福特、卡內基和洛克菲勒籌算伊朗

福特、卡內基和洛克菲勒籌算伊朗
Ford, Carnegie & Rockefeller Plans For Iran

布魯金斯學會：“哪條路徑往波斯？“
Brookings Institute: "Which Path to Persia?"
The war has already begun, total war is a possibility.
戰爭已經開始，一場全面戰爭是可能的。
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post
Translation by Autumnson Blog
While the corporate owned media has the plebeians arguing over whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons or if it intends to commit genocide against the Jews (the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel actually resides in Iran), the debate is already over, and the war has already quietly begun. Before it began, however, someone meticulously meted out the details of how it would unfold. That "someone" is the mega-corporate backed Brookings Institute.
雖然集團擁有的媒體有庶民爭論，伊朗是否應該擁有核武器或它是否企圖對猶太人犯下種族滅絕（在中東以色列以外的最多猶太人口實際上是定居伊朗），辯論已成過去和戰爭已經悄悄開始了。但是在它開始之前，有人細心地分列詳細情況它將將如何展開，這“某人”是大型企業支持的布魯金斯研究所。

背景
Background
"Which Path to Persia?" was written in 2009 by the Brookings Institute as a blueprint for confronting Iran. Within the opening pages of the report, acknowledgments are given to the Smith Richardson Foundation, upon which Zbigniew Brzezinski sits as an acting governor.
“哪條路徑往波斯？”由布魯金斯研究所寫於 2009年，作為一個對抗伊朗的藍圖。在報告的開幕頁，鳴謝被給予史密斯理查森基金會，此上布熱津斯基作為代總裁。
The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support "indigenous democratic political movements and transitions" in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.
史密斯理查森基金會資助一全球主義者寵物的無數怪異項目，包括研究地球工程、國家建設、高加索地區的干預，和截至2009年甚至研究發展方法，以支持“土著的民主政治運動和”在波蘭、埃及、古巴、尼泊爾、海地、越南、柬埔寨、津巴布韋和緬甸的"變遷"。該報告亦有鳴謝芝加哥以外的官方家庭基金會。
The Brookings Institute itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America's biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institute's board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.
布魯金斯研究所本身就是一個臭名昭著的全球主義者資金膀臂的創造，包括卡內基公司、洛克菲勒基金會和福特基金會，最近全涉及虛假“零清真寺”的爭論。今天，布魯金斯誇耀擁有一全方位的支持和美國大企業的資助。在布魯金斯研究所的董事會，人人會找到一個企業領導人的集合，來自高盛、凱雷集團、保險業、百事可樂（CFR），美國鋁業（CFR）和多種CER附屬諮詢公司像麥肯錫公司。
Full details can be found within the pages of their 2010 annual report here.
詳情可在他們在這裡的2010年年度報告網頁內找到。
To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.
要說布魯金斯是大企業的，由大企業和為大企業，是一項嚴重的低估。這是至關重要記住的，當我們審查他們向伊朗的設計，並考慮到每一個他們在考慮的選項，對所有人的可怕成本，但已毋庸置疑，他們自己的底線。

動機應該是顯而易見的
Motivations Should be Obvious
We must look into the minds of those that shape US foreign policy and sweep aside the distracting rhetoric they feed us. US foreign policy is shaped by organizations like the Brookings Institute which consist of members of the largest corporations and banks on earth. These corporations are not only disinterested in security, but thrive on the war and conflict insecurity breeds. (See "War is a Racket" and Eisenhower's Warning.)
我們必須研究那些人的腦袋，他們塑定美國的外交政策和將他們餵我們的分散注意力的花言巧語掃在一邊。美國的外交政策是由像布魯金斯學會等的組織塑做，其中包括地球上最大集團和銀行的成員。這些公司不衹對安全不感興趣，而且熱衷於戰爭和不安全種類的衝突。 （見“戰爭是一塊球拍”和艾森豪威爾的警告。）
Iran not only possesses massive oil reserves and an economic, political, and militarily strategic location in relation to Russia and China, it also boasts a population of 76 million. This is a large population that if left sovereign and independent can viably compete against the West's degenerate casino economy, or if invaded and corrupted, can become 76 million more consumerist human cattle.
伊朗不僅擁有大量的石油儲量和對俄羅斯和中國有關的一個經濟、政治和軍事上的戰略位置；它亦擁有 7600萬人口，這是一個大人口，如果遺下主權和獨立將能抗衡西方的墮落賭場經濟；或者如被入侵和破壞，可成為多 7600萬的消費人類牛羣。
The sheer scale of the military options considered by Brookings' strategy would be a boon alone for the defense contractors that sponsor it, whether the operation was a success or not. The incentive to domineer over Iran is quite obvious and only made more attractive from a corporate American point of view when considering all the risks of such domineering are completely "socialized," from the dead troops, to the broke tax payers. No matter how insane the following report may sound, keep in mind, "they have nothing to lose."

The globalists run think-tanks all over the world like Brookings where their policy wonks generate an immense amount of strategic doctrine. This doctrine then converges to form a general consensus. Knowing the details of this doctrine beforehand can give us clues as to what to look for on the geopolitical chessboard as their gambits play out.

Green revolutions, resigning admirals, bizarre troop build-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist attacks within Iran, and high profile assassinations all make sense if you are aware of the playbook they are working from. The hyped and very fake "war on terror" being ratcheted up on the home-front is also a telling and alarming sign, perhaps the most alarming of all.

Page 1: Bottom Line底線

With frank honesty, the report opens by declaring Iran a confounding nation that undermines America's interests and influence in the Middle East. Not once is it mentioned that the Islamic Republic poses any direct threat to the security of the United States itself. In fact, Iran is described as a nation intentionally avoiding provocations that would justify military operations to be conducted against it.

Iran's motivations are listed as being ideological, nationalistic, and security driven - very understandable considering the nations to its east and west are currently occupied by invading armies. This is the crux of the issue, where it's America's interests in the region, not security, that motivate it to meddle in Iran's sovereignty, and is a theme that repeats itself throughout the 156-page report.

Page 11: The Nuclear Non-Threat核不威脅

The report concedes that Iran's leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The possession of nuclear weapons would be used as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of RAND note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists." The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on page 24, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran's national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests.

Page 23: Persuasion勸說

The first option on the table is a means to coerce the Iranian government, without regime change, through crippling sanctions verses incentives. The incentives, in turn, seem more a relief from American imposed torment than anything of actual substance.

One incentive in particular is very telling. Brookings suggests "security guarantees" from an American invasion to address the very real concerns that would motivate Iran to construct nuclear weapons in the first place. Brookings notes that concrete action would would be needed by the US in order to fulfill this incentive, including drawing down US forces in the Middle East, a concession Brookings itself admits is highly unlikely over the next several decades.

Brookings interjects at this point, a brazen admission that under no circumstance should the US grant Iran a position of dominance nor should there be any ambiguity about what the US sees as Iran's role in the region. It is most likely postures like this that have driven Iran to such extremes to protect itself, its interests, and its very sovereignty.

This option of "persuasion" appears to have already played out and failed, both in drawing concessions from Iran through meaningless offers and at marshaling the international support needed to make additional sanctions effective.

Page 65: Total War全面戰爭

Indeed a conventional war with Iran is currently impossible. The globalists at the Brookings Institute acknowledge that. What is worrying is that they believe it would not be impossible if only America was presented with the "proper" provocations. Brookings' experts go on to say that Washington could take "certain actions" to ensure such provocations took place.

Furthermore, Brookings states that Iran has already gone through extreme measures specifically not to react to American provocations, raising the specter that provocations may take the shape of a staged event instead, should full-scale invasion be sought.

This is where the tireless efforts of 9/11 Truth have paid off and now stand between the American people and a costly, unprecedented war. They have at the very least made the term "false flag" mainstream, raising the stakes exponentially for anyone attempting to stage provocations.

Page 103: Supporting a Color Revolution支持顏色革命

Hailed as the "most obvious and palatable method" of bringing about the Iranian government's demise, Brookings suggests fostering a popular revolution. It brazenly admits the role of the "civil society organizations" in accomplishing this and suggests massive increases in funding for subversive activities in Iran.

Of course the United States has already passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, directly funding Iranian opposition groups inside of Iran with the explicit objective of overthrowing the current government. The passage of the act was followed by the 2009 "green revolution," which Iranian security forces were able to put down.

