Un autre écho des Bilderberg : la crise iranienne

Le journaliste Daniel Estulin, qui a réussi à couvrir d’une façon exceptionnelle la réunion du groupe des Bilderberg, au début mai, publie la deuxième partie de son article sur le site OnLineJournal le 8 juin

Tous les sujets traités sont intéressants. On s’attache ici à l’un en particulier, qui nous paraît d’une réelle actualité bien qu’il en soit moins question pour l’instant. Il s’agit du long passage consacré à la crise iranienne.

Ce qui est remarquable, c'est le contraste des attitudes et des jugements, même à ce plus haut niveau du groupe des Bilderberg et dans un climat où l'on est conduit à ne pas dissimuler. Chez les américains eux-mêmes, les différences d'attitudes sont frappantes: les accrochages entre Haass et Perle, l'affirmation de l'impossibilité de l'option militaire alors que la présence de militaires à la réunion fait croire à la réalité de cette option, etc.

« A French Bilderberger pointedly asked Henry Kissinger if the US government’s sabre- rattling against Iran means the beginning of new hostilities. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), asking for his turn to speak, dismissed the notion of an Iran invasion as unrealistic due to the sheer physical size of the country and its population size, not to mention billions involved in getting the operation off the ground. Up to the eyeballs in the Iraq quagmire, the United States military is wary of any new adventures in the hostile terrain against a much healthier enemy, both better prepared and organised. A Swiss Bilderberger asked if a hypothetical attack on Iran would involve a preemptive strike against its nuclear sites. Richard Haass replied that such an attack would prove to be counterproductive because Teheran’s counterattack options could range from “unleashing terrorism and promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to triggering oil price increases that could trigger a global economic crisis”.

» During dinner, according to several sources, Richard Perle criticised Haass´ position and explained his opposition to his view.

» A woman believed to be Heather Munroe-Blum, vice-chancellor of McGill University in Quebec, Canada, asked a rhetorical question about what would happen if Iran were to continue building its nuclear arsenal? Haass replied that in this case scenario, the United States would have no choice but to grant Iran the same status as it does to Pakistan and India. .

» A US general commented that the China-Iran-Russia alliance is changing the geopolitical situation in the area. Rapprochement between Russia and China is viewed by the Bilderbergers as a significant event not to be taken lightly, even though it has received little media attention in the west. A secret US government report was cited wherein, according to sources, the Chinese have spent upwards of several billion dollars in acquiring Russia’s latest and most sophisticated weapons technology. Someone pointed out that the Sino-Russian alliance is not limited to military trade and that the non-military exchange of goods has grown 100 percent since the beginning of the Bush presidency. A delegate at the conference, believed to be, but not positively identified by the secret service sources, Anatoliy Sharansky, Israeli former minister for Jerusalem & Diaspora Affairs, stated categorically during a Friday night cocktail party that the counterweight to the Moscow-Beijing-Teheran axis is the US-Israeli-Turkey alliance.

» A financial expert from a European nation intervened by stating that Russia financially is much better off today than four years ago because tax revenues, generated by fuel and arms production and exports as a result of heavy emphasis on military production, have financed strong growth of wages and pension incomes, boosting private consumption. A German Bilderberger pointedly asked Richard Perle if the “war on terrorism” will intensify over the second term of the Bush presidency.

» The feeling of enough-is-enough wasn’t limited to the European Bilderbergers wary of Bush’s Hitler-like delirious proclamations of regime changes worldwide. Haass had pointedly told Richard Perle during a Saturday night cocktail party that the Bush administration has over-estimated its ability to change the world. Haass, according to several sources at the conference is reported to have stated that regime change can be attractive because it “is less distasteful than diplomacy and less dangerous than living with new nuclear states.” However, he noted, “There is only one problem, it is highly unlikely to have the desired effect soon enough.”

» The presence of a top US general, James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and retired US Army General John M. Keane at the Bilderberg meeting in Germany suggested to us that the next stage of the conquest is about to begin.

» An American neocon at an afternoon drink-fest said he was convinced that the “Iranian opposition movement” will unseat the mullahs. Nicholas Beytout, editor-in chief of the French periodical Le Figaro, exclaimed “You don’t really believe that!” A tall, bold, well-dressed Swiss gentleman, believed to be Pascal Couchepin, head of the powerful Department of Home Affairs, replied reflexively that it will only succeed in having the Iranians rally behind their government. He ended by saying “You don’t know Iranians.”

» Tempers boiled over momentarily when a French Bilderberger raising his voice told Kissinger that “an attack on Iran will escalate out of control.” According to sources working for the CIA and the special unit of the US Army charged with protecting the US delegation at Rottach-Egern, both the CIA and the FBI are in open revolt against the Bush White House.

» A member of the Greek Parliament asked Eival Gilady, strategic adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “What would happen if Iran were to retaliate?” Someone pointed out that even if the United States or Israel were to show restraint in their use of tactical nuclear weapons, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would surely not only engulf neighbour state,s raising the likelihood of a broader war, but also would succeed in creating a nuclear disaster through nuclear radiation spilling over a wide area. As a follow up question, someone asked, “How much of this war has to do with America doing its utmost to prevent Iran from becoming a regional power?”

» A French Bilderberger wished to know if the impending attack on Iran would involve the United States and Israel working in tandem or “would it be a NATO operation?” The question was directed at NATO´s Secretary General Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer. Another European Bilderberger wanted to know how the US was planning to cope with three wars simultaneously, referring to Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran. The reader should be reminded that there are now 150,000 US troops deployed in Iraq who are unable to move to another theatre of operations because of effective resistance tactics.

» The Israeli delegation was pressed to answer if they were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The answer was incoherent.

» What is so terrifying about the Iran theatre of operations is that according to our deep sources, both of whom belong to the Bilderberg Group, there are two alternative dates set for the invasion. The earliest possible date would be the “deadest of summer” sometime in August and the other alternative is the late fall campaign. It substantially confirms the information provided by Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector, who stated that “George W. Bush has ‘signed off´ on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.” Ritter goes on to say that the June date suggests that the US and Israel are “in a state of readiness.” »

Mis en ligne le 13 juin 2005 à 22H30