On June 24, 2008 on the Alex Jones Show, a nationally syndicated news/talk program that also has a huge Internet audience, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern discussed the potential for a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran before the Bush Administration leaves office next year.

     Former morning briefer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., McGovern noted that Iran is carefully avoiding any actions that could be interpreted as provocations for an attack: hence justification for an attack would require a pretext manufactured by the Administration and/or the Israelis.

      In an editorial published by AntiWar.com on June 20, McGovern had brought our attention to a little-noticed statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about a June 4 White House meeting with President George W. Bush:

       We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem.

George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House.1

       McGovern concluded that a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall, when the Bush Administration and allies in Israel will launch attacks against Iran.

       There is reason to hypothesize that the requisite staged provocation for an attack on Iran has already been planned and is scheduled to take place in Denver at the time of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in late August.

       This hypothesis stems from information from insider geopolitical specialists who are disgusted by the ruthless onslaught of fascism in the United States and are fighting it at great risk from behind the scenes.

         It is also supported by circumstantial evidence, including “anti-terrorism” drills held in Denver throughout the week of June 16, 2008. The weeklong “realistic urban environment” drills conducted by the U.S. Special Operations Command, which coordinates all the military branches’ crack commando units from Army Rangers to Navy SEALS, featured unmarked black helicopters conducting maneuvers and landings as well as the loading and unloading of Special Operations forces at multiple locations in the city. Two major staging grounds placed under military control with the blessing of the city were a large abandoned rubber factory on the south side of Denver and the former Children’s Hospital at Downey and 21^st Street.

       A Halliburton truck was observed with the designation “Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team” (CST), a team sporting a number of large SUVs carrying sophisticated communication equipment. A special Department of Defense anti-terrorism unit based in Wyoming, CST was present in Denver in alignment with the scenario posited by the drills: the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction, such as a radioactive dirty bomb, that would kill 20,000 people.2

      In other major false flag “terrorist” events, such as the 9/11 attacks on U.S. targets in 2001 and the “7/7” subway bombings in London in 2005, prior terrorism drills were held that were similar in key aspects to the later false flag events themselves.

             Dry run preparations for a dirty bomb would provide valuable experience regarding implementing that particular event in that particular urban location (such as familiarity with the city layout, including that of subways and hospitals).

            Anti-terrorism, anti-protest, and other security measures would already be in place at the time of the Convention, including detention camps and an array of armed personnel and weaponry.

          The choice of a presidential campaign convention as the occasion for the dirty bomb would readily lend itself to official maligning of the perpetrators for committing horrifying violence during an event so symbolic of the American democratic tradition. With Iran as the proclaimed culprit, the propaganda machine could thus go into high gear in its efforts to galvanize support for war.

              It would also lend itself to scare tactics capitalizing on the terrorists’ ability to breach the massive security measures surrounding such an event. And with Iran as the declared perpetrator, official spin regarding its puported nuclear ambitions would gain new credibility.

           Finally, a staged “Iranian” dirty bomb detonated to coincide with the DNC in August could be expected to revitalize support for the Bush Administration’s post 9/11 anti-terrorism matrix and for the neocon ideology that has infused it.

       For many months, a number of political analysts have feared that elements in the Bush Administration have been planning major false flag “terrorism” such as the detonation of a radioactive “dirty bomb” in a U.S. city, terrorism on a scale that would justify cancellation of the coming presidential election, a declaration of martial law, and refusal to relinquish power to a successor administration.

       In May 2007, Bush issued National Security Directive No. 51 giving himself, on his own initiative, the power to control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches — all functions of government — in the event of a catastrophic national emergency. National emergency is defined elastically as “any incident, regardless of location” that would “damage or disrupt” the U.S. population, economy, or government functions.

       There is no language in Directive 51 that requires Bush to obtain the consent of Congress before he seizes such power, nor is there an acknowledgement that under existing law he is already required to do just that. Directive 51 simply ignores the existing National Emergencies Act, and in so doing Bush authorizes himself - or if he is disabled, the Vice President - to control all functions of government for the duration of the emergency “and afterward.”

       A combination of official pronouncements, expansion of executive powers, and Congressional trends has led many analysts to fear that another self-serving problem-reaction-solution scenario is indeed in the offing, in which as a response to the reaction of widespread public fear the solution of martial law would be offered and welcomed.

      Under Presidential Directive 51, martial law in the U.S. would automatically extend to Canada and Mexico as a result of advances, achieved largely through stealth and disinformation, in implementing a North American Union (NAU). Under martial law, the U.S. President would assume authoritarian control over the three governmental functions—executive, legislative and judicial—for all three nations.

        Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones

Show today….

Estulin, an award winning investigative journalist, said that he was given the information from a source that has been reliable for over a decade in providing accurate projections of future events based on what the elite were discussing in their own circles….

       “The Ron Paul phenomenon has galvanized an entire nation,” said Estulin, adding that both the people who discovered the plot and its potential protagonists are

terrified at the consequences of what such an action will be because of the difficulty 

in judging just how severely the general public will react.4

            In a second article on 

            December  21, 2007, Watson 

            revealed additional 

            information:

Appearing [again] on The Alex Jones Show, Estulin said that his sources for the information were real patriots who love America and are desperate to see the

truth get out, but that he always took the precaution of getting verification from more than one individual on each piece of information he releases.

“What I said about Ron Paul last week came from two different people who don’t know each other,” said Estulin, adding that his source had in turn got the

information from sources within the Neo-Con camp and that it was individuals from within the Neo-Con camp that are considering what would happen if Ron

Paul was assassinated.5

permanent link