Well, if you're like me, you're probably more than a little skeptical about the latest "foiled terrorism plot" surrounding an Iranian-American who was also, apparently, a drunk, a pothead, and ...well....just plain disfunctional. This one even smells bad to Faux news commentator and analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano! But if you're smelling that rancid putrid odor of something fishy, perhaps this little document (well, it's not so little actually), from the Brookings Institute will help clarify matters somewhat:

Which Path to Persia?

Note that this document was prepared in 2009. Now, once you open that pdf file, go to the Table of Contents on p. xii. There we read about the following options, each of which forms a chapter in the study which is divided into four parts:

(1) Diplomatic options,

(2) Military options (which, be it noted, include full scale invasion),

(3) Regime change (meaning the full panoply of covert actions, including use of dissident movements, psychological operations, and assassination);

(4) Deterrence, or containment.

Skipping ahead to page 145, we can read the following:

"None of the policy options toward Iran have a high likelihood of succeeding, even as their proponents would define success. None is likely to protect all of America’s national interests at low cost and with minimal risks. As should be apparent by this point, all of them are less than ideal solutions to the problems Iran poses. Indeed, one
of the reasons that the Iran debate is so contentious and intractable is that there is no obviously right course of action. Instead, policymakers must choose the least bad from among a range of unpalatable alternatives. What should also be clear is that few, if any, of the options presented in this book constitute an unequivocal, stand-alone policy. At the very least, each will require contingency plans and fallback positions in the event that circumstances change or the approach fails. Even a policy comprised of pure engagement would have to acknowledge that Iran might take action (like mounting a major terrorist attack or testing a nuclear weapon) that could force the United States to abandon this course.
Similarly, even if the United States were to commit itself to mounting a full-scale invasion, the need to garner domestic political support (and the hope of securing some international support) would likely require making a diplomatic overture to Iran first."

Then, on page 146, we read the following:

"The Obama Administration has already recognized that reality. Although the president himself and many of his top aides, including Secretary of State Clinton and Dennis Ross, her Iran adviser, have all indicated that the core of their policy will be the kind of complex positive and negative incentives embodied by the Persuasion option, they have
also made clear that the full policy will incorporate other options in various ways.85 President Obama has stressed that he hopes for a fully cooperative relationship with Iran. In this he is clearly conveying that he would like to see the tactic l engagement envisioned in the Persuasion strategy open up into full strategic engagement as envisioned in the Engagement option, if the Iranians indicate that they are willing and able. In some ways, the administration’s offer of a hand of friendship to the Iranians suggests that Washington would be willing to start with the Engagement approach, and
will only convert that into the Persuasion approach if the Iranians refuse the offer. Nevertheless, President Obama has steadfastly refused to rule out the military option, which also means that he and his advisers recognize that under certain circumstances, the United States will at least have to consider Airstrikes or even the full-scale Invasion option if the Iranians prove unwilling to compromise.86 Thus the integrated policy of the Obama Administration has a core option but also includes a halfdozen others as contingency or follow-on plans."(Emphasis added)

Et voila! We have a conveniently manipulated used-car drunk pothead salesman at the heart of a vast conspiracy of Iranians, Mexican drug cartels (and please recall here my previous blogs on who also penetrated the international drug trade)... Well, for a world in financial crisis, Anglo-American bankster elites that have increasingly come under fire, nothing gets the economy going (and saves your butt), like a good old-fashioned war. But of course, the real problem here isn't Iran at's Iran's major backers: Russia and China... they have pilotless drones too, you know...


Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Robert Barricklow on October 23, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Dr. Jim Fetzer/Jim Vken discussing EXACTLY what Dr. Farrell’s piece adresses.
    Monday October 17, 2011
    Phony “Hit Men”, Occupy Wall Street, Libya

  2. HAL838 on October 22, 2011 at 6:36 am

    If you can add 2+2 or subract, I should say, 2-1,
    you’ve got a plan.

    An all volunteer Armed Services can’t be everywhere;
    soooo ‘we’ are (evidently) pulling out of Iraq to
    massacre Iran.

    “Nothing happens that isn’t planned.”

  3. MattB on October 21, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    So when will Amerika turn on its allies?

    When will ‘full spectrum dominance’ be applied to them?

    What if the U.K falls fully into the Euro/German elite way of doing things?

    Australia supplies an enormous amount of raw resources to China, India and Japan

    Actually, who else do you guys have?

  4. naomi on October 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Yes, we are finally going to go a country too far, a war too far and we are going to get knee capped.

    Iran is going to be our undoing. By our I mean English/Israel/United States empire.

  5. Robert Barricklow on October 21, 2011 at 9:10 am

    A debt-based economy & war are constantly in bed together. When out of bed, they are ploting trysts(coflicts) and and marriage(war).
    It’s a romance made in hell.
    The Federal Reserve Act’s ink was barely dry when America was then marched off to WW1.
    The Income Tax came right after as well, to pay off the interest due to the International Banking Cartel, aka The Federal Reserve.

    • Jay on October 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm

      Redux post:

      Actually , income tax has a lot more to do with all of that federal tax revenue lost because of Prohibition.

      Furthermore, remember the USA fought an imperial war with Spain in 1898. And fought wars with Mexico in the 1840s.

