Breaking: Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran

Breaking!! Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!

"NeoCon At Globalist Think-Tank Says Use False Flag to Start War With Iran"
Occupy Corporatism
Susanne Posel
September 26, 2012

Patrick Clawson, member of the globalist-controlled think-tank and neo-con influenced Washington Institute for Near East Studies (WINES); recently spoke about the use of false flags as a necessary way for instigating a war with Iran. Clawson remarked that Obama has had a difficult time “getting the US into a war with Iran” and advocating the use of conventional means (i.e. using a false flag to provoke a military strike).

Clawson said: “If in fact Iran is not going to compromise, then it would be best if someone else started the war. . . One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people – Iranian submarines go down all the time. What if one of them did not come back up? Who would know why?”

The WINES was founded by Martin Indyk, an academic and deputy of research for the Zionist lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Through AIPAC, the US government supplies Israel with:

• Defense intelligence and military security
• Counterterrorism
• Technologies that facilitate defense and military equipment
• Science and agricultural products

The WINES attempts to coerce the US Congress into following their “recommendations” with conferences, the Military Fellows Program (which has ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and the RAND Corporation), the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress , and secret meetings; as well as a multitude of publications and research reports. WINES instill Zionist propaganda and demonize Arabs and Muslims. However, they are hand-in-hand with one of the largest Zionist-controlled and pro-Israeli lobby in the US.

The neocon phenomenon consists of Zionists and sympathizers that dictate and coerce US foreign policy to reflect the agendas of the Zionist regime. According to neocon Irving Kristol, founder of the movement and the Commentary Magazine , the neoconservative agenda is explained as: “The historical task and political purpose of neo-conservatism is to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their prospective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

Kristol believes that the US can be compared to the Soviet Union in ideology and interests. “The US will then always feel obliged to defend a democratic nation under attack from non-democratic forces, external or internal. That is why we feel it is necessary to defend Israel when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

Prominent neocons have purveyed the Zionist agenda such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeanne Kilpatrick, Norman Podheretz, Joshua Goldberg, and many others.

Evidence of the power of WINES was manifest in the bill HR 4133 which allocates US resources to Israel at the expense of the taxpayer. This legislation marks Obama’s unwavering commitment to Israel as a puppet of the global Elite. Israel may siphon money from the Federal Reserve, use the US military at their whim and expect the backing of the US government during provoked attacks of other Middle Eastern sovereign nations.

Mainstream media is following the Zionist script to the letter in regard to the false claims of Iranian endeavors to build nuclear weapons. Now there are reports that Iran is capable of launching a pre-emptive strike should Israel attack, as they are threatening to do.

According to Amir Ali Hajizadeh, brigadier general for the CIA-sponsored Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps states that: “Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it.”

Hajizadeh explains that the Zionist-controlled Israeli government will not start “a war without America’s support. Therefore, in case of a war, we will get into a war with both of them and we will certainly get into a conflict with American bases.”

Other propaganda purveyed by an anonymous expert claims that Iran “will attack the forces of the US or any country that tries to take out its nuclear program are not mere boasts, experts say, but any such strike could be met with devastating counterattacks.”

The Zionist regime are continuously decrying that Iran has a nuclear weapon. However, this is an old game they are playing and the American public’s memory may be too short to recall how many times this lie has been perpetrated. In the past, there have been several claims by Israeli Prime Minister and globalist puppet Benjamin Netanyahu and other supporters of the lie that Iran was on the precipice of having a nuclear weapon.

In 1992, Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
In 1992, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
In 1995, New York Times reports US and Israel claim Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
In 1998, speaking before Congress Donald Rumsfeld proclaims Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

The reality is that between 1985 and 2002 the Israeli Ministry of Defense used shell corporations to smuggle nuclear triggers from the US. One of the operatives, Richard Kelly Smith, met with Netanyahu who worked for one of the shell corporations called Heli Trading Company and was an integral part of the smuggling ring.

In the 1950’s the US assisted Iranian nuclear endeavors with the aid of Atoms for Peace program that united the US and other European governments to contribute to Iran’s nuclear program until the state-sponsored removal of the Shah of Iran. When the US-friendly Ayatollah Khomeini was installed, he disbanded the nuclear program citing conflictions of nuclear weapons with the Qur’an.

