Empire Enters March with
a Roar for Global War
by Nancy Spannaus
"All of our lives are hanging, literally, by a silken thread. If the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and a series of other American military officers had not argued vehemently against a military attack on Iran, the greater part of humanity would have been lost, already now, in a global thermonuclear war."
March 6—With those words, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for an international mobilization to prevent World War III over the weekend of March 2-4, precisely the period when the footsoldiers of the British financial empire had declared their intentions to escalate toward a global confrontation against both Iran and Russia. The central foci of the British were the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, and the Russian Presidential election. In both cases, British agents, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, and the "democracy" movement in Russia, were threatening to detonate all-out war, if Russia and China, in particular, did not capitulate to the bankrupt Empire's terms.
While hundreds of LaRouche movement activists took to the streets over the weekend to alert the public, there were also high-ranking military-political circles in the West, who share the LaRouches' understanding of the nuclear war danger, and were speaking out. Russian patriots also did their part to meet the threat, by re-electing Vladimir Putin as President, as an affirmation of their commitment to sovereignty (see following article).
Yet, as Lyndon LaRouche emphasized after the announcement of the Putin victory, the "surprise extinction" of the human race through thermonuclear war remains an imminent danger, due to the fact that the desperate British Empire retains de facto control over the U.S. Presidency through its puppet, the insane narcissist Barack Obama. "I'm calmly sitting here, wondering if I'm going to be extinct by morning, or the morning after," LaRouche said. Those who have not moved to remove Obama from office by the 25th Amendment or impeachment, or do not do so immediately, are directly responsible if that war does get detonated in the days and weeks ahead.
An Extraordinary Mobilization
While much of the anti-war mobilization being carried out in the U.S. and Europe is occurring behind the scenes, two extraordinary reflections of that activity surfaced in early March, serving to buttress the LaRouche movement's campaign.
On March 2, an interview with former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard was published in the French daily Libération. Rocard blasted the "collective political imbecility" of the current French Presidential election campaign, pointing especially to the fact that the public debate was ignoring one of the main dangers facing the world, a potential "nuclear" war arising from the conflict in the Middle East. We quote:
"Nobody is watching the Middle East. We have an Anglo-American strategy there, accepted by others, notably including ourselves, whose aim is to torpedo any possibility of serious discussions with the Iranians. And to even engage in provocations from time to time. As if the aim were to prepare a climate of tolerance making Israeli strikes acceptable. In this hypothesis, the war would become an Iranian-Syrian war, supported by China and Russia, as we saw at the UN, against the West at large and its clients. And Europe is silent. That is a crisis with millions of dead, the hypothesis being that it would be nuclear from the beginning. I know well those cases and I have never been so frightened. ... What is new, is the intensity of danger with respect to the superficial state of mind" (emphasis added).
No political leader from the European continent outside of the LaRouche movement, except the Russians, has so explicitly warned of the nuclear war danger.
Equally stunning was the move by leading retired military and intelligence officials in the United States. On March 5, the second day of the AIPAC Conference, eight such officials signed a full-page ad in the Washington Post, calling on President Obama to "Say No to a War of Choice with Iran." While featuring a short text which insisted that diplomacy was still possible and "military action at this time is not only unnecessary," but "dangerous—for the United States and for Israel," the ad, paid for by the National Iranian-American Council, featured anti-war quotes from current and former military officers and Secretaries of Defense—including the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Dempsey has taken the point over recent weeks in insisting that war with Iran should and can be avoided, because that country is a "rational actor" amenable to diplomacy. Indeed, the record shows that Iran has repeatedly sought, and even agreed to, diplomatic offers to resolve questions about its nuclear program, only to be rebuffed.
- The ad's signators are an impressive group:
- Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (USA, ret.);
- Tom Finger, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis;
- Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.);
- Gen. Joseph Hoar (USMC, ret.);
- Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, PhD (USA, ret.);
- Maj. Gen. Rudolph Ostovich III (USA, ret.);
- Paul Pillar, former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia; and
- Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret.).
