Home

False Flag to Justify US War on Iran

Comment by Larry Ross, February 16, 2007

Here is the best article so far, that spells out the probability that the US will stage a 'False Flag' operation, in which Iran is blamed for an attack on US territory or military forces, in order to supply the Bush regime with a pretext for attacking Iran. The larger the Bush-staged attack and the more casualties, the more people will be outraged and believe Bush and his war propaganda that Iran is guilty of this crime, and that Bush could never do such a murderous act on his own people. If the mass media in the US and in US-owned or influenced media in other countries, repeats without question this gigantic lie, as they have similar lies about the so-called Iraq threat since 2001, then it is likely that most of the population will believe the lie.

As Hitler wrote in his book Mien Kemp, "the bigger the lie the more people will believe it". Hitler and his colleagues wrote extensively on deceiving their populations in order to gain support for his wars - including World War II. They said it was an easy thing to do. It was a very effective technique for Hitler.

For many years lying and various types of false flag operations have proved to be very effective techniques to gain American popular support for making war on other countries. The examples are detailed below.

The big question is whether Bush can succeed in fooling the US people and Congress again, so they will support a war on Iran . In this regard the US public and Congress are already half way there, with a majority believing Bush lies about Iran being a nuclear threat to both Israel and the US and supplying weapons to the Iraqi opposition.  However the US public are becoming suspicious of Bush: his popularity is only about 30%, and they are tired of losing in Iraq . More Americans are realizing that the Bush regime concocted a litany of lies to fool them and Congress into supporting a war on Iraq and that this is a major crime under the American Constitution, the UN Charter and International law. 

A new litany of lies about Iran  may not be enough for the US public.  Bush & co may decide that the public and Congress need stronger medicine such as a false flag event with many US casualties to tip public opinion to a virulent pro-war with Iran position. He also wants their approval for his planned use of nuclear weapons, with the consequent widespread destruction of the Iranian infrastructure and millions of casualties.  

What are Bush's guidelines regarding his public and tame Congress? Already the American population has remained relatively inert - with a few token protests - in the face of the mass murder of the Iraqi population, based on lies and phoney justifications. They also accept, because the mass media has kept them in ignorance, the covert operations in Iraq to exploit traditional Iraqi differences into full-fledged civil war and many more casualties.

On Iran , the public and Congress play back and accept, the many lies about Iran being a threat - as reflected in the public opinion polls. Even more important is that the public and most protest groups are protesting Bush's troop surge and escalation in Iraq , but remaining quiet about his very obvious plans to soon make a much bigger war on Iran . Bush now blames Iran for his quagmire in Iraq . Public silence can be taken as a tacit sign of public acceptance of Bush lies. Many even back Bush taking military action against Iran . Also Bush is helped a great deal by the media, most of whom deliberately don't cover the issue. Others pretend nothing is planned and nothing is happening regarding war with  Iran - yet. Many US and controlled foreign media, are true believers in, and/or purveyors of, Bush's litany of Iran lies, as they were for his Iraq lies.. They constantly imply support, openly give support and even call for US military action against Iran. 

In this public climate of open or implied consent, and considerable open support, mixed with the always consenting apathy, ignorance and prejudice of the majority, the Bush regime may conclude they can launch a new war based on lies alone. They may conclude they do not need to resort to a false flag on Iran and risk exposure.  

However there are other considerations, especially gaining public and allied approval to jump over the 60-year ban on the use of nuclear weapons. Bush needs to inject the public mind with a stupefying dose of hate and fear of Iran in order to justify the use of nuclear weapons.With a big media campaign to sell the lies and fool the nation again, and a self-imposed media ban on dissenting opinions or exposure of the lies, the public and Congress will probably accept the lies as truth.  Also, if Bush declares a national emergency and imposes various fascist controls on the US population and the information they are allowed to receive, he can ensure suppression of the truth and dissenting views.

With a new war 'on treacherous Iranian terrorists who murdered Americans', a closed-to-the-truth media, Bush will regain his popularity as 'the saviour of America ' and heroic leader in the 'war on terror'. It all depends on how well his regime can get away with lying about a huge crime - murdering Americans to create hate and support for a war on Iran.

Only if enough Americans and others around the world, become educated about 'false flag' past uses and probable use again on Iran , will it be possible to stop Bush and prevent a series of worsening calamities. That's a big "IF". How many people will create a chain reaction, forwarding this email, and other educational emails to friends, groups and likely interested people in their own and overseas countries?  Or how many will choose to take other types of educational action? How many will do nothing at all and passively accept whatever happens?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Bush Iran War Agenda: Trigger an "Accidental Conflict,"
as a pretext to justify "Limited Strikes"

by Deniz Yeter, Global Research, February 13, 2007

     
Hillary Mann, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to
2004, has issued a sober warning to the public today concerning the Bush Administration's intentions with Iran.      

In an interview this morning on CNN(1), she accused the Bush Administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," as a
pretext to justify "limited strikes" on crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to a large ground war as is the case with Iraq.      

When asked why the Bush Administration was seeking to do this, she responded that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.      

Of course, one only has to look back to history to see the Bush Administration's real agenda behind confronting Iran. Iran is only one piece
of the puzzle in a broader, century long struggle by the US, Britain, and its Western allies to secure the Middle East's oil reserves.      

1951: Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh succeeds in leading an Iranian movement to nationalize the countries' oil industry, becoming Iran's first
democratically elected leader when he becomes Prime Minister as a result from this central issue. This ends the immensely profitable monopoly that Britain controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company since 1909, eventually becoming British Petroleum Company in 1954, or more commonly known as BP.

Continue.....