Iran Policy Part of Long-Term Plan

Plot to Cripple Iraq, Iran Part of Globalists’ New World Order Strategy

By Michael Collins Piper

The ongoing effort to spark an American war against Iran has long been in the making. It is part of a policy of socalled “rogue state rollback”—a plan,
originating at the highest levels of the Zionist lobby in America—that has now seen the first drive toward its fulfillment with the attack on Iran’s longtime Arab enemy, Iraq. Now, incredibly enough, Iran is the target—despite the American quagmire in Iraq.

“Rogue states” is an inflammatory term that has been used by Israel and its lobby in America—as well as by those who tout the imperialist propaganda line—to describe such largely Islamic countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan and other countries that are perceived as threats to Israel.

The war against “rogue states” is all part of the effort to set in place a “new world order” in which no nation can retain its national sovereignty in the face of American military might held in the hands of a war-like “Israel-centric” combine of influence at the highest levels of the American government and supported by the major media.

The scheme for “rogue states rollback” is, in fact, part of a long-range plan by higher-ups in the international policymaking elite, specifically the hard-line supporters of Israel. This plan for “rogue states rollback”—specifically targeting Iraq and Iran—was first enunciated on May 22, 1993, in a then-secret speech by a former Israeli government propagandist, Martin Indyk before the Washington Institute on Near East Affairs, a private, pro-Israel pressure group. At the time, the small, maverick American newspaper, The Spotlight, was the only publication to reveal this plan for aggression.

What made Indyk’s strategic plan for war so explosive was that when Indyk outlined the policy, he was serving as President Clinton’s handpicked
Middle East policy “expert” on the National Security Council.

Born in England and raised in Australia, Indyk took up residence in Israel but was later given “instant” U.S. citizenship by special proclamation of Clinton just hours after Clinton was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1993—one of Clinton’s first official acts. Later this former Israeli propagandist was appointed to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel, his obvious conflict of interest notwithstanding.

Within a year, the thrust of Indyk’s plan for war against Iraq and Iran was formally promoted by the powerful New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It was also publicly announced, at the same time, as an official policy of the Clinton administration, although it had been in the making for over a year.

An Associated Press report, published in the Feb. 28, 1994 issue of The Washington Post, announced that W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, had laid out a plan for “dual containment” of Iraq and Iran, both of which Lake labeled “outlaw” and “backlash” states.

Lake’s comments as reported were from an article by Lake just published in the March/April 1994 issue of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly journal of the Rockefeller-financed CFR, an American affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute for International Affairs, a policy group funded by the European Rothschild family, longtime supporters of Israel.

On Oct, 30, 1993, the Post frankly described the CFR as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States,” saying that they are “the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex.” Twenty-four top members of the Clinton administration—along with Clinton—were CFR members.

There was a minor difference in the policy as set forth by Lake: Iraq was first targeted for destruction. Iran would come later.

Lake said the Clinton administration supported Iraqi exiles who wanted to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Lake said that although Iran was what he called “the foremost sponsor of terrorism and assassination worldwide,” the Clinton administration saw the possibility of better relations with Iran.

In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”

That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel.

(Issue #8, February 19, 2007)