Page 10 of 12

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:48 pm
by Armanen
U.S. prepares Azerbaijan for war?
12.07.2007 14:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ U.S. commanders held staff trainings aimed at preparation for possible military operations on the territory of Azerbaijan. Future Combat System network, which totally costs $200 million, realizes simulation in various conditions of army vehicles and military technologies of new generation. With the help of computers American specialists work out hypothetical military operations taking into account the geographic and climate conditions of Azerbaijan.

According to ‘Danger Room’ blog, many scenarios suppose attack of Baku, but they do not suppose invasion of American troops into Azerbaijan; the matter concerns quite another development of events.

In 2003 Clyde Wilson, an analyst from the Illinois Institute of Technology Research and consultant for “Fighting Systems of Future, published an article in ‘Armor’ military magazine. In the article he indicates that the Caspian Sea region may potentially turn into a dangerous region. Wilson worked as a consultant in preparing a simulative military operation under “War in Azerbaijan” conditional name. In his opinion, the situation of the Korean War is possible here.

In 2004 American and British commanders held “Hotspur 2004” staff trainings, where also the “Caspian scenario” was used. It is supposed that the matter concerned the preparation of a possible conflict with Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and has similar geographical and climate conditions.

Earlier American commanders had conducted staff trainings on territories, where hypothetically they will have to carry out military actions. Thus, for example, they “fought” on the Korean peninsula and the Balkans, APA reports.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:31 am
by Armenian
An interesting article highlighting the precarious position Azerbaijan has gotten itself into due to its closeness with Washington DC.

We Armenians should be very happy if Baku officially decides to join the war effort against Iran. Whatever semblances of cooperation Baku may have had with Tehran in the past will immediately shatter to pieces once Baku takes Washington DC's offer. And let me also remind the reader that there has been talk about Tehran making contingency plans to attack Baku if and when such an aggression occurs. Its quite clear that the war against Iran is doomed to fail. What's more, American and Western interests will fade from the region sooner-or-later. Memories, however, of Azeris helping Americans violate Iran's sovereignty will not easily be forgotten by Iranians, nor will Azerbaijan's political closeness with Washington DC be tolerated by Moscow.

I think all Armenians should send letters to the Azerbaijani consulate in the United States urging them to take strong action against Iran. Let's for once encourage these pathetic stupid bastards.


Armanen wrote:U.S. prepares Azerbaijan for war?
12.07.2007 14:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ U.S. commanders held staff trainings aimed at preparation for possible military operations on the territory of Azerbaijan. Future Combat System network, which totally costs $200 million, realizes simulation in various conditions of army vehicles and military technologies of new generation. With the help of computers American specialists work out hypothetical military operations taking into account the geographic and climate conditions of Azerbaijan.

According to ‘Danger Room’ blog, many scenarios suppose attack of Baku, but they do not suppose invasion of American troops into Azerbaijan; the matter concerns quite another development of events.

In 2003 Clyde Wilson, an analyst from the Illinois Institute of Technology Research and consultant for “Fighting Systems of Future, published an article in ‘Armor’ military magazine. In the article he indicates that the Caspian Sea region may potentially turn into a dangerous region. Wilson worked as a consultant in preparing a simulative military operation under “War in Azerbaijan” conditional name. In his opinion, the situation of the Korean War is possible here.

In 2004 American and British commanders held “Hotspur 2004” staff trainings, where also the “Caspian scenario” was used. It is supposed that the matter concerned the preparation of a possible conflict with Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and has similar geographical and climate conditions.

Earlier American commanders had conducted staff trainings on territories, where hypothetically they will have to carry out military actions. Thus, for example, they “fought” on the Korean peninsula and the Balkans, APA reports.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:22 pm
by Armenian
The following news regarding Armenia, taken from an Azeri website, is quite concerning. I have heard this news from an Armenian source as well. However, I don't know if the Armenian source was referring to the Azeri news in question. Nonetheless, I don't know how accurate the story is. The way it is presented seems a bit too far-fetched.

Has anyone heard anything about this?

And is that self-righteous pompous scumbag called Van Krikorian (of TARC fame) really an official within the American company in question? And who is that very suspicious character named Richard Kirakosian? Out of no where I have been seeing his name appear allot lately within American sources. I have a strong feeling that his statements regarding Armenia and Artsakh have something to do with the US State Department.

US deploys intelligence facility in Armenia to spy on Iran

The US Global Gold Corporation (GGC) will complete the gold exploration in Arevis village of Sisyan region, Armenia by the end of 2007, APA reports quoting Armenian press. The gold deposit is situated on the border with Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan. Henrich Mkrtchyan, general geologist of GGC office in Armenia said the Corporation that operates in close cooperation with Armenian defense ministry has invested $2.2 million in “Marjan” deposit which is 3000 meters above the sea level.

Unnamed source in Armenian environmental protection ministry said it is not informed of the Corporation’s activity as it is not allowed for that.
Armenian defense ministry sources said the American company is working for the Pentagon and fulfilling errands on Iran in the territory. Chairman and CEO is Armenian Van Krikorian, president on operational works Michael T.Mason and vice-president Hrayr Agnerian. Local residents say the GGC supports the restoration of the infrastructure of Arevis village which is compose dof 24 houses. They say there are also some English-speaking military-like persons besides geologists, who are installing unknown big facility in the territory.

Armenian-born American analyst Richard Kirakosyan has recently announced that Washington and Moscow has reached an agreement on Serj Sarkisyan’s presidency after Robert Kocharian. Armenia is reported to have undertaken certain commitment on providing opportunity for the Us to use its territory against Iran.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:53 am
by Armanen
The fact that its from an azeri source makes me think it's bs, however, we shouldn't just dismiss it either. I suggest doing a search on both Kirkorian and Kirakosian, some interesting article will come up.

