In the early 1960s, the USSR committed an act of aggression against the US. It provided a smaller nation on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean (Cuba) with the ability to become a nuclear power. As Cuba was near to the US, this arming of Cuba posed a direct threat to the US.
The situation was considered so great a threat to the US that President John Kennedy risked starting a world war to have the nuclear weapons removed.
War was averted (barely), and the US has been patting itself on its back ever since for standing up for its stance on "world freedom from nuclear war."
That's essentially the story as it has come down to us.
Today, in the Middle East, we have a situation in which Iran is enriching uranium—purportedly for peaceful purposes. The US government states regularly that this cannot be tolerated—that, if necessary, the US may need to take up arms against Iran to make sure that they never use their uranium to develop an atomic bomb.
This stance is presented to the American people as being in keeping with its former opposition regarding Cuba—a stance for world freedom from nuclear war. (The mind conjures up an image of John Kennedy and Barrack Obama standing together in front of an American flag, waving in the breeze.)
But let's take a step back here for a moment and ask ourselves if there is a true parallel between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the present stance of the US government.
If we were to rewrite the first paragraph in this article, plugging in the names of countries that are most appropriate, we come up with the following:
The US committed an act of aggression against the Middle East. It provided a smaller nation on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean (Israel) with the ability to become a nuclear power. As Israel was in the Middle East, this arming of Israel posed a direct threat to the Middle East and Russia.
The level of assistance that the US provided to Israel can be debated, but, to be sure, the US has contributed billions of dollars, plus provided extensive military expertise to Israel over the years. Today, although Israel refuses to confirm its possession of nuclear warheads, the best estimates suggest that it possesses close to two hundred nuclear weapons and can reportedly create another hundred weapons if need be.
Although Israel is recognised as the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons, it is not recognised as a Nuclear Weapons State under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). To date they have refused to sign the NPT and, accordingly, are not monitored in any way internationally.
Somehow, the Western press have managed to overlook the rather large elephant in the room.
Astoundingly, it is forbidden for US politicians to even acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons (see this video).
Iran might develop a nuclear weapon, and it might not. (Uranium is not used only for nukes—it has other non-military uses.) In addition, creating a nuclear warhead would take them years. To date the only "proof" that Iran might create a nuke is that provided by the UN stating that they have received "intelligence" to that effect from an unnamed country, assumed to be Israel.
Those readers who remember the US foray into Iraq a decade ago will remember that the invasion was based upon the "certainty" from intelligence that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction." Although no trace of any such weapons was ever found, the US did not bother to apologise for this minor oversight after its goal of conquering Iraq had been achieved.
To add further to this imbalance in the possession of nukes, the Saudis have allegedly purchased nukes from Pakistan (which are available to be delivered at a moment's notice), leap-frogging them ahead of Iran; yet, the Western world offers no criticism of this potential for aggression. But then, Saudi Arabia is the lynchpin to the petrodollar system.
It has been said by many historians over the ages that when an empire is reaching a stage of economic collapse, its leaders commonly turn to the distraction of warfare in order to remain in power a bit longer. Indeed, this has been the case throughout history, and it has been proven to be an effective ploy.
If a country is on the economic ropes and is due for a fall, there are two major advantages to creating an excuse to go to war.
First, war creates a distraction. It keeps the population's eye off the economic ball sufficiently enough to allow the government to continue its destructive economic policies a while longer—postponing, but not eliminating the inevitable.
Second, a country at war is, in effect, in an "emergency" situation. Invariably, its government uses the opportunity to "temporarily" remove freedoms (which may not be reinstated after the war). The government therefore has the ability to diminish the rights of its people with impunity, thereby creating a greater control over them.
Although the majority of the people of the US have not supported attacking the Middle East as the government has wished, the government continues to push for war. In the UK, the government has similarly been pressed by its people to stand down.
So, how will this play out? Will the governments drop the scam? Not likely. After all, they need their distraction, or the main issue will once again become the economy.
Traditionally, in such circumstances (The Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, etc.), one of three tactics is employed by a government that is determined to go to war but is having a rather dodgy time convincing its public to move ahead:
- Create a false-flag attack (Spanish-American War, German invasion of Poland, etc.)
- Claim to have been attacked when no attack has taken place (Vietnam—Gulf of Tonkin)
- Prod the opposition until they respond by attacking (World War I, World War II, etc.)
Each of the above is extraordinarily easy to do. It could be as simple as sending an American ship into the Strait of Hormuz, where it is then sunk. It is then simple enough to arrange for "witnesses" to be interviewed who will say they saw an attack by "the enemy." (Syrians, Iranians, Russians—take your pick.)
The people of a country are rarely fooled into going to war as a "humanitarian obligation." They are almost always pushed over the edge when they have been fooled into believing that they are under a personal threat of some kind.
We should therefore not expect to see Israel deprived of its nuclear power. Instead, we should expect to see the next World War triggered by some small, questionable event. When that happens, we should also expect to see the rights of those who live in allied countries removed in a way not hitherto imagined.
If the reader currently lives in a country where rights are already eroding rapidly, he may wish to consider the potential for further loss, under the pretext of a "national emergency."
Editor’s Note: Internationalization is your ultimate insurance policy. Whether it’s with a second passport, offshore physical gold storage, or other measures, it is critically important that you dilute the amount of control the bureaucrats in your home country wield over you by diversifying your political risk. Watch Doug Casey discuss this important topic in a new video interview by clicking here.