rkm commentary


Richard Moore


Given plausible predictions of an invasion of Iran in June,
this seems like a good time to share with you folks my own
perspective on our current global situation.


But first, I'd like to make a request. I'll need some "blurbs"
to include on the cover of my book. Those are brief comments
about the book, by people who've read it, or at least read
some of it. Blurbs are best if from famous people, but they
don't need to be. I would be including the name and some kind
of affiliation with each blurb.

So if any of you, who've been following the drafts, would like
to offer such a comment, or if you know someone famous who
might look at the material and comment, please let me know.


The place to start, in assessing our current situation, is to
consider how the world looks from the perspective of those in
the White House. They came into power with a plan, and they
have proceeded systematically to implement that plan -
basically the PNAC document - with great success so far. They
took a drastic step, and committed themselves to the course,
when they blew up the World Trade Center. And they seem to
have gotten by with it, despite glaring contradictions in both
the evidence and their cover stories. They took another
drastic step, and committed themselves further to their
course, when they invaded Iraq on trumped-up charges and
contrary to international law. Again, they seem to have gotten
by with it, despite the quagmire, and despite all their lies
having been revealed.

These people, in their own minds, are on a roll. They've found
a sure-fire formula for world conquest. On the domestic front,
the main tool is terrorism hysteria, which can be stirred up
at any time with a simple false-flag incident, blamed on
whoever they choose. The media never asks questions about such
claims, it simply parrots them. On the global front, the main
tool is the demonization of "rogues states" - "threats to
security" - which continues to be effective despite the lies
around Iraq. Again the media acts as an amplifier.

One thing we need to understand about these people is that
they have pulled out all the stops. They will do whatever they
consider necessary to pursue their stated objectives. They
proved this on 9/11. They are willing to take significant
risks, if they believe they have covered all the angles
adequately. We must keep this determined ruthlessness in mind
when we consider their attitude toward using nuclear weapons.
From a cost-effectiveness point of view, nukes offer great
advantages. They could enable a conquest of Iran without the
quagmire and with less expense, as compared to Iraq. Given
their world-conquest agenda, I would imagine they are eagerly
seeking ways to open the nuclear Pandora's box. Presumably
they'll say "Nukes save lives", in the same way the Nazi's
said, "Total war is shortest war." What the neocons will need
is to do is to create an incident that they can use an excuse
to move the game up to the next level of technology.

That's why the article "Israel, Iran, Mossad and a Nuclear
False Flag Attack" was notable:
Mossad is a very convenient agency to carry out
projects such as 9/11 - they share the neocon's ruthlessness
and objectives, they're very competent, and they're relatively
isolated from the Beltway gossip networks, as compared to
domestic covert agencies. If Mossad could blow up a U.S.
nuclear facility, and that could be blamed on Iran, that would
give the neocons an excuse to go into Iran with 'tactical'
nukes. The scenario is a highly plausible one, and the claims
in the article seem to be well documented.

But enough about Iran. It's only a stepping stone, a fueling
depot, as regards geopolitics. The game being played has three
main players: the U.S., China, and Russia. The U.S. wants to
rule the world, and Russia and China are the only significant
obstacles to that objective. Both China and Russia are well
aware of this fact. China has been rapidly upgrading its
military capabilities in anticipation of a U.S. attack, and
Russia has been taking an increasingly harder line as a
nationalist power, even as the CIA peels one regime after
another from the Russian orbit.

The question here is how long will Russia and China continue
to play the appeasement game? From their perspective, the only
difference between the Nazis in 1939, and the U.S. now, is that
the U.S. has more powerful weapons and control of the seven
seas. Russia and China both know that appeasement only delays
confrontation, and improves the strategic position of the
aggressor. Just as England and France drew the line at Poland
as regards Nazi expansionism, so we must expect that Russia
and China will draw a line somewhere, with regard to the

We may be getting close to that line already. It's hard to
tell. I did read one report that claimed Putin had warned
Washington and Tel Aviv that an attack on Iran or Syria would
lead to a nuclear response by Russia against Israel. Apart
from the predictions in Revelations, I haven't seen
confirmation of that report from other sources. But surely,
there must be such a  line somewhere.

With their revived and dubious Star Wars project, and their
distribution of nuclear weapons to field commanders, the
neocons seem to be making every preparation for nuclear
confrontation, despite the uncertain risks. I'm sure they are
confident of their ability to create whatever excuses are
necessary, for whatever initiatives they deem necessary. The
question here is what domestic losses the neocons consider to
be "acceptable" in a nuclear exchange. Given their
demonstrated lack of regard for civilian lives generally,
whether domestic or foreign, one shudders to imagine the
definition of "winning" that exists in their deranged minds.
They probably dream of themselves as the undisputed masters of
a post-apocalyptic world, cleansed of excess population and
culled of unfavored races, a world all cleared away and in
dire need of reconstruction, via Halliburton and ilk.


That's a geopolitical perspective. We could also look at
things from a global economic perspective, or from an
environmental or human-rights perspective. All such
perspectives are equally dismal, and in their own ways equally
apocalyptic. Because of the way our societies are organized,
and how decision are made, the energy and resources of our
civilization are being devoted to making everything worse as
quickly as possible and in as many ways as possible. It is
totally insane.


I say these things not to depress you, but to help us all
refocus our attention on the real issues of the day, as
opposed to the trivia carried in the media. The purpose of the
media is to give us a comfortable sand-patch in which we can
bury our heads, tempting us down the path of the ostrich. It
might feel better, but it doesn't help our situation.