UK News

Washington DC: FBI Foils Own Terror Plot (Again)

Tony Cartalucci
Prison Planet.com
February 17, 2012

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has once again proven that the only thing Americans need fear, is their own government, with the latest “terror attack” foiled being one entirely of their own design.

USA Today reports that a suspect had been arrested by the FBI who was “en route to the U.S. Capitol allegedly to detonate a suicide bomb.” While initial reports portrayed the incident as a narrowly averted terrorist attack, CBS would report that a “high ranking source told CBS News the man was “never a real threat.”” The explosives the would-be bomber carried were provided to him by the FBI during what they described as a “lengthy and extensive operation.” The only contact the suspect had with “Al Qaeda” was with FBI officials posing as associates of the elusive, omnipresent, bearded terror conglomerate. The FBI, much like their MI5 counterparts in England, have a propensity for recruiting likely candidates from mosques they covertly run.

This is but the latest in a string of national terror plots carried out from start to finish by the FBI, who has made a business of approaching likely candidates and grooming them to carry out terror attacks. In September 2011, another FBI terror operation targeting the Capitol was “foiled,” involving a patsy who believed he was to take part in an assault that would involve multiple gunmen and even a drone bomber provided to him by the FBI.

And perhaps the most dubious of all, was the December 2010 Portland “Christmas Tree Bomber,” who was also approached by the FBI, provided demolition training, including a demonstration with live explosives performed in a Lincoln County park, and a van within which the patsy believed his handlers had provided him a bomb. The van with the inert device was parked next to a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where the patsy attempted to detonate it remotely before being arrested by FBI agents.

It would later turn out that Portland had heroically withdrew from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, (JTTF), with the operation then being carried out behind Portland Mayor Sam Adam’s back only for its conclusion to humiliatingly catch the mayor off guard. The city of Portland would eventually rejoin the JTTF after the fallout from the FBI’s own terror plot.

The FBI is carrying out what is essentially a campaign of entrapment fueling what alternative news outlet Media Monarchy appropriately calls “terronoia.” And while it is true that these incidents are being used to foment a climate of fear to justify the ongoing “War on Terror,” there is a more sinister implication readers must be aware of.

In 1993 the FBI was carrying out an identical “sting operation” in New York City. The target was the World Trade Center, the weapon of choice would be a bomb-laden van, that like the above mentioned attacks, was supposed to contain an inert device. Helping the FBI was an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem, who over the course of the investigation grew suspicious of the federal agents and began recording his phone conversations with them.

From these recordings released by the New York Times, it turns out that the FBI switched out the inert device for real explosives at the last moment resulting in an attack that killed 6 and injured over a thousand. Despite this evidence, the 1993 bombing is still to this day attributed to “terrorists” with the FBI’s involvement muted if ever mentioned.

The implications are of course, with the FBI’s current nationwide stable of patsies being trained, directed, and provided material support to carry out attacks the FBI then “foils,” is at any given moment, any one of these operations can be switched “live” just as in 1993. The resulting carnage can then be used to manipulate public opinion just as it was in 1993, 2001, on 7/7 in London, and in Madrid, Spain in 2004.

The risk rises exponentially now with Israel being confirmed to be training, arming, and directing US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, also known as Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK). The US has also played an extensive role in supporting MEK who is currently carrying out a campaign of terror inside of Iran.

This is part of a plot by the US indicated in its own policy papers, openly conspiring to provoke a war with Iran. This is best encapsulated in this often cited quote from US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution:

“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

The same report would go on to say:

“In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations (MEK) to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

“It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.”

The report continues:

“However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

With this in mind, and with the 1993 World Trade Center attack as a historical precedent, it is almost a certainty that the West and Mossad are carrying out the current global wave of bombings now being blamed on Iran. This includes two failed bombings in India and Georgia, and a more recent incident in Bangkok, Thailand.

Law enforcement officers across America may be witnessing the FBI conducting through their JTTF what they believe to be a “sting operation” that may end up being the next major terrorist attack on US soil – and the pretext for certain war with Iran.

The fears of Portland Mayor Sam Adams were well founded, and it took an act of terror to strong-arm him and the people of Portland into capitulating to the federal JTTF program. Local law enforcement, for the safety of themselves and the people they are charged to serve and protect, would be wise to keep an eye on the FBI – apparently the most likely source from which terror plots both “foiled” and “successful” are hatched.

