President Obama invokes the NDAA, which authorizes the use of military force, and issues an executive order declaring the “threat” of Iran a National Emergency.
The video below shows this issuance of President Obama executive order which declares Iran’s threat to cut off oil supplies a national emergency.
The executive order directs all government agencies to respond immediately to the threat. It further invokes the authority of the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which gives the President the power to launch military action against any nation without the approval of Congress.
Ironically, the State of Emergency order also accuses the Iranian central bank of deceptive banking practices.
Watch: Obama Signs Executive Order On Iran
For those who think some random serious of events led up to this situation, the following article is a real eye opener. The Brookings Institute laid out the playbook in 2009 on how to provoke a war with Iran and garner international support for and invasion.
Comparing the chain of events since then, it is pretty clear that the war hawks have followed the playbook to the tee so far. It is quite scary thinking about the the next steps in the playbook – an Iran sponsored 9/11 attack.
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
In a 2009 policy paper,published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia, including such measures as bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering in the shape of an all-out military assault on Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of an unwavering resolve by the Anglo-American establishment to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources at the same time.
The group of authors — a cozy little convergence of globalists — contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but really amounts to little more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded into the trashcan of history. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.
To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:
‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’
This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):
‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’
But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favorable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.
‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’
Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset behind those words. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the obvious bravura of their manuscript.
‘We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’
As this geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting on the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:
‘Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’
And exactly in line with their master’s tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.
‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’
Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it? Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:
‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’
Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):
‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” becomes irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘
