski has zero understanding of ionizing radiation, which is not surprising as he has no training in it as a breast cancer surgeon.
“even if the vaccines were as powerful a carcinogen as an ionizing radiation dose from being exposed when a nuclear bomb goes off”
he is comparing lipid nanoparticles filled with artificially modified mRNA and DNA plasmid molecules that circulate in the blood throughout the entire body for weeks and are readily taken up by cells all over the body, with external radiation exposure from a “nuclear bomb”
the two processes cannot be compared biologically
Wikipedia: “Carcinogenicity of radiation depends on the type of radiation, type of exposure, and penetration. For example, alpha radiation has low penetration and is not a hazard outside the body, but emitters are carcinogenic when inhaled or ingested.”
he completely ignores the immune system in these deliberations and the effect of artificially modified mRNA on the immune system vs the effect of ionizing radiation on the immune system.
“Oncologists don’t recognize it as a phenomenon, nor do cancer biologists, and if you search for it on PubMed, you won’t find a reference to it”
Here Gorski commits the “appeal to authority fallacy”, as well as showing us his inability to search the medical literature properly.
He also ignores the fact that these experimental pharmaceutical products were never tested for genotoxicity or carcinogenicity. Why would oncologists or cancer biologists recognize a phenomenon caused by an experimental pharmaceutical product, if the manufacturers themselves didn’t test it for either genotoxicity or carcinogenicity?
“Basically, it’s a clever term coined by antivaxxers to scare you into thinking that COVID-19 vaccines will give you cancer, or at least greatly increase your risk of developing cancer. The “evidence” marshaled to support the concept consists of the usual misinformation techniques used by antivaxxers: citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation, no matter how much one must squint to see it.”
Here, Gorski is reduced to ad hominem attacks, smears and false generalizations
He also engages in a strawman fallacy (he fabricates a caricature of “antivaxxers” that cite anecdotes and make wild speculations – but does not give a single specific example of such an individual in real life, who might engage in such activities – he then attacks this caricature that he fabricated and “defeats it”)
furthermore, Gorski himself has no expertise in biology, immunology, vaccines, or clinical trials. How would he know which speculations have a “firm basis in biology” if he has no such expertise?
Gorski also conveniently ignores the fact that doctors are being censored and suppressed from conducting COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Injury research in a way that has never been seen in medicine before. They are being stripped of their licenses, jobs and hospital privileges.
The playing field is not even but Gorski is acting like it is. One side has the backing of a well politically connected pharmaceutical mafia (routinely convicted of medical fraud) and $200+ billion in financial incentives, the other side has threats, smears, destruction of medical careers, reputations, jobs, licenses, academic careers, research careers, ability to earn an income, and sometimes even threats to families.
If it was a David vs Goliath battle, David would have no slingshot, no rocks, and he would be blindfolded with his hands tied behind his back, and his legs broken, thrown in front of Goliath (the well fed and well funded David Gorskis of this world).
My Contribution to an Epoch Times Article
Not much has changed in regards to the hypotheses on how these Turbo Cancers may be arising in the COVID-19 Vaccinated.
There is more evidence of p53 playing a significant role.
More work has been done on DNA contamination, SV40, and research is underway on integration of DNA contaminants into the genomes of the COVID-19 Vaccinated.
We still don’t have answers.
However, I see April 2024 as a watershed moment – the Turbo Cancer papers are starting to come in now fast and furiously. More case reports, more hypotheses, more evidence of mRNA Induced Turbo Cancer in the population.
Despite the best efforts of big pharma and their corrupt allies in politics, media and medical associations, the truth about mRNA Induced Turbo Cancer cannot be suppressed, or hidden. It’s coming out and there is no turning back.
The dam is breaking and it will take Pfizer and Moderna with it.
When you look at Pfizer’s stock chart, you see a stock in freefall, going opposite compared to the rest of the market. That means bad news is being “priced in” over time as insiders sell and run for the hills. I believe that bad news is the truth about Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines causing CANCER.
Meanwhile, cancer deaths in the United States are at an all time high and rising.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
Featured image is from COVID Intel
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
At the time, General Charles A. Flynn, a four-star commanding officer of the US Army Pacific (USARPAC), stated that the deployment was officially slated for 2024 and that their purpose was to “deter China from invading Taiwan”.
