by Stephen Lendman
America's business is war. Permanent wars reflect official US policy. They're glorified in the name of peace.
One nation after another is ravaged. Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called it being "cold-blooded about the self-interests of your nation."
Obama's the latest US warrior president. Imperial lawlessness defines his agenda. Out-of-control militarism rages. Humanity's survival is threatened.
Syria is Obama's war. Direct intervention looms. Claims about Syria using chemical weapons don't wash. Syrian officials categorically deny them.
On April 27, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined "Information Minister: Western Sides Are Directly Responsible for Chemical Weapons Use in Khan al-Assal," saying:
Omran al-Zoubi said chemical weapons likely came from Turkey. "The US-British and Western allegations in general on this issue do not have any credibility."
A missile targeting Khan al-Assal came from a terrorist-controlled location. Syria requested an investigation. According to SANA:
"Al-Zoubi held the Western sides directly responsible for what happened in Khan al-Assal, saying they want now to hide behind this 'fabricated and false' talk to justify their silence on failing the investigation mission requested by Syria and to exonerate the terrorists."
"The Minister added that the US is already involved in large-scale terrorist operations in the world, and is involved in Syria now because of its support for and silence on the terrorism committed by the terrorist groups."
The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. Waging full-scale war on Syria looms. It appears prelude to targeting Iran. Spurious Iranian threats continue.
Connect the dots. Post-Boston bombings, expect Obama to take full advantage. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Doing so facilitates America's war agenda.
Independent nations aren't tolerated. Washington demands pro-Western ones. Outliers are targeted for regime change. War is America's option of choice if other methods fail. Syria may be prelude to Iran.
On April 25, the Jerusalem Post headlined " 'Red lines' at the 'Post' conference," saying:
"Red lines" dominate today's headlines. Israel and Washington repeat them. In late February, former Israeli intelligence head Amos Yadlin's New York Times op-ed headlined "Israel's Last Chance to Strike Iran," saying:
"Today, Israel sees the prospect of a nuclear Iran that calls for our annihilation as an existential threat."
Iran, of course, threatens no one. It hasn't attacked another nation in over two centuries.
"An Israeli strike against Iran would be a last resort, if all else failed to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program," Yadlin added.
Now he's warning that Israel's on "a collision course (with Iran) by the end of the year."
He'll speak at the Jerusalem Post's second annual conference. It's theme is "Fighting for the Zionist Dream." It's scheduled for April 28 in New York.
Two panels will discuss Syrian and Iranian red lines. Yadlin will participate along with former and current key Israeli officials.
Yadlin heads Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. He spoke at its recent Tel Aviv conference. He claims Iran may cross Netanyahu's red line by summer.
If uranium enrichment continues "at its current rate, toward the end of the year (Tehran) will cross the red line in a clear manner," he claimed.
Earlier he said, "Despite all of the attempts made to stop the nuclear program, no one is able to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear program."
"By summer, Iran will be a month or two away from a decision about the bomb," he added. He claims Tehran has enough low-enriched uranium for six bombs.
"They have no problem converting back what they allegedly turned to nuclear fuel. Within a week, it could be turned into nuclear material for a bomb," he said.
He urged military action. America's credibility is on the line, he stressed. "This credibility will be achieved if the US aims a precise strike to stop the Iranian nuclear program and shows that it can deal with the escalation that would follow this strike."
He's not alone. Jerusalem Post deputy managing editor Caroline Glick headlined "Time to confront Obama," saying:
Iran "crossed the threshold. Iran will be a nuclear power unless its uranium enrichment installations and other nuclear sites are destroyed or crippled. Now."
"Iran has threatened to use it nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel."
"(E)ither Israel must launch an attack without delay, or if we can't, then Netanyahu has to publicly state that the time for diplomacy is over. Either Iran is attacked or it gets the bomb."
It bears repeating. Iran threatens no one. No evidence suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Annually, US intelligence says so. Israeli, American, and other Western officials know what they won't admit publicly.
Claiming an Iranian nuclear threat is red herring cover for regime change. It's longstanding US/Israeli policy. Don't expect media scoundrels to explain.
On April 26, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) headlined "Obama's non-response to Assad's chemical weapons would encourage a nuclear Iran," saying:
"The US intelligence community and the White House have now produced evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people and so crossed the red line Obama has repeatedly and publicly laid down for a US response."
"….those red lines would be discounted as meaningless by the world, the Middle East and Israel most of all, if he holds back now."
"Assad will not stop using lethal chemicals against his people."
"Tehran and Pyongyang will take US inaction on the Syrian chemical issue as a license to go forward and develop their nuclear and other sophisticated weapons without fear of forceful interference."
Claiming Syria used chemical weapons doesn't wash. Accusations persist anyway.
DF claims Assad plans to send Hezbollah chemical weapons and "other advanced war material." On Thursday, Israeli warplanes "shot down opposite Haifa a drone Hizballah had sent winging toward Israel…."
Without elaboration, Lebanon's al-Manar television said:
"Hezbollah denies sending any unmanned drone towards occupied Palestine."
Israel's Deputy Defense Minister, Danny Danon said:
"We're talking about another attempt by Hezbollah to send an unmanned drone into Israeli territory." He called it "another attempt to destabilize the Middle East."
"I see this attempt to breach our borders as extremely grave. We will continue to do whatever we must to protect the security of Israel's citizens."
On April 26, Haaretz's military correspondent Amos Harel headlined "Iran likely behind drone that Israel intercepted opposite Haifa coast," saying:
Netanyahu stopped short of blaming Hezbollah. According to Harel, "it seems those responsible for the launching of the drone were the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon."
"(I)t seems that Iran wished to openly demonstrate its potential ability to damage essential facilities in Israel, in a time when they are feeling the pressure of international sanctions surrounding their nuclear program, and when international cooperation is being considered in a move against its ally in Syria, Bashar Assad."
Harel left perhaps what's most important unaddressed. Washington appears headed for full-scale war on Syria. Iran's repeatedly threatened.
Why would it stage a provocative act? It's avoided doing so before. Why would it give America and Israel cause to retaliate? What could it hope to gain? Sound policy dictates lowering tensions, not escalating them. Harel didn't explain.
On March 15, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) contributors Olli Heinonen and Simon Henderson headlined "Iran's Nuclear Clock and World Diplomacy."
Heinonen's a former IAEA deputy director-general. Henderson directs the Washington Institute's Gulf and Energy Policy Program. WINEP is a pro-Israeli front group.
"Israel sees itself as a likely target of an Iranian nuclear weapon," they said.
"The latest report on Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) raised a series of red flags."
"These included the news of a substantial increase in the number of centrifuges Iran uses to enrich uranium, as well as the introduction of a new type of centrifuge that is likely to enrich uranium more quickly and in larger quantities."
"Additionally, work is progressing on a heavy-water reactor capable of producing plutonium, an alternative nuclear explosive material."
Pyongyang has close ties to Iran, they said. Perhaps they share data, they added.
Years earlier, Iran's nuclear program was less advanced. Enrichment was small-scale. Only one partially constructed enrichment facility operated.
Natanz and Fordow are now fully operational. Arak's heavy-water reactor will begin operating in 2014.
"Iran could have enough nuclear explosive material for its first atomic bomb before Washington ever received the international backing it would want before taking action to - in the words of current US policy - "prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."
The Middle East's curse is oil. Syria's very much on the boil. Attacking Iran is madness. Doing so risks global war. Top priority is preventing what's too catastrophic to risk.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.