Mahmoud AhmadinejadWhile it is all very easy for the news media, sundry interest groups, and government functionaries throughout the world to dismiss Dr Ahmadinejad as a Mad Mullah beyond the ken of rational debate, perhaps that is because Iran’s president poses questions that are too near the mark to allow a sensible hearing.

As if it weren’t enough being the leader of a large Islamic nation that does not kowtow to the USA and to Israel, Dr Ahmadinejad put himself beyond redemption for eternity by suggesting that “holocaust revisionism” should be subjected to the same standards of scholarly scrutiny as any other historical matter,[1] and like the Left-wing Jewish academic Prof. Norman G Finkelstein, suggested that the holocaust was being exploited for political and economic motives.[2] Being Jewish, Left-wing and the son of parents who had survived both the Warsaw Ghetto and Nazi concentration camps,[3] didn’t save Finkelstein from the Zionist smear-brigade, so Dr Ahmadinejad is not about to be cut any slack.

When Dr Ahmadinejad reached the UN podium on September 24, it is certain that Israel, the USA and sundry lackeys to both states, waited with baited breath to see what the president would do this time to try and expose their corrupt system before what remains of states that have any sense of national sovereignty and dignity. The reaction of the delegates from the USA, Australia, New Zealand, all 27 delegates from the EU states, Canada, and Costa Rica was to walk out en mass — the response of those who have nothing thoughtful or honest to offer. In New Zealand’s case, our state relies of moral posturing at world forums to compensate for national impotence.

Dr Ahmadinejad suggested before the General Assembly in regard to 9/11 that scenarios might include:

1. That a “powerful and complex terrorist group” which is “advocated by American statesmen,” penetrated US intelligence and defences.

2. “That some segments within the US Government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grip on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.”

3. That the attack was the work of “a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation.”[4]

    According to media reports, “Ahmadinejad said the US used the September 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people.”[5]

    Media reports incredulously claim that Dr Ahmadinejad did not explain the logic behind blaming the US for the terror attacks but state there were three theories (as listed above). Well surely the three theories are three explanations for the “logic behind blaming the US”?

    While it might be questionable for Dr Ahmadinejad to have stated that “the majority” of Americans support the view that 9/11 was a Zionist jack up somewhere along the line, as well as the view of other nations and politicians, the view – of course dismissed by orthodox academia, media and government functionaries as “conspiracy theory” – is certainly a one that is at least very widespread, including among many professionals in the relevant sentences for investigating such matters. There are also many oddities about events before and after 9/11, such as the large number of Israelis who were acting suspiciously and were rounded up and deported from the USA, albeit quietly, and the antics of five Israeli “moving company” employees[6] dancing atop a warehouse roof in New Jersey at the time of the Twin Towers collapse, arrested and questioned for several months by the FBI, at least two of whom were found to be Mossad operatives.[7]

    These matters will not concern us here however, as the internet has abundant details.

    What we will consider here is:

    1. Have such methods, as suggested by Dr Ahmadinejad been used before to justify wars?

    2. Was there a long-range plan to use conflict scenarios as justification for the invasion of states in order to secure “regime change” in the interests of Israel?

      False Flag Operations

      The 9/11 attacks have been called “False Flag operations.” Media and others bleat about this “conspiracy theory” as though the concept has just been conceived by paranoid mentalities. The False Flag operation has been frequently used to instigate conflicts, and many such incidences are recognized by orthodox academe and media. Therefore, what makes 9/11 so inconceivable as a False Flag operation?

      Examples of False Flag operations accepted as such by orthodox academe include:

      1. The Manchurian Incident, 1931, when Japanese officers contrived a pretext for invading Manchuria by blowing up part of the Japanese owned railway.[8]

      2. Gleiwitz, Poland, 1939. German soldiers dressed in Polish uniforms attacked and occupied a German radio station near the Polish border. Several German prisoners dressed as Polish soldiers were left dead at the scene. The incident was used to justify the invasion of Poland. Other incidences under “Operation Himmler” occurred simultaneously along the border.[9]

      3. Mainila, Russia, 1939. The Soviets shelled this Russian town near the Finnish border, claiming that it had been bombed by the Finns, using this as a pretext for invasion.[10]

      4. Cairo and Alexandria, 1954, The Lavon Affair. Israeli agents bombed American and British properties in Egypt for the purpose of blaming the Egyptians. The nine Egyptian Jews involved were honoured in 2005 by the Israeli Government, despite the operation supposedly being of a “rogue” nature.[11]