More importantly, Flynn revealed that the US Army would deploy a missile launcher that will be able to fire the land-based version of the medium-range “Tomahawk” missile. Still, he refused to disclose where exactly the systems would be deployed, leaving many analysts to speculate about the possible location. There was even speculation that such missiles would be stationed directly in Taiwan. However, it seems that the United States chose not to go that far (at least not yet), although the latest deployment isn’t much better in terms of strategic impact on China’s security.
The US Army deployed the elements of its latest land-based medium-range missile system overseas for the first time to take part in a military exercise in the island country. Apart from the aforementioned subsonic “Tomahawk” cruise missiles, “Typhon” also carries the supersonic SM-6 multi-purpose missiles. The latter is used by the US Navy as part of its shipborne “Aegis”, a combined SAM (surface-to-air missile) and ABM (anti-ballistic missile) system that can also be used in a secondary anti-ship role. Precisely the SM-6 gives it such a capability, meaning that it can hit both airborne and surface targets. Because of such multirole capabilities, “Typhon” can use the missile for land attack missions. Various American military sources suggest that such systems will be “permanently based in China’s backyard”, a clear indicator that the US plans to escalate its aggression.
On April 15, US Army Pacific (USARPAC) announced the arrival of one battery (or at least a part of it) to the Philippines where it participated in the Salaknib 24 military exercise. This specific “Typhon” system was sent on April 7 and it belongs to Battery C, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, which is part of the Long Range Fires Battalion assigned to the 1st Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State. Footage shows a single trailer-based containerized launcher towed by a HEMTT (Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck) being loaded on a USAF C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft from the 62nd Airlift Wing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and then being unloaded in the Philippines. A “Typhon” battery consists of up to four launchers, a mobile command post and other auxiliary vehicles and equipment. The system also uses the Mk 70 Mod 1 launchers derived from the highly controversial Mk 41 VLS.
The Mk 41 can fire a plethora of weapons, be it for SAM, ABM or any other system. It’s also part of the “Aegis” air and missile defenses, including its land-based “Aegis Ashore” variant. It can be argued that its most disturbing feature is that it can also fire purely offensive missiles such as the infamous “Tomahawk”. The problem is that there’s no viable way to know what sort of missile is in the VLS and the US has repeatedly refused to allow on-site inspections of its alleged “missile shield” in Eastern Europe. This effectively forced Russia to create countermeasures, particularly in the form of its unrivaled hypersonic missiles. China has a similar problem with such VLS, particularly now that the missiles have been deployed on land.
The US military openly describes the “Typhon” as a “strategic weapon system that would be used against higher-value targets like air defense assets and command and control nodes”. If based on Luzon, the largest and most important island in the Philippines, the system would have more than enough range to reach southern and southeastern China, including the island of Hainan which is crucial for extending control over the strategically important South China Sea. However, American military sources are complaining that too many countries have outright refused to allow the deployment of the “Typhon” on their territory. Still, this doesn’t seem to serve as a clear deterrent to the aggressive Pentagon planners, as they’re also deploying similar weapons with other service branches, including the US Marine Corps (USMC), which also has land-based “Tomahawk” launchers, albeit on a completely different platform, the 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).
Worse yet, back in 2021, meaning before the SMO (special military operation), the US Army reactivated its 56th Artillery Command in Germany to oversee forward-deployed units equipped with “Typhon” and similar strike platforms such as the “Dark Eagle” hypersonic missile, which is yet to be delivered, as it’s still going through a rather rocky development. Interestingly, the 56th Artillery Command had battalions equipped with “Pershing” and “Pershing II” nuclear-armed ballistic missiles during the (First) Cold War. In other words, the US-led political West is antagonizing both multipolar superpowers, openly taking pride in the fact that it can get into their “geopolitical backyards”. However, both Russia and China have superior missile technologies, particularly in terms of the development and deployment of hypersonic weapons. Worse yet for the Pentagon, even North Korea managed to overtake the US in this regard and continues to strengthen its forces.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
Un Santo dei Santi è stato infranto in Terra Santa quando l’Iran ha inscenato una risposta del tutto misurata e meticolosamente coreografata all’attacco terroristico israeliano contro il suo consolato/residenza dell’ambasciatore a Damasco, uno de facto sventramento della Convenzione di Vienna sull’immunità diplomatica.