Spiv’s view.

These, pathetic attempts by the Security Services to create fear amongst the population by and large would be pathetic and laughable, would it not be for the fact that the population , by and large, believe these plots to be real…I touched upon  this subject in my article ‘Terrorism; A modern day fairy tale’, which can be found  in the ‘My view’ section…The fact that these false flag plots are so transparent is testament to just how gullible we have become as a whole. Course, for the Government, these plots put them in a win, win situation as not only does it keep the public in fear but they also make the Security Services appear as if they are on top of their game…This is why the following old adage should always be remembered : Anyone who would give up their freedom in exchange for security, is deserved of neither.

General Says Russia Could Use Nuclear Weapons to Keep Country Intact

16 February 2012

The Moscow Times
Russia’s armed forces would be within their full rights to use nuclear weapons if any threats to the integrity of the country arise, Russian General Staff head Nikolay Makarov said Wednesday.”Of course, we are not preparing to fight against NATO; we don’t have those kinds of goals or tasks. But it is clearly written in our doctrine when we are within our rights to use nuclear weapons. In this case we would use them,” Makarov said in an interview on radio station Ekho Moskvy, RIA-Novosti reported.

The general added that strategic stability is dependent on the nuclear deterrent.

“In terms of our armed forces, we are investing every kopeck wisely and a very serious modernization of our nuclear potential is being undertaken,” Makarov said.

He also spoke about Russia’s plans to purchase a new class of submarines, to upgrade its bombers, and to introduce new strategic missiles that the general noted are far more advanced than the previous generation.

Read more:http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/general-says-russia-could-use-nuclear-weapons-to-keep-country-intact/453148.html#ixzz1mbSGAskh
The Moscow Times

Pretext For War: String of Global Bombings Blamed on Iran

Tony Cartalucci
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Not even 24 hours have passed and “Thai officials” have already determined not only that Bangkok’s bomb blasts were the work of Iranians, but that they intended to target Israelis, this according to the Jerusalem Post. Anyone familiar with Thailand’s police and government would realize the utter impossibility of such a crime being solved in a single afternoon – let alone being able to draw conclusions carrying possibly war-triggering implications.

Already, the corporate-media and certified warmongers alike are pinning the recent bombings in Bangkok, Thailand on “bungling” Iranian terrorists.

US policy consultant, Max Boot, a Neo-Con Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatory and a member of various corporate-funded think-tanks that endlessly conjure up and promote wars to expand Wall Street and London’s global reach, immediately linked the incident in Bangkok with 2 failed bombings in India and Georgia in his recent article, “Self-Defeating, But Dangerous Terror Acts.” He concludes his baseless appraisal of the string of attacks by stating:

“On one level these events are comforting because they suggest that Iran and its proxies in Hezbollah are not as skillful as generally assumed. But on another level these events should be deeply discomfiting to anyone who subscribes to the notion that the Iranians are calculating Realpolitikers who act so cautiously they can even be trusted with the possession of nuclear weapons. Au contraire: The events of the last two days suggest the Iranian regime, assuming it is responsible for these attacks, is capable of acting in self-defeating, irrational but dangerous ways. In short, hardly the sort of people we should trust with a BB gun–much less nuclear weapons.”

Boot manages to both bolster the untenable theory that Iran was behind these attacks, while using their reckless, bungling nature to illustrate just how necessary a war is in order to disarm Iran of its alleged nuclear ambitions – a war these attacks provide the perfect pretext for.

Manufacturing a Pretext for War

Of course, Boot and the corporate-media never mention that Western policy makers for years have been conspiring to provoke Iran into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from in any conceivable way. This is best encapsulated in this often cited quote from US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution:

“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

The same report would go on to say:

“In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

“It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.”

The report continues:

“However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

The depths of depravity and overt criminality exhibited around the tables of US policy makers like the Brookings Institution opens the door to literally any and all options conceivable to garner the support of global public opinion and procure the necessary pretext for war with Iran. If the Brookings Institution is willing to propose the use of listed terrorist organizations to wage a campaign of terror inside Iran against its government, military, and citizens, why not back terrorists to carry out attacks in India, Georgia, and more recently in Bangkok, Thailand?

Boot also fails to mention that the current government ruling Thailand, is through proxy by Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser, and recipient of extensive US backing, including lobbying services from fellow Carlyle member James Baker and his firm Baker Botts, warmonger Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and PNAC signatory Kenneth Adelman of Edelman. During Thaksin’s term in office from 2001 until a coup ousted him in 2006, upon the eve of which he was literally reporting to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he had committed Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq and allowed the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.