I'll talk to some friends and relatives in Armenia about this, and report back.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:29 pm
by Armanen
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." ... YRoUoOjnxK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:06 am
by Armenian
New Yorker corespondent Seymour Hersh on Iran and Hizbollah:


Seymour Hersh: US is funding Al-Qaeda to counter Iran:

Bush Planned Lebanon War Months Before:

Seymour Hersh on planned invasion of Iran:

Seymour Hersh on U.S. funding Lebanon and Gaza violence:

Seymour Hersh about Osama & Al 'Qaeda's Afghanistan escapes:

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:44 pm
by Armenian
Armenia Stresses Iran's Nuclear Rights


TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan voiced his country's support for Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology. Sargsyan made the remarks in a meeting in Yerevan on Friday with the visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki who is on visit to Yerevan to attend the two countries' joint economic commission, a statement released by the Foreign Ministry's Information and Press Bureau said.

During the meeting, the Iranian minister elaborated on the achievements of the two countries' joint commission, and pointed out that the achievements of the two countries' relations should be made tangible to the people of both states, adding that such a goal could be materialized through implementation of the projects underway. He further voiced pleasure in the two sides' agreements on the construction of an oil refinery, a railroad and a power plant as well as the two states' cooperation in auto-manufacturing. Mottaki said that the turnover of Iran's economic and trade exchanges with the world amounts to $100 bln, adding that Iran's trade exchanges with friendly countries amount to, at least, $1 bln. He also said cooperation in banking affairs, presentation of more facilities for traders and industry owners, exploitation of the port facilities and installations in Iran's port city of Anzali, reactivation of exports and transit facilities present proper grounds and opportunity for the further deepening of Iran-Armenia relations.

Regarding Iran's nuclear developments, Mottaki stressed Tehran's constructive talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and said that the two sides have accelerated the confidence-building process. He also described talks between Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as promising, and said, "These are indications of the Islamic Republic's firm determination to materialize the aspirations of its own people who demand access to a home-grown civilian nuclear technology." Concerning Iraq, the Iranian foreign minister underlined that he United States' improper approaches and strategies have complicated the situation in Iraq, and that Iraqi people are each day paying a heavy price for the current insecurities in that country. He also viewed transfer of all affairs to the popular Iraqi government as the only way to end the present crisis.

For his part, Armenian prime minister noted the two countries' good relations, and stressed that Yerevan attaches much significance to the progress and advancement of the two countries' relations. He also underscored that Iran-Armenia political and economic ties should undergo simultaneous and parallel development. Serzh Sargsyan further pointed to Iran's various economic and trade potentials, and said that the two countries' enjoy abundant potentials for the further consolidation of ties and cooperation. He also attached much importance to the implementation of projects, role of transportation and construction of the two countries' railroad. The official said that accelerated endorsement of trade agreements by the two countries can open vast horizons to the two countries' economic and trade ties and cooperation. Referring to Iran's significant role in regional developments, he said, "We have witnessed the conditions in Iraq from a close distance, and we have found Iran's role in regional developments as outstanding."

He reiterated that Iran should have an active participation in regional developments. Concerning Iran's nuclear case, the Armenian premier underlined that Yerevan has not changed its positions, and said that his country supports Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology.


In related news:

Iran-Armenia Joint Economic Commission meets in Yerevan

The seventh session of the Iran-Armenia Joint Economic Cooperation Commission was held in Yerevan on Friday. The commission was chaired by Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki and Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsisyan. The commission discussed cooperation in the areas of trade, energy, health, transportation, science, culture, as well as provincial and legal cooperation. Mottaki said ties between Iran and Armenia have risen significantly over the last few years.

“We have witnessed good relations between two nations over centuries” and continued commercial ties are examples of progressive bilateral relations, Mottaki said. He mentioned the implementation of joint projects such as construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, electricity transmission lines, and a wind power station in Armenia as examples of growing economic cooperation between the neighbors.

The Iranian top diplomat also pointed to an agreement to construct the Aras hydroelectric power station, establishing railway system between the two states, an initial agreement for forming a trilateral committee consisting of Iran, Russia and Armenia for building a refinery in Armenia, and establishing a joint trade center as among other avenues for upgrading ties. The Armenian energy minister also expressed satisfaction over the growing Tehran-Yerevan ties, adding that Armenia is prepared to take large steps for expansion of bilateral ties.


Armenia, Iran Pledge To Widen Commercial Ties

Armenia and Iran pledged to give a new boost to the development of bilateral commercial ties following a regular meeting in Yerevan on Friday of their intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsisian, the two co-chairmen of the commission, signed a memorandum on the start of feasibility studies on the ambitious ideas of building an Armenian-Iranian railway and oil refinery. Movsisian said work on a third high-voltage line linking the power grids of the two neighboring states will get underway “in one or two months.” He said Yerevan and Tehran are also pressing ahead with the construction of a major hydro-electric plant on the river Arax that marks the Armenian-Iranian border.

“I am convinced that we still start concrete work on the Arax plant next year,” he told a news conference. “Iran’s economic cooperation with Armenia is very broad-based,” Mottaki said, for his part. He welcomed a rise in bilateral trade, saying that its volume could more than double to $500 million this year. It was also announced that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will pay an official visit to Armenia before the end of this year. Ahmadinejad and his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharian already met on the Armenian-Iranian border last March during the official inauguration of the first section of a gas pipeline that will deliver Iranian natural gas to Armenia.