      5. USA-Cuba, 1962. Operation Northwoods, conceived by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed off by Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer. The plan included the sinking of a US ship near Cuba, airplane hijackings, and bombings throughout the USA, which would be made to appear to be of Cuban origin. The plan was scotched by Kennedy, but was later exposed by James Bamford via the Freedom of Information Act. The purpose of this plan is instructive in the context of 9/11:

        The desired result from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.[12]

        While not a “False Flag” operation, Pearl Harbor is worth mentioning in this context. It has long been contended by many well placed individuals, including ex-military commanders on Hawaii, that the Roosevelt Administration was forewarned of the Japanese attack due to having broken the Japanese naval codes, but failed to warn the Pearl Harbor command of the attack so that maximum propaganda could be obtained. Col. Curtis Dall, President Roosevelt’s son-in-law, was on the inside of what went on in Washington at that time, as well as interviewing in 1967 retired Admiral Husband A Kimmel, Commanding Officer at Pearl Harbor.[13] In a scenario familiar to those who consider 9/11 to be a False Flag operation, Dall cites the November 25, 1941 entry from US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson’s diary:

        The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot, without allowing too much damage to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.[14]

        The Stimson comment follows the strategy recommended by Lt. Commander Arthur H McCollum, director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Fear East Asia section, who had on October 7, 1940, over a year prior to Pearl Harbor, drafted a memorandum, suggesting methods of goading Japan into attacking the USA to justify America’s entry into the war, and move public opinion which was overwhelmingly isolationist. McCollum outlined eight points of policy that might provoke Japan into an action against the USA, the problem as McCollum stated it being that, “It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado…”[15] McCollum concludes by unequivocally stating: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.”[16]

        Zionist Strategy Formulated in 1996

        While the USA, Israel and their hangers-on feign ignorance as to why there would be any rational explanation for a False Flag operation in regard to 9/11, the US strategy that was subsequently pursued after the Twin Towers topplings follows a scenario that was formulated in 1996, five years previously. The strategy document entitled A Clean Break was prepared by the Study Group for a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, a group set up by the think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies headquartered in Jerusalem.[17] Its authors described as “prominent opinion makers,” were listed as follows:

        Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, study group leader; James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; Charles Fairbanks Jr., Johns Hopkins University, Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates; Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies; Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy; David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies; Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University.

        Of these, in the Bush Administration Perle became director of the Defense Policy Board; Feith, Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon; and David Wurmser, personal assistant to Chief Policy Adviser John Bolton, another Zionist.

        The strategy document, A Clean Break focused primarily on removing Syria and Iraq as obstacles to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, with the focus specifically being as a first step to remove Saddam, “an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” Of particular interest is the recommendation that  “Cold War” type rhetoric be utilized for propaganda purposes in order to garner US support for an expanded Israeli role in the region in destabilising and “rolling back” regimes that are obstacles to Israel:

        To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel.

        Hence, the oft-used references in the document to how Israel has a shared vision with the USA based on “Western values” and how it is a bulwark for those values surrounded by hostile regimes. This strategy has been pursued of course with vigor since Zionist David Frum, White House speechwriter for Bush, coined the term “axis of evil.”

        This document also reiterated the need for Israel to resume the aggressive policy of “pre-emption” rather than just “retaliation,” for the purpose not only of overcoming Israel’s enemies but of “transcending” them.[18]

        In 2002 the Project for a New American Century presented a policy document in the form of a letter to George W Bush amongst whose signatories was again Richard Perle.[19] This coterie reiterated the common bond between Israel and the USA in the wake of 9/11 as fellow “free and democratic” nations, adding: “We are both targets of what you have correctly called an ‘Axis of Evil,'” a term which was itself a Zionist contrivance, as referred to above.

        Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing” against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.

        Here we have for the most part Zionists defining what are “American principles,” declaring those principles to also be Israel’s and identifying the common enemies that must be destroyed in a “war on international terrorism,” those enemies being Iran, Iraq and Syria, in addition to a subsequent reference to Afghanistan.

        The nightmare scenario of attacks on the USA by Iraq – and Iran – is then emphasized, by the familiar but entirely discredited theme of “weapons of mass destruction.”

        Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel….