There would be no US ally more willing to sow terror in the streets of his own nation than Thaksin Shinawatra who while currently living in self-imposed exile to escape a 2 year prison sentence for corruption, is running the government by proxy through his own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra recently elected as Thailand’s Prime Minister.

In 2010, in a bid to return to power, Thaksin called for a people’s war, fielding approximately 300 armed militants amongst a mob of approximately 15-30 thousand protesters in the streets of Bangkok and leading 2 months of violence that left 91 dead, thousands injured and wide scale arson called on by Thaksin’s political lieutenants in the streets.

With many of the very men who helped Thaksin facilitate this violence, politically if not logistically, now holding key positions of power throughout his proxy government, coordinating with foreign intelligence and local patsies to carry out a staged provocation would be an effortless task. Thaksin’s deputy prime minister Chalerm Yoobamrung had already begun playing along with US claims of Hezbollah operating in, of all places, in Bangkok, and even arrested suspects allegedly linked to Hezbollah.

A Problem of Credibility

The problem ultimately is that the United States and Israel have put to paper a conspiracy to provoke a war with Iran by crushing it economically, attacking it covertly, surrounding it militarily, undermining it politically, and even going as far as funding, training, and arming terrorists to murder the Iranian people themselves. Nothing the West says now, even if it were true, without absolute, irrefutable evidence to back it up, is worth the paper it is written on. Every alleged attack, every pretext they put forward, every excuse for this clearly unprovoked war, must first be suspected as a manufactured provocation until otherwise proven by independent sources – excluding Wall Street proxies like Thailand’s current government and the NATO-bent officials of Tbilisi, Georgia.

What should worry readers the most is that if the US and Israel really are carrying out a global campaign of false-flag attacks to finally garner their elusive justification for an otherwise indefensible act of aggression, how far they are willing to go if public opinion fails to be swayed by these suspicious incidents?

The West is now collectively reaping the misfortune President Dwight Eisenhower warned us against in allowing the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex. These corporate-financier interests have bent the will of nations with that influence to assume an increasingly reckless and self-destructive course, financially, socially, and now militarily. When we read policy papers from our own nation’s policy makers conspiring to arm terrorists and unleash them on an unwilling adversary, we have become the very evil we had long believed ourselves to be the guards against.

By undermining, dismantling, and ultimately replacing this unwarranted influence through boycotts and local, pragmatic solutions, we can adjust our course back toward one that suits our own collective destiny rather than that of an increasingly depraved, parasitic oligarchical elite.

‘Waging war against Iran insane'

Press TV

12/2/12

President of the Global Security Institute Jonathan Granoff has lashed out at Washington for its anti-Iran threats, describing any potential US-led military action against Tehran as an insane effort.

Waging war against the peace-seeking, civilized and hospitable Iranian nation amounts to sheer insanity, IRNA quoted Granoff as saying on Sunday.

Unfortunately, the US media portray a bleak picture of the Iranian nation while they are one of the most peace-loving people in the world, he added.

The American lawyer pointed to Iran’s ancient history and established civilization and emphasized that the Iranian nation has never initiated a war against any country.

He asserted that US authorities committed a major blunder by supporting Iraq’s executed dictator Saddam Hossein during the 1980-88 Iraqi imposed war against Iran.

Granoff believes that instead of making up for their past mistakes and amending their policy approach towards the Iranian nation, the US officials continue to commit errors by threatening Iran with military strikes and imposing sanctions on the country.

Participating in the ceremony marking the 33rd anniversary of the triumph of the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran held at the United Nations headquarters in New York on Thursday, Granoff congratulated the Iranian nation and government on the occasion.

The West has intensified sanctions against Iran as American and Israeli war rhetoric against the country continues.

The US, Israel, and their Western allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this allegation as a pretext to convince the United Nations Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Rejecting the allegations, Iran says it has every right to peaceful nuclear activities as an International Atomic Energy Agency member state and a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty.

‘Waging war against Iran insane’

Press TV

12/2/12

President of the Global Security Institute Jonathan Granoff has lashed out at Washington for its anti-Iran threats, describing any potential US-led military action against Tehran as an insane effort.