The pipeline’s second, much longer section is slated for completion by the end of next year. Armenia’s growing ties with Iran prompted concern from the United States last month, with a senior American diplomat warning that they might run counter to international sanctions imposed on Tehran over its controversial nuclear program. “We have expressed our concerns to the government of Armenia on all levels,” said the then U.S. charge d’affaires in Yerevan, Anthony Godfrey. Mottaki brushed aside the warning. “Armenian-Iranian relations are not directed against any third country,” he said. “They stem from the interests of the two countries. No third country must allow itself to meddle in the friendly Armenian-Iranian relations.”

Asked to comment on the Iranian nuclear program, Movsisian said: “We respect the Iranian people’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Meeting with Mottaki earlier in the day, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian was reported to have asked his Iranian counterpart to brief him on the ongoing international negotiations on the issue. According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Mottaki assured Oskanian that the Islamic Republic is committed to finding a negotiated solution to the dispute “within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”


Iran-Armenia ties are 1500 years old: Mottaki

1,500 years of relations between Iran and Armenia has prepared the ground for taking giant steps to boost ties, Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said on Friday in a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Vartan Oskanian in Yerevan. Last year, during the visit of Armenian Minister of Energy Armen Movsisyan to Iran a plan to establish a joint oil refinery was proposed and currently the project is under study, Mottaki stated. Oskanian went on to say that Iran and Armenia are determined to bolster ties, and the inauguration of the gas pipeline project between the two countries shows that they are prepared to move ahead.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:36 am
by Armenian
Iran's religious fanatics are not the only ones calling for the destruction of their enemies through the help of God. Iran's religious fanatics are not the only ones engaged in doomsday rhetoric. Iran's religious fanatics are not the only ones playing with fire. Dangerous rhetoric is being openly spoken in the United States by "Christian Zionists" (who claim to number in the tens of millions), right wing J-e-w-s and supporters of the so-called "Neoconservative" movement. These groups have gained allot of momentum since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and are making their presence felt within Washington DC. These powerful entities are openly calling for the destruction of Iran, as well as that of Syria... not to mention Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Russia, Serbia, etc...


Pro-Israel Christians Mobilize in D.C.


Washington - At this week’s gathering of pro-Israel Christian lobbyists, it took an unscripted moment for the most passionate sentiments to emerge. Instead of delivering an introduction to Israeli ambassador Sallai Meridor, Evangelical leader and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer delivered a passionate appeal against any Israeli territorial compromise to the Palestinians.

“Tell the people in Israel,” Bauer said to Meridor, “that we are praying that they never give up — even under American pressure. Never give up even one centimeter.”

The attendees in the huge conference hall burst into applause, and 4,000 activists of Christians United for Israel stood up waving flags, leaving no room for doubt about their views on Israel’s recent moves toward a two-state solution. In more official statements, the leaders of CUFI tried to focus the group’s second annual meeting on less controversial territory. Hours before Bauer gave his appeal, Pastor John Hagee, founder of CUFI, said, “We are supportive of Israel even if they make decisions that are contrary to what we believe are their best interests.”

Founded in 2006, CUFI has built a reputation for taking on hawkish views with regard to Israel’s security and to compromise with the Palestinians. At the same time, the group has managed to tread the thin line of avoiding conflict and leaving controversial issues out of its public lobbying agenda. Though it’s a new player in the pro-Israel lobbying field, CUFI has been successful in positioning itself as the main political force to advocate support for Israel among Christian evangelicals, who number about 75 million. Some of the organization’s main work has been done away from the nation’s capital. With chapters in 50 states, CUFI began building bridges with local Christian and xxxish communities and organizing pro-Israel funding events known as a “Night To Honor Israel.” The phrase was coined by Hagee, who started the event 26 years ago in San Antonio, Texas. The vast grass-roots operation has yielded dozens of rallies in support of Israel throughout the country, and the group’s Washington operation has built strong ties with lawmakers from the religious right who previously had little to do with pro-Israel lobbyists. Attendance at CUFI’s meeting this week in Washington was up in comparison with last year’s 3,500 participants. Last Tuesday, Hagee hosted his “Night To Honor Israel,” which featured politicians, religious leaders and an amount of enthusiasm that kept the Christian delegates dancing on their feet for hours to the sounds of xxxish tunes.

It was a Hagee-style extravaganza, of the sort that has made the San Antonio-based evangelist famous. As the choir began to sing “Blow the trumpets in Zion, Zion,” the crowd jumped out of their seats. Groups danced between the rows, waving Israeli and American flags; some people wept with joy. The roster of speakers at the CUFI event left no doubt regarding the group’s political standpoint. The leader of Israel’s right-wing Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke, as did former House speaker Newt Gingrich. On Capitol Hill, the Christian pro-Israel lobby has focused on building ties with lawmakers, many of them representing constituencies with only small xxxish communities and thus further away from the reach of xxxish lobbyists. On Wednesday, more than 4,000 members of the pro-Israel Christian lobby were expected to mobilize in a massive lobbying day on Capitol Hill. The group has set three legislative goals for this year: supporting the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which would impose tough sanctions on Tehran; advocating for approval of foreign aid to Israel, and calling for the approval of measures that will enable international forces in Lebanon to be more active in blocking Hezbollah. While supporting Iran legislation that is specifically designed to avoid a military confrontation, Hagee has his own views on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime: “He will not give in to sanctions,” Hagee said. “It is time for America to adopt Senator [Joseph] Lieberman’s words and consider a military pre-emptive strike against Iran.”

Issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are off the table, as far as CUFI’s lobbying agenda is concerned. The decision not to focus advocacy work on this issue is indicative of the sensitive place in which the pro-Israel Christian group stands: While it opposes any compromise, the Israeli government is in the midst of taking measures to strengthen the Palestinian leadership as a first step on the road to the resumption of talks for a two-state solution. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, has also embraced the new Palestinian leadership and supports American actions to strengthen it. But while quiet on the issue when on Capitol Hill, CUFI leaders are clear about how they view territorial compromise.

“I am concerned that there soon will be an attempt to parcel out parts of Israel in order to appease others,” Hagee said at Tuesday’s event, warning that the Europeans and the U.S. State Department want to make Israel “crocodile food.”

CUFI has maintained a relationship of mutual understanding and respect with Aipac. The latter’s executive committee, which also met this week in Washington, discussed briefly the views of its Christian counterpart, stressing the common agenda on issues relating to Iran and foreign aid. Aipac sources said there is no formal coordination between the groups, though CUFI does advocate for some issues that are important for Aipac. Last March, Hagee gave one of the keynote speeches at Aipac’s policy conference. The pro-Israel lobby embraced him warmly, cheering and applauding.


Ted Pike - Zionism and Christianity: Unholy Alliance (video):

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:00 pm
by Armanen

By Monica Maggioni

Iran’s radical president is sinking fast, and he knows it. Now, there’s only one man who can keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of the unemployment line: George W. Bush.

In Tehran, the mood is quickly shifting. And it’s easy to feel it every time you stop to buy a newspaper, have a coffee, or wait in line at the grocery store. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s star is fading fast.

Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.

But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.

Behind the high walls of Iranian palaces or in the quiet of Tehran’s parks, Iranian elites will indulge in a quick laugh about the president’s intelligence or his populist bombast. Jokes about his résumé are especially popular. Many refer to his “Ph.D. in traffic” or his letter last May to U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he proclaimed, “I am a teacher.”

The jokes—and who is delivering them—tell the story of a man whose power is on the decline as Iran’s economy collapses around him. Prices for basic goods are skyrocketing, and the government is unable to cope with increasing poverty. Just last month, over 50 Iranian economists sent an open letter excoriating the president’s mismanagement of the economy.

For each public gathering, his loyalists must now arrange hundreds of buses from the remotest and poorest regions of the country. The president’s rented crowds shuffle off the buses for an hour or two and then enjoy Tehran sightseeing, lunch, and dinner paid for by Ahmadinejad’s inner circle in the administration.

Perhaps the best evidence of the president’s decline, though, is the single-digit support obtained by his party in last December’s administrative elections. A personal defeat for Ahmadinejad, the loss reduced his base of support to an elite minority inside the powerful, hard-line Revolutionary Guards, also known as the Pasdaran. It’s this same minority that struggles against any attempt to open Iran’s economy and political system; with their extensive oil holdings, they are unperturbed by the country’s isolation or its economic woes. But even inside the Pasdaran, one can find distinct viewpoints and conflicting interests, which is why Ahmadinejad’s political stronghold is far from secure.

In fact, there are already signs that his job is in jeopardy. Tehran is rife with speculation that Ali Larijani, who is now widely seen as positioning himself for the post-Ahmadinejad era, and Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, who competed against Ahmadinejad in 2005 and is still popular with members of both conservative and reformist camps, are already working to undermine the president. The next presidential elections are scheduled for June 2009. As a pragmatic conservative and one of Iran’s most prominent politicians, Larijani in particular is likely to do well. To be sure, he is no reformist along the lines of Ahmadinejad’s charismatic predecessor, Mohammed Khatami; in fact, Larijani was happy to see the reformists swept from the political scene following Ahmadinejad’s election. And as his tenacity as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator shows, he would be no shrinking violet on the international stage. At the same time, however, Larijani fairly drips with disdain for his boss, a president he sees as devoid of skill or rational stratagem in dealing with the rest of the world.

But it’s likely that Ahmadinejad’s power will decrease dramatically even before 2009. The elections for Iran’s parliament in March 2008 could represent a turning point if the majority inside the parliament shifts against him. Ahmadinejad still has a strong supporter in Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the 12-member Guardian Council that holds the political reins in Iran. The Council must clear all candidates for the presidency and parliament. But the Council itself is not monolithic, and it will be impossible to keep all the reformists and pragmatist conservatives out of the electoral race. But even if Ahmadinejad makes it through next spring, many analysts in the country are ready to bet that he won’t be reelected in 2009; the opposition is just too strong, and the economy will likely be in worse straits by that time.

In fact, the only thing that could save him now is the United States. Nobody knows this better than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As his support within Iran has evaporated, he has cranked up the anti-American rhetoric, and the U.S. military has publicly accused the Pasdaran of arming insurgents in Iraq and even Afghanistan. At this point, the only way Ahmadinejad can revive his flagging fortunes is by uniting his country against an external threat. U.S. officials adamantly maintain that Washington is committed to using diplomacy to resolve the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program and its aggressive role in the region. Yet pressure is mounting in some branches of the Bush administration to take military action against Iran. That pressure should be resisted. For military action would give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exactly what he wants most: job security.

Monica Maggioni is a Middle East special correspondent for Italy’s RAI TV.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:42 am
by Armenian
There are people, even Armenians, who continue ranting about Iranian clerics making outlandish statements. When was the last time these people took a close look at what's being said and done right under their noses?

The crazy times we are living in...


AIPAC Speaker Hopes US Gets Nuked After Israel Provokes War With Russia

Nice Bedfellows You've Got There!