        …Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

        The rhetoric is that of Cold War type propaganda recommended in 1996 in the Clean Break document. In fact the founding statement of the Project for a New American Century unequivocally states that it has been formed amidst what it attempts to project as a new “Cold War” type world crisis scenario, precisely as the Study Group for a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000 had recommended the year previously as a propaganda ploy to get the American public behind an aggressive US-Zionist alliance.

        As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[20]

        That same year – 2000 – also, the Project for a New American Century, issued an agenda for post-Cold War foreign policy doctrine.[21] The PNAC report emphasizes the need to maintain US weapons supremacy. The PNAC, as the name of the organization implies, is unapologetically dedicated to maintaining the USA as the center for world control; an American world empire whose hegemony is unchallenged; to not only “preserve but to ‘enhance’ what is called “American peace,”[22] “Pax Americana,” as it is called.[23] The neo-Cold Warriors of the PNAC emphasize in their document that a major concern is that with the demise of big power rivalries after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the USA will become complacent, and there will be an ongoing process of military stagnation, rather than seeking not only to preserve but to “enhance” (sic) US hegemony. Again, like the concerns of the architects of the McCollum Memorandum and Operation Northwoods, the problem is to overcome this complacency, since “that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.”[24] Here again we come to the crisis scenario that is needed to shock the USA and its allies out of complacency and justify the USA’s global military supremacy: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[25]

        The current “war on terrorism” has been long in the making. The propaganda has been contrived to generate a new Cold War type hysteria, “Islamofascism” being among the new propaganda terms for the purpose. One of the primary goals of eliminating Saddam Hussein has been achieved. There remains Iran, with the war drums being beaten in that direction for the past several years, utilizing the same discredited allegations about “weapons of mass destruction” that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq; while Syria has been listed as the next victim. For UN delegations led by the USA to walk out on Iran’s President in feigned moral indignation that anyone could suggest that 9/11 could have been an inside jack-up, promptly followed by President Obama chastising Dr Ahmadinejad for such blasphemy is of course merely disingenuous humbuggery, given that such False Flag operations have been planned often enough previously both by the USA and Israel.

        [1] Ahmadinejad at Holocaust Conference: Israel will soon be ‘wiped out,’” December 12, 2006,

        [2] Norman G Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2001).

        [3] Ibid., 5.

        [4] “Ahmadinejad’s speech leads to walkout at UN,” The Dominion Post, Wellington, New Zealand, September 25, 2010, A21.

        [5] Ibid.

        [6] Urban Moving Systems, found by the FBI to be a Mossad front, the owner quickly departed back to Israel after initial questioning by the FBI. Marc Perelman, “Spy rumors on gusts of truth,” Forward, New York, March 15, 2002.

        [7] Marc Perelman, ibid.

        [8] C Peter Chen, “Mukden Incident and Manchukuo,” World War II Database,

        [9] Andrzej Jarczewski (Steward to the Gliwice Radio Station), Radio Station Gliwice Museum,

        [10] Robert Edwards, White Death: Russia’s War on Finland 1939–40,  (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2006), 105.

        [11] “Israel honors nine Egyptian [sic] spies, ”Reuters, March 30, 2005,,2506,L-3065838,00.html#n

        [12] “September 11 – Another Operation Northwoods?,” (from chapter 4 of Bamford)

        James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency From the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century (New York: Doubleday, 2001). The Operation Northwoods memorandum can be found at The National Security Archive, George Washington University,

        [13] Anthony J Hilder, The War Lords of Washington: an Interview with Col. Curtis Dall (California: Institute for Historical Review, n.d.).

        [14] Ibid., 11. Dall relates that Kimmel told him that US Secretary of State Marshall got around to telegraphing Kimmel via regular commercial channels about the “impending” attack two hours after the event.  Dall, ibid., 15-16.

        [15] Arthur H McCollum, “Memorandum for the Director, Subject: Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States,” October 7, 1940, Point 9.

        [16] McCollum, ibid., Point 10.

        [17] “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1996,

        [18] Ibid.

        [19] William Kristol et al, letter to President Bush, April 3, 2002, Project for A New American Century,

        [20] Project for a New American Century, “Statement of Principles,” June 3, 1997,

        [21] Thomas Donnelly, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Force and Resources for a New Century, Project for a New American Century, September 2000,

        [22] Ibid., iv.

        [23] Ibid., 1.

        [24] Ibid, 50-51.

        [25] Ibid., 51.