Waging war against the peace-seeking, civilized and hospitable Iranian nation amounts to sheer insanity, IRNA quoted Granoff as saying on Sunday.

Unfortunately, the US media portray a bleak picture of the Iranian nation while they are one of the most peace-loving people in the world, he added.

The American lawyer pointed to Iran’s ancient history and established civilization and emphasized that the Iranian nation has never initiated a war against any country.

He asserted that US authorities committed a major blunder by supporting Iraq’s executed dictator Saddam Hossein during the 1980-88 Iraqi imposed war against Iran.

Granoff believes that instead of making up for their past mistakes and amending their policy approach towards the Iranian nation, the US officials continue to commit errors by threatening Iran with military strikes and imposing sanctions on the country.

Participating in the ceremony marking the 33rd anniversary of the triumph of the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran held at the United Nations headquarters in New York on Thursday, Granoff congratulated the Iranian nation and government on the occasion.

The West has intensified sanctions against Iran as American and Israeli war rhetoric against the country continues.

The US, Israel, and their Western allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this allegation as a pretext to convince the United Nations Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Rejecting the allegations, Iran says it has every right to peaceful nuclear activities as an International Atomic Energy Agency member state and a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty.

Pakistan to support Iran against Israel

Press TV
10/2/12
The Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain has reiterated his country’s support for the Islamic Republic of Iran in case of an Israeli regime’s attack.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan told the British The Sun newspaper that “Pakistan would be left with no option but to support Iran if Israel attacks it”.

“We wouldn’t like to be seen as part of Israel’s campaign against any country. If Israel attacks Iran, it will have an impact on Pakistan as well”, said the Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain.

“We will have to safeguard our own interests. We also have a Shia population in Pakistan who will not take it lying down”, he stressed.

The Pakistani official warned Britain to help stop the U.S. “Drone Wars” that are slaughtering hundreds of its innocent civilians.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan said that his country’s relations with America are at their lowest ebb.

“Patience is definitely reaching exhaustion levels”, he said.

Hasan said Pakistan backs the War on Terror waged by Britain and the US.

But, he urged British Prime Minister David Cameron to condemn US drone attacks on his country dubbing them as “war crimes” and “little more than state executions”.

“We know the damage – destroyed schools, communities, hospitals. They are civilians – children, women, families. Our losses are enormous,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

“I think time is running out until the Pakistan government can take a stand. They will have to at some stage take punitive actions to stop them. They have got means to take such actions to defend their own frontier and territories,” Hasan further added.

Hasan urged the British Prime Minister to convince the US that the drone attacks were counter-productive, making the American “the most hated people in the minds of the people in Pakistan.”

Gingrich: Iran Nuke Attack on U.S. “Real Danger”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 8, 2012

Demonstrating that the campaign trail is in the province of Bizarro World, GOP candidateNewt Gingrich said today an Iranian nuclear attack on the United States was “a real danger” and that it could kill and wound hundreds of thousands of Americans.

 

“You think about an Iranian nuclear weapon. You think about the dangers, to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York,” Gingrich said while in Cleveland, Ohio. “Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half-million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That’s why I think it’s very important that we have the strongest possible national security.”

 

First and foremost, despite the IAEA stating that Iran considered possibly developing a nuclear weapon before 2003, there is no evidence the country is building a nuclear weapon, let alone producing nuclear weapon grade uranium.

Last week, Obama’s intelligence boss, James Clapper, admitted Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon, although he did tell the Senate Intelligence Committee he thinks Iran may launch terror attacks in the United States. Clapper was backed up by CIA Director David Petraeus, who also said Iran was not building nuclear weapons.

In January, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also said Iran is not building a nuke. “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us,” Panetta told CBS News.

Iran currently does not have a missile capable of reaching Columbus, Cincinnati, New York, or Cleveland, as Gingrich warned. Its longest range missile is the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 2,200 kilometers or 1,375 miles when carrying a 750-kg warhead.

Iran “would need to build a bomb small enough to fit on the top of this missile, which would be a major challenge,” explains Michael Elleman, senior fellow for missile defense at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. As noted above, Iran has not even decided to build a nuclear weapon.

It also faces numerous challenges in enriching weapon grade uranium, but don’t tell Newt that.

Gingrich knows Iran is incapable of nuking the United States, but that has not stopped him from making this preposterous claim while on the campaign trail.