Coming this Sunday to an AIPAC Policy Conference near you: SUNDAY NIGHT PLENARY - The U.S. and Israel: Tradition and Transcendence. Two eloquent voices from diverse backgrounds explore the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and how Americans from all faiths can find common cause in supporting Israel: Pastor John Hagee Author and Scholar Michael Oren Special Guest Eitan Wertheimer, Chairman of the Board of ISCAR

Who's John Hagee? Sarah Posner can tell you all about it. I'll just note this:

In Hagee's telling, Israel has no choice but to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, with or without America's help. The strike will provoke Russia -- which wants Persian Gulf oil -- to lead an army of Arab nations against Israel. Then God will wipe out all but one-sixth of the Russian-led army, as the world watches "with shock and awe," he says, lending either a divine quality to the Bush administration phrase or a Bush-like quality to God's wrath.

But Hagee doesn't stop there. He adds that Ezekiel predicts fire "'upon those who live in security in the coastlands.'" From this sentence he concludes that there will be judgment upon all who stood by while the Russian-led force invaded Israel, and issues a stark warning to the United States to intervene: "Could it be that America, who refuses to defend Israel from the Russian invasion, will experience nuclear warfare on our east and west coasts?" He says yes, citing Genesis 12:3, in which God said to Israel: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you."

To fill the power vacuum left by God's decimation of the Russian army, the Antichrist -- identified by Hagee as the head of the European Union -- will rule "a one-world government, a one-world currency and a one-world religion" for three and a half years. (He adds that "one need only be a casual observer of current events to see that all three of these things are coming into reality.") The "demonic world leader" will then be confronted by a false prophet, identified by Hagee as China, at Armageddon, the Mount of Megiddo in Israel. As they prepare for the final battle, Jesus will return on a white horse and cast both villains -- and presumably any nonbelievers -- into a "lake of fire burning with brimstone," thus marking the beginning of his millennial reign.

So you see, John Hagee, who wants to see Israel adopt a hawkish foreign policy that he believes will result in its destruction at the hands of a Russo-Arab alliance is a friend of the xxxs. By contrast, everyone who thinks a little pressure to make peace could wind up helping Israel in the long run is an anti-semite.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:44 am
by Armenian
White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official


A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values. According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.

"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."

Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.

"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.

The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:46 am
by Armenian
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Armenia till yearend


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad most likely will visit Armenia till yearend, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated. He said, currently the sides carry out works on organization of the visit and specifying its dates. “Negotiations between Robert Kocharian and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Yerevan will become the continuation of the dialog, which started in Tehran. Armenian and Iranian Presidents are expected to discuss issues of bilateral cooperation, as well as regional problems and ways to strengthen peace and stability in the region,” Manouchehr Mottaki stated.


In related news:

In case of necessity Iran is ready to assist talks around Karabakh

In case of necessity Iran is ready to assist talks on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated during his meeting with Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan, the RA Government Press Office reports. Underlining the importance to establish peace and stability in the region as soon as possible, Serzh Sargsyan in his part stated that Armenia has always highly appreciated Iran’s role in this process. “Economic development in a rather dangerous region cannot be compared with similar development of a stable and secure region,” the RA Premier underscored adding that Yerevan’s stance consists in peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict via negotiations.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:45 am
by Armanen
Press TV, Iran
July 28 2007

US facility in Armenia to spy on Iran
Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:07:14
Source: APA

The United States is using old tricks to spy on Iran from Armenia
Armenian sources have revealed that an American company working for
the Pentagon is fulfilling errands on Iran from their territory.

The US Global Gold Corporation (GGC) which is operating in Arevis
village of Sisyan region in Armenia is to complete its gold
exploration mission by the end of 2007, APA reports quoting Armenian

The gold deposit is said to be situated on the border with Nakhchivan
province of Azerbaijan.

However, local residents say that besides geologists, they have also
seen some English-speaking military-like people, who are installing
unknown big equipments in the territory.

Armenia and Iran enjoy cordial relations and both countries are
strategic partners in the region.

Cultural and historical ties between the two nations which were one
until some 150 years ago, go back thousands of years and the
Christian Armenian minority has always been officially recognized and
respected in Iran.

An important factor in the bilateral relations is the cooperation in
the field of energy security which reduces Armenia's dependence on

Armenia is also considered to be a nominee to transfer Iranian gas to
Europe through Georgia and the Black Sea.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:46 pm
by Armenian
We are seeing a fast rise in arms proliferation across the world. Current volatile hot spots are: Japan vs China, North Korea vs South Korea, India vs Pakistan, Iran vs Israel, Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Syria vs Israel, Iraq vs Turkey, Russian Federation vs the West, Azerbaijan vs Armenia, Serbia vs Albania, Georgia vs Abkhazia, Colombia vs Venezuela. The aforementioned are all arming up for the impending world war. And here are some of the latest news in this new global arms race.


Reports: Iran to buy jets from Russia


Israel is looking into reports that Russia plans to sell 250 advanced long-range Sukhoi-30 fighter jets to Iran in an unprecedented billion-dollar deal. According to reports, in addition to the fighter jets, Teheran also plans to purchase a number of aerial fuel tankers that are compatible with the Sukhoi and capable of extending its range by thousands of kilometers. Defense officials said the Sukhoi sale would grant Iran long-range offensive capabilities.

Government officials voiced concern over the reports. They said Russia could be trying to compete with the United States, which announced over the weekend a billion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Despite Israeli and US opposition, Russia recently supplied Iran with advanced antiaircraft systems used to protect Teheran's nuclear installations. At the time, Moscow said it reserved the right to sell Iran weapons, such as the antiaircraft system, that were of a defensive nature.

