Invasion of Iran has been a hot topic among peace activists for years and we’ve yet to see it happen. But nothing happened, and the war on Iran has looked everything from a smoke and mirror diversion to being just around the corner for almost two years.
Council of Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski is now openly saying that the US may actually go ahead and invade Iran – using false-flag government terrorism as a pretext. He met with the US Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations yesterday and said this:
“A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.”
brzezinskitestimony070201.pdf
If this does not sound alarming to you then you are likely not aware who Brzezinski is, who the CFR are, and the role Brzezinski has played in shaping world history so far. He’s not just some guy.
Take a deep breath and consider what had to say Brzezinski about CIA intervention in Afghanistan in 1998:
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? – 1998
The following is from is – among some – famous book “The Grand Chessboard”:
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. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 24–25)
America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 35–36)
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 circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.
(Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, p. 211)
Brzezinski is not someone to be taken lightly. He is also not someone known to publicly warn against war, on the contrary, he has a record of trying to agressively expand the American Empire. So why is he warning that false-flag terror may be used as a pretext to attack Iran? Perhaps he’s seeing that fascism sounds better when it’s debated behind closed CFR-doors than it actually is when you wake up and smell it.