Currently, the "green revolution" in Iran is gearing up again. The US State Department and corporate sponsored Movements.org has been following and supporting the US-backed Iranian uprisings since the beginning. Iranian-American Cameran Ashraf, described as a senior fellow at Movements.org, participated in the 2009 event. Movements.org featured on their front page recently, information on the upcoming "green" revolution set to feed off the US backed overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Indeed this option is currently being pursued. Brookings specifically mentions threatening Iran with instability as a means to leverage concessions from the government. It goes on to explicitly call for the promotion of unrest within Iran's borders, and when coupled with the crippling sanctions Iran is already under, constitutes an overt act of war as pointed out numerous times by Congressman Ron Paul.

Brookings also suggests the use of military force in conjunction with their staged color revolutions, recognizing Iran's well developed internal security apparatus. This was not done in 2009, but should be considered and looked out for each time the "green" revolutionaries come out into the streets.

Page 113: Supporting Real Terrorism支持真正的恐怖主義

Despite the shameless bravado displayed throughout the entire report, no section is as shocking as the one titled "Inspiring an Insurgency." Brookings is outright advocating the funding, training, and triggering of a a full-blown armed insurgency. The report specifically mentions Ahvazi Arab separatists, which would later be the subject of Seymour Hersh's "Preparing the Battlefield" where he exposes the option as already being set in motion within Iran.

Kurds in the north, and Baluch rebels near Pakistan in the east are also mentioned as potential receipients of US aid in conducting their campaigns of armed terror against the Iranian people. The CIA is selected to handle supplies and training, while Brookings suggests that options for more direct military support also be considered.

In their subsection, "Finding a Proxy," Brookings describes how the use of ethnic tensions could fuel unrest. It laments the fact that many ethnic minorities still hold nationalism as a priority along with their fellow Persians. And despite being on America's official terrorist list for having previously killed US military men, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) are given ample consideration within Brookings' report.

In their subsection, "Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven," Brookings describes various methods of harboring their stable of US funded terrorists within the nations currently occupied by US troops and how to ferry them in and out of Iran between operations.

Page 145: Bringing it all Together將所有帶在一起

Brookings suggests that no single option is meant to stand alone. It suggests that options be pursued concurrently. Apparently Brookings' advice has been taken to heart as we have seen in the news, from Seymour Hersh's reports of covert US-backed terrorists, to the overtly staged "green" revolutions, to the sabotage and assassinations plaguing Iran's nuclear program.
While it is quite obvious that many of Brookings' policies are being carried out verbatim, what is most alarming is what's suggested next should these combined ploys fail.

From the report itself 來自報告自己, page 150:

"A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency for extreme circumstances. Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end.

Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past. Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold.

For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime.

Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion."

Considering Operation Northwoods, the falsified Gulf of Tonkin event, the myriad of lies that brought us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan, not the least of which was 9/11 itself, it is truly a frightening specter to think about what might come next.

We already see the absurd security apparatus being put into place across America and the various declarations by European leaders that "multiculturalism" has failed, setting the stage for a "clash of civilizations." There is also an uptick in rhetoric by American leaders warning of an impending terrorist attack. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US might attempt to provide their own "provocation" for war in the Iranians' stead.

Final Thoughts最終想法

It is quite obvious Brookings' suggestions and their execution are detrimental to all involved, from our brave but gravely misled troops, to the tax payers fleeced by underwriting the war, to the decimated Iranian people. Boycotting the very corporations sponsoring this policy undermines their self-serving objectives regardless of the means by which they try to accomplish them. Their very ability to fund studies like this, let alone carry them out is a direct result of our daily patronizing of their mega-corporations. Raising awareness that corporate interests, not security concerns, are the prime motivations for conflict with Iran is also essential in convincing citizens of both countries to step back from the brink.

In this world today, events seem astronomically bigger than any one of us. We feel there is no certainty we can succeed against such odds. What is essential to understand though, is that while acting does not guarantee success, not acting most certainly guarantees defeat. Follow the brave example of 9/11 Truth and other activists in the growing alternative media - fight against the manufactured consensus by adding yourself to a consensus on truth.

