The propaganda from the U.S. has been growing at an increasing rate against Iran,
with attempts to tie them to al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, other terrorists that
hide there and of course nuclear weapons.
Most people have come to accept that the Bush administration will be involved
in an attack on Iran, the only question is when?
We have seen for some time the so called "growing evidence" that
the administration have provided, that is designed to convince others that Iran
is a country that must be "dealt with"
Like the situation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the U.S. are supplying information
in preparation for an attack. In the case of Iraq, the excuse was "weapons
of mass destruction", but as we have seen in the "Downing Street Memo",
plans for the invasion were being created before the subject of WMD arose, this
was simply the best excuse they could find at the time.
Even though the WMD were never found in Iraq, a number of different reasons
for Hussein's removal were offered afterwards to justify the invasion. An attack
plotted between the Bush administration and the British Prime Minister, Tony
Whilst the Bush administration would love to use the same routine on Iran,
even they realize that this might be just a little too obvious. They have of
course pushed the "nuclear" aspect hard and this much is the same
as the WMD angle used on Iraq.
This alone would not be sufficient to gain backing for an attack and they have
therefore added the ingredient of terrorists hiding in Iran. Reports issued
at the beginning of this month claimed that terrorists were hiding in Iran and
that maybe al-Zarqawi was one of them. In the last couple of days news reports
have been promoting the idea that Osama bin Laden may also be there! But of
course these reports can not be verified, however the information comes from
sources that we are supposed to believe.
But would the prescence of bin Laden and al-Zarqawi in Iran be enough to support
an attack? We think not.
We believe that there will be one more step before the Bush administration
feel that they have "sold" the idea sufficiently, another 9/11.
In our earlier articles on this subject (which were kept out of the main headlines),
we suggested that the next 9/11 would come in the form of an attack on an Aircraft
Carrier in the Persian Gulf (next to Iran).
You will no doubt recall that the USS America (an old Aircraft Carrier) was sunk
in the Atlantic on the 14th May 2005, after 25 days of explosions. The Navy said
that the explosive tests would provide valuable data on survivability for the
next generation of Aircraft Carriers, which are now in development.
This could of course be true, but it could also be a test to see what it takes
to sink an Aircraft Carrier of this size. It is also difficult to understand
how using "explosives" would help the design of future carriers, unless
the Navy expect the enemy to place these on the ship somehow. Surely, a better
test would be achieved by using weapons that are more likely to be used (like
missiles for example?).
But let's assume for a moment that the test had more "sinister" reasons
and somebody wanted to know what it would need to sink a carrier currently on
duty (say in the Persian Gulf?). It may surprise some people to know that the
USS Carl Vinson is almost exactly the same size as the USS America. They were
both built by the same company, are about the same length (30 foot diference),
same flight deck area (4.5 acres), have a 5 foot difference in Beam, approximately
2 foot difference in Draft, similar displacement with a full load, both can
carry 85 planes and require similar crew levels.
Let's continue to speculate and imagine what would happen if the USS Carl Vinson
was "attacked" and sunk, perhaps with the loss of most of its crew
(which totals around 5,500). After a very short investigation (like in the WTC
attack), the Bush administration announce that the attack was carried out by
al-Zarqawi or Osama bin Laden (or maybe both?) and that these "terrorists"
had fled to Iran!
The United States would naturally demand that Iran hand over the "culprits",
but this will be impossible to do, as they are not hiding there at all. This
would be followed by threats and eventually an attack.
The important question is whether anyone would really believe that al-Zarqawi
or Osama bin Laden were responsible, or that they were "hiding" in
Iran. Surely, that would be too much of a coincidence, wouldn't it?
As we have already stated (see our previous article), Osama bin Laden is stuck
in a place near Chitral in Pakistan, and would find it almost impossible to
move anywhere (let alone Iran). That's not to say that bin Laden would not have
a hand in any attack, but only because of his "connections" and under
instruction from those higher up (we think you know who?)
It is important to mention that Osama bin Laden's "al Qaeda" network
was set up with funding from the CIA, to fight the left-wing government of Afghanistan
after it came to power in 1978 (this also included assistance from Pakistan).
Many are led to believe that the US fell out with bin Laden in 1990, but did
George Bush was not in power at the time and this relationship (with people
that are now classed as terrorists), was created by the real power behind the
US government. The politician's are merely a public face to the powerful business
people that are really controlling the country.
Some will remember that "Naval targets" are not new to the game. The
USS Cole was "attacked" on the 12th of October, 2000 by what were believed
to be terrorists. However, the evidence to support this is not that clear and
three terrorist groups claimed responsibility. Some believe that the explosion
was from within the ship and not caused by a bomb carried in a boat used by two
Whilst US officials seemed capable of carrying out DNA tests on the remains
of alleged terrorists bodies (incredibly small pieces), they were unable to
decide whether the boat was an inflatable, or made from fibreglass! And that
old villian, Osama bin Laden, was once again tied into this attack.
As we have said earlier about an attack on Iran, it is not a case of if, but
when. Perhaps, if we publicize our fears widely enough, those responsible may
think twice about using such tactics. But somehow we think not and it is therefore
up to the rest of the world to see, and uncover, the real truth and punish the
culprits who are really to blame this time.
In the meantime, the crew of the USS Carl Vinson would be wise to keep a close
eye on any unusual "items" placed on the ship near structural areas
of importance (either recently, or in the near future), to avoid any surprises.
We could be wrong about this, but we would rather be safe than sorry!