The Sukhoi-30 is a two-seat multi-role fighter jet and bomber capable of operating at significant distances from home base and in poor weather conditions. The aircraft enjoys a wide range of combat capabilities and is used for air patrol, air defense, ground attacks, enemy air defense suppression and air-to-air combat. After years of negotiations, the Indian Air Force in 1996 purchased 40 Sukhoi-30s and in 2000 acquired the license from the company to manufacture an additional 140 aircraft.


In related news:

US plans Saudi arms deal: official

A senior US defence official says the United States is readying a major arms package for Saudi Arabia with an eye to countering a changing threat from Iran. A senior US defence official says the United States is readying a major arms package for Saudi Arabia with an eye to countering a changing threat from Iran. The official says Defence Secretary Robert Gates is expected to discuss the US recommendations with the Saudis next week in a visit to the kingdom with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We've been working very hard on the Saudi arms package, which we believe is critical to the overarching architecture that we believe we are going to need ... to deal with the changing strategic threat from Iran and other forces," the official said. The official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, says discussions with Congress on the arms package have just begun and that no announcements were expected during Mr Gates' visit to Saudi Arabia.

"What there may be is discussion about what the administration is willing to go forwards with (and) ... what we would recommend to the Hill and others," she said, referring to Congress on Capitol Hill. The Pentagon provided no details on the arms package, which will reportedly total $US20 billion over the next decade. But administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity say it will include selling Saudi Arabia advanced weapons known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs).

JDAM is a low-cost guidance kit converting existing unguided free-fall bombs into accurately guided "smart" weapons. Munition equipped with such kits can attack simultaneously multiple targets in a coordinated strike by single or multiple aircraft. Defence experts say JDAM weapons were extensively used by the United States in recent conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The package also will include new weapons for the United Arab Emirates, another US ally in the Persian Gulf, and both military and economic support to Egypt, the officials said.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reported in March that it is believed to include air and missile defence systems, advanced early warning radar aircraft, and light coastal combat ships. The New York Times reported in April that the package had been delayed because of Israeli concerns over the sale to Saudi Arabia of certain precision guided munitions. Mr Gates and Dr Rice are expected to emphasize US commitment to the region's security at a time when there is fierce debate at home of whether to withdraw US forces from Iraq. Congress has the power to block such sales, but the White House is hoping to avoid a major fight on the issue.


Israel hails US military aid rise

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has confirmed that the United States is planning a significant increase in military and defence aid to Israel. The package would reportedly amount to more than $30bn (£14.8bn) over the next 10 years. Mr Olmert described it as an important element for the security of Israel. Washington is reportedly preparing a package of major arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states because of concerns over Iran's nuclear programme. US defence aid to Israel currently stands at $2.4bn a year - the new package would amount to a 25% increase. Mr Olmert said the aid had been agreed at a meeting with US President George W Bush in Washington last month.


Pakistan tests nuclear-capable cruise missile

The Pakistani military says the country has successfully test fired its nuclear-capable radar-dodging cruise missile. A military statement says the indigenously developed Babur (Hatf-VII) missile has a range of 700 kilometres and "near stealth" properties. The missile was last tested in March and first fired in 2005, since then its range has been increased from 500 kilometres.

"The missile test is part of a continuous process of validating the design parameters set for this weapon system," the statement said. It said President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz congratulated the scientists and engineers "on this very important success."

"The Babur, which has near stealth capabilities, is a low flying, terrain hugging missile with high manoeuvrability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features," the statement said. "The test will consolidate Pakistan's strategic capability and strengthen national security."

Pakistan and India have routinely conducted missile tests since the nuclear-armed south Asian rivals carried out tit-for-tat nuclear detonations in May 1998. However, in 2004 they launched a slow-moving peace process aimed at ending six decades of hostility and resolving their dispute over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, the cause of two of their three wars. In February, Pakistan signed a historic deal with India to cut the risk of atomic weapons accidents.


Bomb by Bomb, Japan Sheds Military Restraints

To take part in its annual exercises with the United States Air Force here last month, Japan practiced dropping 500-pound live bombs on Farallon de Medinilla, a tiny island in the western Pacific’s turquoise waters more than 150 miles north of here. The pilots described dropping a live bomb for the first time — shouting “shack!” to signal a direct hit — and seeing the fireball from aloft. “The level of tension was just different,” said Capt. Tetsuya Nagata, 35, stepping down from his xxxxpit onto the sunbaked tarmac.

The exercise would have been unremarkable for almost any other military, but it was highly significant for Japan, a country still restrained by a Constitution that renounces war and allows forces only for its defense. Dropping live bombs on land had long been considered too offensive, so much so that Japan does not have a single live-bombing range. Flying directly from Japan and practicing live-bombing runs on distant foreign soil would have been regarded as unacceptably provocative because the implicit message was clear: these fighter jets could perhaps fly to North Korea and take out some targets before returning home safely.

But from here in Micronesia to Iraq, Japan’s military has been rapidly crossing out items from its list of can’t-dos. The incremental changes, especially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, amount to the most significant transformation in Japan’s military since World War II, one that has brought it ever closer operationally to America’s military while rattling nerves throughout northeast Asia. In a little over half a decade, Japan’s military has carried out changes considered unthinkable a few years back. In the Indian Ocean, Japanese destroyers and refueling ships are helping American and other militaries fight in Afghanistan. In Iraq, Japanese planes are transporting cargo and American troops to Baghdad from Kuwait.