To read the entire Brookings Institute report, "Which Path to Persia?" click here.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/brookings-institute-which-path-to.html

伊朗爆發反政府示威1死
(明報)2011年2月15日 星期二 08:25
伊朗 數千人14日在首都德黑蘭 參與反政府示威，警方施放催淚彈，一人受槍擊死亡。

伊朗法爾斯通訊社報道，有數人遭槍擊受傷，開槍的是非法組織「伊朗人民聖戰」的成員。

部分反對派網站指出，數名騎電單車的男子向示威者開槍。

目擊者稱，抗議者在德黑蘭市中心革命廣場和伊瑪目•哈梅內伊廣場等主要街道集合，並試圖前往位於德黑蘭標誌性建築自由塔附近廣場舉行示威活動，但遭到警察和安全部隊攔截。

抗議者與警察和安全人員發生衝突，警察動用催淚彈驅散人群。數十名抗議者在衝突中受傷，被送往附近醫院救治。

新華社 記者在駕車前往自由廣場途中發現，德黑蘭街頭明顯加強了警戒，沿途站滿了頭戴鋼盔、手持警棍的警察和安全人員，不時攔截過往車輛進行檢查。

在市中心，記者發現手機遭屏蔽，無法與外界聯繫。

在革命廣場附近街道，記者看見數十名警察騎著電單車，揮舞棍棒，向自由塔方向疾馳。

行至革命廣場時，記者突然遭到10多名警察和安全人員攔截，被扣押和盤問兩個多小時後才獲准離開，但隨身攜帶的相機、記者證和採訪許可被沒收。其間，記者觀察到，廣場四周人來人往，車輛眾多，但示威民眾已被驅散，廣場周圍部署了數百名防暴警察，街邊停靠著數十輛防暴警車。

2月初，伊朗反對派領導人穆薩維和卡魯比致信內政部，申請14日在德黑蘭舉行遊行示威，聲援埃及 和突尼斯等地的反政府遊行，但遭到伊朗政府拒絕。

穆薩維和卡魯比的支持者通過互聯網，號召民眾上街遊行，最終導致14日的示威活動爆發。

穆薩維和卡魯比均參加了2009年6月舉行的伊朗總統選舉，結果顯示，穆薩維得票數排在第二位，卡魯比居第四。反對派認為選舉存在舞弊，拒絕承認選舉結果。支持者隨後多次在首都德黑蘭和其他一些城市舉行抗議活動，並引發騷亂，導致數十人喪生，數千人被捕。（綜合）

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110215/4/mpcx.html

美國向伊朗發送 Twitter 訊息
US sends Twitter messages to Iranians
Monday, February 14, 2011
AFP
© AFP/Nicholas Kamm
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US State Department has begun sending Twitter messages to Iranians, alluding to the "historic role" social media have played in mass protests against Iran's 2009 disputed presidential polls.

The Twitter feeds began Sunday as US officials accused Iran of hypocrisy by supporting the anti-government revolt in Egypt but seeking to prevent anti-government demonstrations in Iran.

On the Twitter account, USAdarFarsi, the State Department said it "recognizes historic role of social media among Iranians We want to join in your conversations."

In another Tweet, the State Department said: "Iran has shown that the activities it praised Egyptians for it sees as illegal, illegitimate for its own people."

In a third Tweet, it said "US calls on Iran to allow people to enjoy same universal rights to peacefully assemble, demonstrate as in Cairo."

In Tehran, riot police on Monday fired tear gas and shot paintballs at protesters who turned what they said was a Tehran rally in support of Arab revolts into an anti-government demonstration, witnesses said.

International and local Iranian media were banned from freely covering the massive wave of protest sparked by the disputed re-election in June 2009 of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But Iranians overcame the reporting ban by using social-networking and image-sharing websites such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr despite efforts by local officials to cut off mobile phones and the Internet.
© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/us-sends-twitter-messages-to-iranians.html

俄羅斯指美國不應激發中東人民示威
16.02.2011 05:17
到訪倫敦的俄羅斯外長拉夫羅夫認為，美國及其他西方國家，不應鼓勵中東人民示威，推行特定形式的民主制度，否則會產生反效果。 拉夫羅夫與英國外相夏偉林舉行記者會時說，俄羅斯曾經出現多次革命，確信呼籲其他國家進行革命，袛會適得其反。他舉例說，被歐美列為恐怖組織的哈馬斯，五年前贏得巴勒斯坦議會選舉，並非由於當地人民並無民主權利。拉夫羅夫認為，全球其他政府，目前應該促請中東國家的各方透過對話，解決問題。
http://www.881903.com/page/zh-tw/newsdetail.aspx?ItemId=332076&csid=261_367

喬姆斯基：“阿拉伯世界失火了”--論埃及危機

伊朗亦受撒旦教徒控制

伊朗宗教領袖讚揚埃及起義 (+霍梅尼的預言)