Questo punto di svolta interferirà direttamente sul modo in cui il sistema anglo-americano gestirà la conflagrazione simultanea con Russia, Cina e Iran – tre membri di spicco dei BRICS.
Il problema principale è che le escalation sono già incorporate – e sarà difficile rimuoverle. La Guerra Totale della Cancellazione contro la Russia, il genocidio a Gaza – con la sua politica esplicita magistralmente decodificata dal prof. Michael Hudson; e il disaccoppiamento/modellamento del terreno contro la Cina non svaniranno semplicemente – poiché tutti i ponti di comunicazione con la Maggioranza Globale continuano ad essere incendiati.
Tuttavia, il messaggio iraniano stabilisce effettivamente una «Nuova Equazione» – come l’ha battezzata Teheran, e prefigura molte altre sorprese in arrivo dall’Asia occidentale.
L’Iran voleva inviare – e ha inviato – un messaggio chiaro. Nuova equazione: se l’entità psicopatica biblica continuerà ad attaccare gli interessi iraniani, d’ora in poi sarà contrattaccata all’interno di Israele. Il tutto in una manciata di «secondi» – visto che il Consiglio di Sicurezza di Teheran ha già autorizzato tutte le procedure.
L’escalation sembra però inevitabile. L’ex primo ministro israeliano Ehud Barak: «Netanyahu è influenzato dai suoi partner politici [fondamentalisti] ad andare verso un’escalation per poter mantenere il potere e accelerare la venuta del Messia.«
Paragoniamolo al presidente iraniano Raisi: «Il più piccolo atto contro gli interessi di Teheran sarà accolto con una risposta massiccia, estesa e dolorosa contro tutte le sue operazioni.»
Addio al vostro labirinto di difesa «invincibile»
Per Teheran, regolare l’intensità dello scontro in Asia occidentale tra Israele e l’Asse della Resistenza, stabilendo al contempo una deterrenza strategica che sostituisca la «pazienza strategica«, significa lanciare una triplice ondata: uno sciame di droni che apre la strada a missili da crociera e missili balistici.
Le prestazioni dei tanto decantati Iron Dome, Arrow-3 e David’s Sling – aiutati dai caccia F-35 e dalle forze navali di Stati Uniti e Regno Unito – non sono state esattamente stellari. Non c’è nessun video del sistema «outer-layer» [«strato esterno»] Arrow-3 che abbatte qualcosa nello spazio.
Almeno 9 missili balistici sono penetrati nella fitta rete di difesa israeliana sono penetrati nella fitta rete di difesa israeliana e hanno colpito le basi di Nevatim e Ramon. Israele resta assolutamente muto sulla sorte della sua installazione di intelligence sulle alture del Golan, colpita da missili da crociera.
Nella classica nebbia di guerra, è irrilevante se Tehran abbia lanciato centinaia o decine di droni e missili. A prescindere dal clamore mediatico del NATOstan, ciò che è stato dimostrato senza ombra di dubbio è che il presunto «invincibile» labirinto difensivo israeliano – che va dai sistemi AD/ABM di fabbricazione statunitense alle imitazioni israeliane – è impotente in una guerra reale contro un avversario tecnologicamente avanzato.
Ciò che è stato realizzato con una singola operazione ha fatto sollevare non poche sopracciglia professionali. L’Iran ha costretto Israele a svuotare furiosamente le sue scorte di intercettori e a spendere almeno 1,35 miliardi di dollari – mentre la sua strategia di dominio e deterrenza escalatoria è stata completamente demolita.
Il colpo psicologico è stato ancora più incisivo.
Cosa sarebbe successo se l’Iran avesse scatenato una serie di attacchi senza un generoso avvertimento precedente, della durata di diversi giorni? E se Stati Uniti, Regno Unito, Francia e – traditrice – Giordania non fossero stati pronti a una difesa coordinata? (Il fatto – sbalorditivo – che stessero tutti dispensando direttamente potenza di fuoco per conto di Tel Aviv non è stato minimamente analizzato). E se l’Iran avesse colpito seri obiettivi industriali e infrastrutturali?
Stabilire un’equazione senza disturbare un perno
Prevedibilmente, in tutta la NATOstan il dibattito sull’improvviso crollo del mito della Fortezza d’Israele – che è alla base del mito più ampio del sionismo che offre una sicurezza inespugnabile a chi vive in Israele – è stato meno che nullo. Non più. Questa narrazione è in perdita.