Japan is acquiring weapons that blur the lines between defensive and offensive. For the Guam bombing run, Japan deployed its newest fighter jets, the F-2’s, the first developed jointly by Japan and the United States, on their maiden trip here. Unlike its older jets, the F-2’s were able to fly the 1,700 miles from northern Japan to Guam without refueling — a “straight shot,” as the Japanese said with unconcealed pride. Japan recently indicated strongly its desire to buy the F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter known mainly for its offensive abilities such as penetrating contested airspace and destroying enemy targets, whose export is prohibited by United States law.

At home, the Defense Agency, whose profile had been intentionally kept low, became a full ministry this year. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe used the parliamentary majority he inherited from his wildly popular predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, to ram through a law that could lead to a revision of the pacifist Constitution. Japan’s 241,000-member military, though smaller than those of its neighbors, is considered Asia’s most sophisticated. Though flat, its $40 billion military budget has ranked among the world’s top five in recent years. Japan has also tapped nonmilitary budgets to launch spy satellites and strengthen its coast guard recently.

Japanese politicians like Mr. Abe have justified the military’s transformation by seizing on the threat from North Korea; the rise of China, whose annual military budget has been growing by double digits; and the Sept. 11 attacks — even fanning those threats, critics say. At the same time, Mr. Abe has tried to rehabilitate the reputation of Japan’s imperial forces by whitewashing their crimes, including wartime sexual slavery. Japanese critics say the changes under way — whose details the government has tried to hide from public view, especially the missions in Iraq — have already violated the Constitution and other defense restrictions.

“The reality has already moved ahead, so they will now talk about the need to catch up and revise the Constitution,” said Yukio Hatoyama, the secretary general of the main opposition Democratic Party. Richard J. Samuels, a Japan expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that revisionist politicians like Mr. Abe and Mr. Koizumi, once on the fringes of Japan’s political world, succeeded in grabbing the mainstream in a time of uncertainty. They shared the view “that the statute of limitations on Japan’s misbehavior during the Pacific War had expired” and that Japan, like any normal country, should have a military.

Their predecessors feared getting entangled in an American-led war. But the new leaders feared that Japan would be abandoned by the United States unless it contributed to its wars, said Mr. Samuels, whose book on Japan’s changing military, “Securing Japan,” will be published in August. “So what do you do?” he said. “You step up. And that is consistent with what they’ve long wanted to do anyway. So there was a convergence of preferences.” Today, Japan is America’s biggest partner in developing and financing a missile defense shield in Asia. Some Japanese ground and air force commands are also moving inside American bases in Japan so that the two forces will become, in military jargon, “interoperable.”

“I think the Japan-U.S. security relationship should be as unified as possible, and our different roles need to be made clear,” said Shigeru Ishiba, a defense chief under Mr. Koizumi and now a leader in a Liberal Democratic Party committee looking at loosening defense restrictions. In Iraq, in accordance with a special law to aid in reconstruction, a symbolic ground force was first deployed to a relatively peaceful, noncombat area in southern Iraq to engage in relief activities. After the troops left last year, though, three Japanese planes began regularly transporting American troops and cargo from Kuwait to Baghdad.

The Japanese authorities refuse to say whether the planes have transported weapons besides those carried by soldiers. Concerned about public opposition, defense officers have spied on antiwar activists and journalists perceived as critical, the Defense Ministry acknowledged after incriminating documents were recently obtained by the Communist Party in Japan. Mr. Hatoyama of the Democratic Party said that transporting armed American troops contravened Japan’s pacifist Constitution.

“Instead of engaging in humanitarian assistance, they are basically assisting American troops,” he said. “American troops and the Air Self-Defense Forces are working as one, just as they are training as one in Guam.” In Parliament, Mr. Abe denied that the activities violated the Constitution, saying Japanese troops were restricted to noncombat zones and did not operate under a joint command with any other force. Here in Guam, American and Japanese pilots simulated intercepts and air-to-air combat for two weeks. In the final days, each side took turns pummeling the tiny island with bombs.



PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:18 am
by Armenian
For obtaining a better perspective regarding the current crisis involving Iran one has to first take into serious consideration the longterm geostrategic agendas that policymakers within the West have set into motion. As a result of these longterm agendas, for the foreseeable future, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus as well as the Balkans and Central Asia will be a volatile war zone. The aforementioned geopolitical regions will see a gargantuan struggle, both direct and indirect, between forces representing the West (spearheaded by the USA) and forces representing the East (namely the Russian Federation and China). In between of these competing superpowers will be lesser states such as Iran, Serbia, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Pakistan, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, etc.

The following essay by a German diplomat on the work by Brzezinski (who is an ardent anti-Russian policy maker within the USA) was written during the late 90s a time when Russia was being scavenged from the inside out and there was no sign of a nationalistic surge within the Russian Federation. Since Russia's reemergence upon the geopolitical stage coupled with Washington getting hopelessly bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as American political setbacks both at home and abroad, as well as its tens of trillions dollars in deficit, the pursuit of the grandiose global agendas of the US State Department have been thrown-off quite a bit.

Nevertheless, I keep brining up Brzezinski's book the THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives because it is the clearest and most comprehensive work in print detailing Washington DC's foreign policy formulations - written by an insider.


A War in the Planning for Four Years

Zbigniew Brzezinski and the CFR Put War Plans in a 1997 Book -- It is "A Blueprint for World Dictatorship," Says a Former German Defense and NATO Official Who Warned of Global Domination in 1984, in an Exclusive Interview With FTW. "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD -- American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

These are the very first words in the book, "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power." -- p. xiii. Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics. And the key to controlling the Central Asian republics is Uzbekistan. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Uzbekistan was forcefully mentioned by President George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of Congress just days after the attacks of September 11 as the very first place that the U.S. military would be deployed.