Still, mainstream media continues to sound the alarm that Iran not only has nuclear weapons, but will strike US bases if attacked by Israel. While Iran maintains that their nuclear program is to develop power for their nation, Israeli officials, including Netanyahu say: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explains that Iran does not take the Zionist regime’s threats of military strike seriously. Ahmadinejad asserts that Iran is quite capable of defending itself against an attack with Israeli armed forces. He also said that Iran views the Zionists at a “dead end” and scrambling to gain ground and maintain power.

Lobbyist: Launch Staged Provocation To Start War With Iran Lobbyist: Launch Staged Provocation To Start War With Iran

“We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians”

Paul Joseph Watson
September 26, 2012

A member of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank has brazenly suggested that the United States should launch a false flag provocation in order to start a war with Iran.

Speaking at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” WINEP director of research Patrick Clawson listed a raft of historical examples of where governments have either staged or exploited attacks in order to become embroiled in war.

Clawson is also a former senior economist with the IMF and the World Bank.

Lamenting how it is “Very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson added, “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.”

By the “traditional way,” Clawson clearly intimated that he thinks the U.S. should stage or provoke an attack in order to create a manufactured casus belli for striking Iran.

“We can do a variety of things to increase the pressure,” said Clawson as fellow attendees at the luncheon snickered, adding that sanctions are not the only option and that “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it.”

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson said.

Mentioning an incident on August 17 when power cables serving the Fordow Enrichment Plant were severed by an explosion, Clawson stated, “Iranian submarines periodically go down, someday one of them might not come up – who would know why? – clearly hinting that the U.S. should attack Iranian ships in order to provoke a response.

Reeling off a number of incidents that the U.S. President “had to wait for” before taking America to war, Clawson mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin, the Lusitania, the attack on the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, as well as the attack on Fort Sumter during Abraham Lincoln’s tenure.

Every one of those events is historically recognized to have been staged to some degree or at least known ahead of time and exploited.

The explosion which sunk the USS Maine on 15 February 1898 and drove the United States into a war with Spain was most likely an accident. However, an aggressive propaganda campaign run by the king of yellow journalism William Randolph Hearst ensured that Americans were hoodwinked into blaming Spain and throwing their support behind the war.

The sinking of the Lusitania, which helped bring America into World War One, was also a planned provocation. In September 2008, a diving expedition confirmed speculation that had raged for decades – the ship was carrying a huge amount of munitions and was a legitimate target for German U-boats. Before the ship sailed, the Germans made it clear they knew the boat was carrying munitions and would target the Lusitania.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known ahead of time and allowed to happen. The McCollum memo, written on October 7, 1940, by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence, detailed eight actions that could be used to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Freedom of Information Act files confirm that that United States had intercepted Admiral Yamamoto’s radio messages sent weeks before December 7 1941, one of which made it clear that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

In the case of the Gulf of Tonkin, the supposed second attack by the North Vietnamese which the White House cited in sending troops to Vietnam did not take place. In an interview for a documentary called The Fog of War, then Defense Secretary Robert S McNamara admits that the attack “didn’t happen.”

In listing these examples, Clawson is shamelessly calling for the United States to stage or provoke an incident as a means of manufacturing a pretext to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Washington's Blog weighs in...

Will Israel Launch a False Flag Against Iran to Start War?
Will Israel Blow Up Something and Falsely Blame It On Iran?

If this isn't PNACish........

If this isn't PNACish........I don't know what is. I guess that is the message.


File under 'Cartoons of Mass Destruction and Distraction'.

Acme Bomb

That bomb is the same one produced by The Acme Bomb Company; I am very familiar with that model.

Hatched from my own brain.....

While that comment was, I thought, unique to me it seems that the whole world is making the same correlation; that this is an Acme Bomb. It seems Bibi has stepped in it big time and made a laughing stock of himself. I can only hope that the backlash is one based on wisdom acquired through learning and experience in the sense of Santayana who said: "Those who can't remember history are doomed to repeat it." This wisdom could also haven arisen through a more cursory and perfunctory fashion and not from any deep insight and that would be that we have graduated from the sandbox of The United Nations Show and Tell Time . As another great philosopher, who rivals the stature of Santayana, once said: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool can't get fooled again."