Who's Listening?
Why do such distinguished military-intelligence professionals have to take to the pages of a newspaper to try to get the President's attention on such a life-or-death matter for the nation and the world? Because not only is the U.S. President a British pawn, but all the top political institutions—both political parties and the Congress—are currently being controlled by a combination of lunatics and cowards, who refuse to take the most basic measures to save the nation, starting with removing Obama, and then re-imposing Franklin Roosevelt's Glass-Steagall Act.
Indeed, knowledgeable sources report that Obama responded to his top military advisors' request that he "lower the boom" on the Israelis and demand they not carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran, by saying that he would not, and he would "prefer not to know" if the Israelis were going to take this action.
The behavior of the U.S. Congress at the annual AIPAC meetings is reflective of the problem the American public faces (and has in part created). Every year, hundreds of Congressmen and Senators vie with each other to vow more support for Israel, no matter what its policies—and, for the substantial amount of monies which AIPAC provides. When Israeli policy is being steered by a British puppet such as Benjamin Netanyahu, this obeisance can be extremely dangerous.
Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Ehud Barak have spared few efforts in demanding that the U.S. Administration back its intention to take on Iran, even with a preemptive strike. After getting a visit from General Dempsey, in which he was told, according to Dempsey's own report, that an attack on Iran would be "premature" and dangerous, Netanyahu decided to send Barak to Washington prior to the AIPAC meeting, to demand U.S. backing for a military attack against Iran. Among his concerns was that Israeli President Shimon Peres, a representative of the older generation of Israeli founders, had expressed his disagreement with Netanyahu's bellicose perspective for immediate military action. Barak lashed out at Peres, who was scheduled to meet with Obama, for failing to follow the government's line.
At AIPAC itself, it was Netanyahu who took the lead in pushing for war, including—according to press leaks—in his three hours of private meetings with President Obama. Netanyahu is insisting publicly that Israel cannot tolerate Iran having the capability of developing a nuclear weapon—effectively a demand for Iran to give up all uranium enrichment capability and its nuclear science. He is also insisting—according to one report, on the advice of British "Arabist" Bernard Lewis—that any nuclear capability represents an imminent danger to Israel, in effect, that Iran would immediately attack.
At AIPAC, Bibi went for the ultra=dramatic, comparing Iran to Nazi Germany, and reading letters of those who were demanding that President Roosevelt bomb Auschwitz. "We've waited for diplomacy to work; we've waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer," Netanyahu said. "As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation." "It must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself against any threats, he said."
In fact, Iran has no nuclear weapons. Bibi's evaluation is contradicted by the evaluation of all major intelligence agencies in the United States, and by some in Israel itself. Not only is it clear that Iran does not have a nuclear bomb or the means of delivering it, but it is not seeking a war in which it would immediately be subject to incineration from nuclear-armed Israel (if not others).
But Netanyahu's warmongering lunacy is being supported by vocal Senators, including:
- Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.),
- Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.),
- John McCain (R-Ariz.), and
- a host of hysterical Congressmen.
Even more insidious is the back-up being provided by the current leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is following the pathway of promoting disinformation, or simply unsubstantiated rumors, about Iran's nuclear program in a way similar to the path which led to the (British-pushed) disinformation which led to the 2003 Iraq War (see Interview with Robert Kelley, this issue).
The British Hand
The most dangerous aspect of the current war danger is the one which even the most conscientious opponents of preemptive war by Israel, or the United States, are ignoring—the controlling British hand. As LaRouche has repeatedly emphasized, the controlling power in this Middle East cockpit is not the powers in the region, but the British empire, whose masters are seeking to assure their world power by forcing the sovereign nations of Russia and China to capitulate—by threat of nuclear war. Israel, Iran, Syria, even the United States, are only pawns in this imperial strategic game.
All the more reason to reassert America's true interest and sovereignty, not to mention survival—by removing Obama.