As FTW has documented in previous stories, major deployments of U.S. and British forces had taken place before the attacks. And the U.S. Army and the CIA had been active in Uzbekistan for several years. There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan -- at least four years in the making -- and that, from reading Brzezinski's own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.

FTW, November 7, 2001, 1200 PST -- There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco -- and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report -- is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."

Some Americans do read. So do Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin Americans. World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and -- as their architects would like to believe -- controlled. The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan -- the plan of the CFR -- Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.

This position is corroborated by Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. On November 6, he told FTW, "The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission ( founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller -- and the Bliderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."

Brzezinski's own words -- laid against the current official line that the United States is waging a war to end terrorism -- are self-incriminating. In an ongoing series of articles, FTW has consistently established that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks and chose not to stop them because it needed to secure public approval for a war that is now in progress. It is a war, as described by Vice President xxxx Cheney, "that may not end in our lifetimes." What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.

These are the "terrorists" the U.S. now fights in Afghanistan and plans to soon fight all over the globe. Before exposing Brzezinski (and those he represents) with his own words, or hearing more from Dr. Koeppl, it is worthwhile to take a look at Brzezinski's background. According to his resume Brzezinski, holding a 1953 Ph.D. from Harvard, lists the following achievements:

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81), Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission, International advisor of several major US/Global corporations, Associate of Henry Kissinger Under Ronald Reagan, member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy Under Ronald Reagan, member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations 1988, Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force. Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bliderberger group -- a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

The Grand Chessboard

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries -- almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 -- March 31, 2001)

An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

"The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power) (p. xiii)

"But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia) Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival -- would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America `manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above." (p. 40)

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan -- with its much more ethnically homogeneous population of approximately 25 million and its leaders emphasizing the country's historic glories -- has become increasingly assertive in affirming the region's new postcolonial status." (p.95)

"Thus, even the ethnically vulnerable Kazakhstan joined the other Central Asian states in abandoning the Cyrillic alphabet and replacing it with Latin script as adapted earlier by Turkey. In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration." (p.114)

"Hence, support for the new post-Soviet states -- for geopolitical pluralism in the space of the former Soviet empire -- has to be an integral part of a policy designed to induce Russia to exercise unambiguously its European option. Among these states. Three are geopolitically especially important: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine." (p. 121) "Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict ( describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]

The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region's diverse national awakenings." (p.130)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130) "Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people. (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival -- already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia -- is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian -- and hence infidel -- control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan -- and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan -- and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Moreover, sensible Russian leaders realize that the demographic explosion underway in the new states means that their failure to sustain economic growth will eventually create an explosive situation along Russia's entire southern frontier." (p.141) [This would explain why Putin would welcome U.S. military presence to stabilize the region.]

"Turkmenistan has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea" (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"the Eurasian Balkans -- threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry." (p.195)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy)" (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) [Emphasis added]

The Horror -- And Comments From Someone Who Worked With Brzezinski

Brzezinski's book is sublimely arrogant. While singing the praises of the IMF and the World Bank, which have economically terrorized nations on every continent, and while totally ignoring the worldwide terrorist actions of the U.S. government that have led to genocide; cluster bombings of civilian populations from Kosovo, to Laos, to Iraq, to Afghanistan; the development and battlefield use of both biological and chemical agents such as Sarin gas; and the financial rape of entire cultures it would leave the reader believing that such actions are for the good of mankind.

While seconded from the German defense ministry to NATO in the late 1970s, Dr. Johannes Koeppl -- mentioned at the top of this article -- traveled to Washington on more than one occasion. He also met with Brzezinski in the White House on more than one occasion. His other Washington contacts included Steve Larabee from the CFR, John J. McCloy, former CIA Director, economist Milton Friedman, and officials from Carter's Office of Management and Budget. He is the first person I have ever interviewed who has made a direct presentation at a Bliderberger conference and he has also made numerous presentations to sub-groups of the Trilateral Commission. That was before he spoke out against them.

His fall from grace was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world dictatorship. "In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power.

"All we have now are pseudo-democracies."

Koeppl recalls meeting U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald in Nuremburg in the early 80s. McDonald, who was then contemplating a run for the Presidency, was a severe critic of these elites. He was killed in the Russian shootdown of Korean Air flight 007 in 1985. Koeppl believes that it might have been an assassination. Over the years many writers have made these allegations about 007 and the fact that someone with Koeppl's credentials believes that an entire plane full of passengers would be destroyed to eliminate one man offers a chilling opinion of the value placed on human life by the powers that be.

In 1983, Koeppl warned, through Op-Ed pieces published in Newsweek and elsewhere, that Brzezinski and the CFR were part of an effort to impose a global dictatorship. His fall from grace was swift. "It was a criminal society that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish anymore in the so-called respected publications. My 30 year career in politics ended.

"The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people. Therefore what we need is education for politicians, a form of training that instills in them a higher sense of ethics than service to money. There is no training now for world leaders. This is a shame because of the responsibility that leaders hold to benefit all mankind rather than to blindly pursue destructive paths.

"We also need education for citizens to be more efficient in their democracies, in addition to education for politicians that will create a new network of elites based upon character and social intelligence."

Koeppl, who wrote his 1989 doctoral thesis on NATO management, also authored a 1989 book -- largely ignored because of its controversial revelations -- entitled "The Most Important Secrets in the World." He maintains a German language web site at and he can be reached by email at As to the present conflict Koeppl expressed the gravest concerns, "This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."