CrossTalk: BiBi's Bomb

CrossTalk: BiBi's Bomb

Published on Sep 28, 2012 by RussiaToday

Is there a fog of war? After years of threat, will Israel attack Iran? And is Iran really a danger to Israel? What role will the US play in this? Is Netanyahu terrified of Obama? And how will the US-Israeli relations evolve? CrossTalking with Miko Peled and Gideon Levy.

Complete YouTube - Q&A Question by Barbra

Q&A Question by Barbra , answered by Dennis Ross, followed by Patrick Clawson begins at 1 Hr.11 Minutes
How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout - complete YouTube

Published on Sep 24, 2012 by WashingtonInstitute
Dennis Ross, Patrick Clawson, and David Makovsky discuss how the United States and Israel can regain the initiative in halting Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons.

Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the declared policy of both the U.S. and Israeli governments. This past spring and summer, The Washington Institute convened strategic dialogues with a small group of knowledgeable and influential Israelis and Americans to discuss bilateral consultation on advancing the policy of prevention. In the wake of those meetings, Patrick Clawson and David Makovsky have written a soon-to-be-released report regarding the various issues and tensions that affect such consultation. The report includes a variety of proposals for how the United States and Israel can get back the initiative in halting Tehran's nuclear progress.

To discuss their findings, The Washington Institute held a Policy Forum luncheon with the authors, joined by Ambassador Dennis Ross, in Washington, DC, on Friday, September 21, 2012.

Dennis Ross rejoined The Washington Institute as counselor in December 2011 after serving as special assistant to President Obama, senior director for the central region at the National Security Council, and special advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, focusing on Iran. Previously, he played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the peace process for more than twelve years, dealing directly with the parties in negotiations.

Patrick Clawson is director of research and head of the Iran Security Initiative at the Institute. A Persian speaker, he is the author or editor of eighteen books and studies on Iran as well as more than 150 articles on the Middle East. Previously, he served at the National Defense University, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, among other institutions.

David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Institute, where he directs the Project on the Middle East Peace Process and has chaired two rounds of U.S.-Israeli dialogue on Iran. His publications include a just-released New Yorker essay on Israel's 2007 bombing of Syria's nuclear reactor titled "The Silent Strike."
News & Politics
Standard YouTube License

Patrick Clawson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Patrick Lyell Clawson (born 1951-03-30[1]) is an American economist and Middle East scholar. He is currently the Director for Research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of Middle East Quarterly.
Born in Alexandria, Virginia, Clawson graduated with a B.A. from Oberlin College in 1973 and earned a Ph.D. from The New School for Social Research in 1978. He taught at Seton Hall University from 1979–1981 and served as an economist for the International Monetary Fund from 1981 until 1985, when he took a position as a senior economist with the World Bank. In 2012 it was discussed by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy how the United States and Israel can regain the initiative in halting Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons. As a speaker Patrick Clawson openly suggest among others that a Gulf Of Tonkin style event be engineered in order to force a war into being.[2]

I am not selling religion.......

I am not selling religion 'cause I am like a big atheist and stuff and Richard Dawkins is one of my heros. But I did have a requisite sojourn through a Catholic education because, as I like to say, look at my last name and do the math. However, certain things about religion have had a profound influence on me among which are: the serenity of Zen, the metaphysics of Hinduism, the reckless abandonment of Sufism, the Midrashism of Judaism and influences from other religions as well. Below is a list of things that were formalized in my personal religious training that I found touching and stirring that I try to live up to when my head is not up my...... Note that nowhere in the list are any provisions for stirring up s*it. Pardon mon Français.

Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy

The corporal works of mercy are:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.


is yet another of those supposed advocates of critical thinking who doesn't practice what he preaches where 9/11 is concerned. Meanwhile, there are adherents of different religious traditions who (in addition to many atheists) can see that the official 9/11 story is a bunch of crap. Conclusion: Atheism is not ipso facto an indicator that one is immune from being duped by the government and mass media. Nor is religious belief an indicator that one necessarily will be so duped.