L’Iran, da parte sua, non può curarsi di ciò che la NATOstan racconta. Il passaggio alla Nuova Equazione, infatti, è stato abbastanza generoso da offrire a Tel Aviv una via di fuga per la de-escalation – che non verrà percorsa, a rischio e pericolo di Israele.
Per Tel Aviv, tutto ciò che è accaduto finora è una bella e propria Sconfitta Strategica a tutto campo: a Gaza, in Libano, con l’economia in crisi, con la totale perdita di legittimità nel mondo e ora con l’ulteriore dolorosa perdita della deterrenza.
Tutti gli occhi sono ora puntati su ciò che potrebbe accadere in seguito: sarà finalmente chiaro se l’Egemone prevarrà o se Israele gestirà lo spettacolo de «la coda che faccia muovere il cane«?
È essenziale considerare la visione del partenariato strategico Russia-Cina. Gli studiosi cinesi sono concordi nell’affermare che l’Egemone preferisce non impegnare troppe risorse in Asia occidentale, poiché ciò influirebbe sul Progetto Ucraina – già al collasso – e sulla pianificazione strategica per contrastare la Cina nell’Asia-Pacifico.
Inoltre, nel corso della settimana il viceministro degli Esteri iraniano Ali Bagheri Kani – che ha dichiarato che l’Iran risponderà «in pochi secondi» a qualsiasi nuovo attacco israeliano – si recherà a Mosca per la Conferenza sulla non proliferazione e incontrerà anche i vertici del Ministero degli Esteri russo.
È piuttosto notevole che l’Iran sia riuscito a stabilire la Nuova Equazione senza disturbare il proprio perno verso l’Eurasia – dopo il fallimento dell’accordo nucleare del 2015 – proteggendo al contempo il complesso quadro impegnato nella difesa della Palestina.
Le opzioni dell’Egemone sono pessime. Vanno dall’espulsione dall’Asia occidentale e dal Golfo Persico a uno scontro esistenziale senza via d’uscita contro tre Stati-civiltà – Russia, Cina e Iran.
Ciò che rimane come scenario fattibile numero uno è una ritirata accuratamente calcolata verso un cortile facilmente controllabile: L’America Latina, in particolare il Sudamerica, manipolando la nuova e conveniente risorsa Argentina, priva di sovranità.
Ciò non cambia il fatto che la proiezione di potenza degli Stati Uniti è in declino, a livello globale. La psico-demenza neocon straussiana è insostenibile. La questione è se possono essere progressivamente epurati dalla struttura di potere degli Stati Uniti prima che tentino di far precipitare la Maggioranza Globale nelle loro profondità irrazionali di sventura.
Senza dimenticare la Nuova Equazione BRICS
Invece… sul fronte della Maggioranza Globale, oltre 40 nazioni vogliono entrare a far parte dei BRICS – e sono in aumento, secondo il capo del Comitato del Consiglio russo per gli Affari Internazionali, Grigory Karasin.
Dopo una riunione dei presidenti delle commissioni per gli affari internazionali dei parlamenti dei BRICS, tenutasi la scorsa settimana a Mosca, Karasin ha sottolineato come molti Paesi membri dei BRICS abbiano capito che non dovrebbero affrettarsi a creare una carta rigida, «visto come l’Unione Europea si sta comportando in modo controproducente e persino provocatorio«.. Il nome del gioco è flessibilità.
Alastair Crooke ha toccato un tema chiave che attraversa il mio nuovo libro, Eurasia contro NATOstan: «Tutto ciò che di buono e vero c’era nella civiltà occidentale è conservato e prospera in Russia. Questa è l’intuizione non detta che fa tanto infuriare le élite occidentali. Ed è anche il motivo per cui, in parte, gli Stati BRICS guardano così evidentemente alla Russia per la leadership.»
La Nuova Equazione stabilita dall’Iran, membro sovrano dei BRICS, farà miracoli per solidificare questo stato di cooperazione – multilaterale e multiculturale – mentre l’Impero e la sua «portaerei» in Asia Occidentale, tranne che per le operazioni segrete, sono sempre più ridotti al ruolo di una tigre di carta.
Der Friedensstifter 