He will obviously tell any sort of fantastic lie in an effort to compete with Rick Santorum, who is currently the most vicious of the GOP candidates when it comes to making things up about Iran and calling for an attack on the country.

Britain making war case against Syria

Press TV
6/2/12
British Foreign Secretary William Hague used a parliamentary debate on Monday to launch a Libyan-like scenario against yet another sovereign nation of the international community.

Hague told the House of Commons that the “whole House will be appalled by the bloodshed and repression in Syria which continues at this very moment”, adding that “over the last 11 months more than 6,000 people have been killed”.

How the warmonger foreign secretary of Britain has counted the alleged number of death toll in Syria is a matter, which needs to be answered by official Syrian sources.

But, what he claims and the picture he is painting of the situation in Syria is so much like what happened when the warmonger Hague was using the same rhetoric to compel the House to vote for the UK government’s sinister campaign to launch an attack on Libya, where hundreds of civilians lost their lives to the NATO bombardment campaign.

Hague told the MPs that “the Syrian regime has deployed snipers, tanks, artillery and mortars against civilian protestors and population centers, particularly in the cities of Homs, Idlib, Hama and Deraa”.

But he did not refer to thousands of Syrians who came out onto the streets across the country on the same day to oppose any Western military intervention in their country and in support for the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Hague alleged that “thousands of Syrians have endured imprisonment, torture and sexual violence – including instances of the alleged rape of children – and the humanitarian position is deteriorating”.

However, he did not tell the parliament that how he has witnessed these particular offences which, he is accusing a sovereign government of doing them.

Referring to a draft resolution at the UN Security Council, which was vetoed by both China and Russia, the two veto-wielding powers at the Council, Hague said “there was nothing in this draft resolution that could not be supported by any country seeking a peaceful end to the tragedy unfolding in Syria”.

This is while that Moscow’s envoy to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, had earlier said “there was no chance the Western-Arab draft text could be accepted unless it precisely rejected armed intervention”.

The draft “is missing the most important thing: a clear clause ruling out the possibility that the resolution could be used to justify military intervention in Syrian affairs from outside. For this reason I see no chance this draft could be adopted,” said Chizhov, Russia’s envoy to the European Union.

The UK’s sabre-rattling against Syria comes at a time when the country is nearly bankrupt, with a £10 billion black hole in its defense budget.

Last year, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) authorities estimated that the military would need at least £10 billion in the coming years to be able to endure consecutive wars and the unforeseen events, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The financial “mismatch” is larger than all the defense cuts announced in 2010’s Spending Review, the report said.

Britain had to cut its 2011’s £33.8 billion defense budget by 8 percent over four years.

What rights have any country to put World Peace in jeopardy? WAR IS A RACKET WAR MONGERING MUST STOP

Israel ‘undecided on Iran attack’

US president Barack Obama has moved to calm growing fears among world leaders of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran.

Mr Obama said he did not think Israel had decided whether to attack Iran over its disputed nuclear programme, a stand-off that has the Middle East on edge.

The president sought to assure allies and foes alike that the United States was working with Israel to solve the crisis, “hopefully diplomatically”.

Mr Obama’s comments come as Israel’s major allies in the West are working hard to talk the Jewish state out of a unilateral military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing forcefully that an attack would ultimately only strengthen the regime in Tehran.

Israel fears that Iran is fast approaching a point at which a limited military strike would no longer be enough to head off an Iranian bomb.

“I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do,” Mr Obama said during a pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC television.

He reiterated that the United States had removed no option from consideration in dealing with Iran – an allusion to military intervention – but emphasised that the United States wanted a diplomatic solution built around a world coalition.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes only.

But after years of worries about Iran’s nuclear programme, world leaders are now showing real concern that Israel could attack the Islamic republic imminently – a move that might trigger a broader war and disrupt the international economy.

Iran’s regime has said it wants to extinguish the Jewish state and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb.

Just last week, US defence secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believed Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear progress.

Mr Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

“I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we’ve ever had,” he said, adding, “We are going to be sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this – hopefully diplomatically.”

The United States is leading that persuasion initiative, even though Washington has largely concluded that outside argument will have little effect on Israeli decision-making.

“Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us,” Mr Obama said. “It could have a big effect on oil prices. We’ve still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.”

As for the danger of retaliation by Iran against the United States, Mr Obama said, “We don’t see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now.”

The president said Iran was feeling the pinch of sanctions but Israel was rightfully worried about its security.