No argument from me there....

My sole reason for the post was that seeing yet another attempt to start a war evoked within me a memory of certain religious influences that, and I am sure they are shared by many, strive for the betterment of humanity and don't have within their synthesis the kinds of vulgar proclivities that would lead to misery for, say, the Iranians. I could have merely quoted Twain's The War Prayer or shouted ahimsa and been done with it but I went out on a limb, in an emotional sense, to show that even a reprobate like me can sense that: this is wrong! I don't know anything about the politics of Richard Dawkins

Just something to chew on.....

When doing my Senior Culminating Experience in Psychology at the U. I was lucky to be under the tutelage of one of the principal Neurophysiologists in the world. I can not stress enough that this guy was a leading light of academia, he was at the top of the field. Now, just as an aside, let me state that in no way had I arisen to this association through any spate of brilliance: they offered the course and I took it. Well, it came to my attention that certain psychologists thought that you could heal lesions in the brain by talking to people. This I found through the Psych Clinic: I bristled at this because Psychology is supposed to be a branch of Philosophy not medicine and it was from these same quarters that psychologists were demanding the right to dispense psychotropic medicine without medical training based on the fact that they had seen it done before. Certain states allow this privilege to psychologists. Well, since I was at the U. to get an education, I set out to see what I could find out about these lesions. I found no professors who could point to any such lesions, none were mentioned in The DSMR Diagnostic Statistical Manual the Bible of psychological disorders. I thought that a principle researcher in the world in the field of neurophysiology might be able to steer me around to where I could find some photomicrographs of some brain lesions or maybe some MRIs or CAT Scans, or something. So, I turned to my astute professor the principal Neurophysiolgist in the world and he said: "I can't talk about that. I am doing important research and I need a place to hang my hat." In other words, this was a Freudian School, though no one would admit it the open, and if he went against the grain he would be fired. So, just a thought. There is a lot of fear out there obscuring other things besides 9/11 and this professor remains the leading light in his research area.

Respond to Clawson & WINES in a Firm Way - we need to be louder


Patrick Clawson, Ph.D., Deputy Director for Research,
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy;
Tel: 202-452-0650 ext. 220 (office), 202-302-1722 (cell);

When some professors spoke out about 9/11, their academic freedom was harshly suppressed. But when these intellectual wimps call for war, they never feel any heat. I encourage everyone to respond to Clawson, an "expert" who can't even stand a street fight for 5 seconds is calling for covert means of initiating war. CC'ing WINES members and other think tank members so they understand that the general public knows he's advocating war crimes here. We need to be louder here.

Nuremberg Principles, Principle VI
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Thanks for nuttin'

Now you've shamed me into emailing these dickweeds. I can't went for the black helos. Well it was getting a little boring around here anyway. Here is my contribution for what it is worth:

Your rhetoric sounds like The Project for a New American Century a group so reviled they had to pull down their web presence. Also, your web site has the look and feel of a military drum head. Why don't a few of you enlist or go to OCS or something? Why not open up another front as we are doing so well over there already:

Travel Advisory Afghanistan:

THREATS TO SAFETY AND SECURITY: The latest Travel Warning for Afghanistan warns U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan and states clearly that the security situation remains critical. No part of Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence, and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts, either targeted or random, against U.S. and other Western nationals at any time. Source: State Department

Travel Advisory Iraq:

THREATS TO SAFETY AND SECURITY: The Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the dangers inherent in travel to Iraq and recommends against all but essential travel to the country given the dangerous security situation. Some regions within Iraq have experienced fewer violent incidents than others in recent years, in particular the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR). However, violence and threats against U.S. citizens persist and no region should be considered safe. Source: State Department

Looks like were winning, eh?

Twice recipient of The Medal of Honor General Smedley Butler stated:

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

So what is your ante, your lives or your dollars? Because the Marines are always looking for a few good men. Then again, there is always the IDF.

Peter F. O'Rourke

From PCR:

In the houses of shadow everybody lies

Its like looking into a pool of eels.