      Then there are the various wars with American Indians, and of course the civil war.

      • Robert Barricklow on October 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm

        The ‘Public Bank’ vs the ‘Private Bank’ has been an ongoing battle for many centuries. If so simplify further to an ‘open system'(public) vs a ‘closed system'(private), then for thousands of years.
        In fact the primary reason(Benjamin Franklin) was the Private Banking Cartel of England forcing the closure of our State Banking Systems. The War of 1812 was for the same primary reason.
        So in essence your right. 1913 was just a formality ‘under law’.
        Dr. Farrell’s, Babylon’s Banksters, really gets down & dirty into the nitty-gritty of this simplified aforementioned synopsis.

        • Jay on October 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm

          I’ve no problem with the idea and the actuality that open systems beat closed systems, however that doesn’t mean that federal taxes don’t serve a purpose which you most likely benefit from and nor are such taxes an invention of 1913.

          “Babylon’s Banksters”, um, not JPF’s best work, and very much a reworking of others, with milquetoast documentation. (The Roman temples as psychotronic communications devices is the best idea new to me in that book, though it’s someone else’s findings.)

          • Robert Barricklow on October 22, 2011 at 8:28 am

            In an open public based banking system NO taxes are necessary. Nort Dakota, the ONLY State with Public Banking(since 1919 I Believe) has sent it’s citizens CHECKS instead of taking taxes like other state. In fact, it is the ONLY state now in the U.S. WAY in the BLACK instead of way in the red.
            Check for articles and updates on proposed legislation in other states for Public State banking, as real bone-fide way out of the red.
            In fact, how about a getting rid of the current red/blue state paradigm, and shifting all states, In-The-Black, paradigm?With Public Banking is a win-win scenario.

  6. romanmel on October 21, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Pilotless drones.

    The thought came to my sometimes wondering mind recently about the high state of art in radio controled hobby planes. How long will it be before someone becomes enlightened to their use in deploying such upon a target here in the good ‘ol USA?

    That indeed is the problem with TPTB revealing this new use of existing technology as a weapon, especially when bright folks are out there with similar hardware available off the shelf, so to speak. I suspect we shall soon see the tables turned on our beloved domestic rulers.

    • Jay on October 21, 2011 at 9:09 am

      Someone already flew himself in a small plane in to an IRS offices in Austin TX I believe.

      Remote control planes, well that was one of the threats GWBush used to scare many into supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But even that moron realized the planes would have to be carrying really serious explosives, not something one could get.

      • Ramura on October 21, 2011 at 6:00 pm

        In addition to the Texas guy, didn’t they just arrest someone in the last few weeks who had made a couple of largish models he intended to use as domestic drones against the White House et al? They looked to be about 4-6 feet long, give or take, from the news photo. I am a gal; one that can’t size up cars and armaments at a glance and rattle off the style numbers….so that is my close estimate.

    • Jay on October 21, 2011 at 9:18 am

      Let’s try this post again:

      Someone already flew himself in a small plane in to an IRS offices in Austin TX I believe.

      Remote control planes, well that was one of the threats GWBush used to scare many into supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But even that moron realized the planes would have to be carrying really serious explosives, not something one could get.

    • Poohbah, Lord High Everything Else on October 21, 2011 at 9:07 pm

      If you look at a modern cruise missile a bit differently, you realize the real risk we face. Think of it not as a missile: think of it as a computer with an engine, airframe, flight controls, and a warhead as peripherals. Now realize that cruise missiles became practical weapons for a wealthy nation-state in the 1970s–the same technical revolution that gave us personal computers made a powerful computer cheap enough to throw away after one use–if the owner was a government and the reason was sufficiently important.

      That was 20 generations of computer technology ago. Today, far more powerful computers than the first cruise missile guidance packages fit in your pocket and are given away for free with a 2-year cell phone contract (there’s even a GPS receiver integrated into the device).

      20 years ago, cruise missile flight plans needed to be punched into the missile memory BY HAND, one keystroke at a time. Today, you can design a flight plan using Google Earth, click-and-drag it onto a SIM card, and insert it into an Arduino autopilot.

      30 years ago, we saw the rise of the personal computer. Tomorrow, we’ll see the personal cruise missile. Point. Click. BOOM!

      • Jay on October 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm

        Poohbah, Lord High Everything Else:

        You’ve comletely ignored the millions and millions it would cost to buy or build such a missile.

        Then there’s the fact that convential explosives on a cruise missile can’t destroy too much of a big building.

    • James on October 24, 2011 at 12:09 pm

      This possibility was first proposed by the very man that invented radio operated devices, non other then Nikola Tesla. It was part of his vision for “ending all war” by making human less drones fight instead of men/women. This all went down at the turn of the century and was so far ahead of it’s time that many have simply forgotten about it, except those in power. Achieving this and coupling it with his wireless energy system, that J.P. Morgan himself put the Kabosh on, we start to see a picture of a future many thought we would have had by the year 2000 no matter how unrealistic that future may have seemed or seems now.

      An open system of limitless energy capable of being transported instantly and fairly cheaply to ANYWHERE in the world (all this over one hundred years ago). That is a future we could have been living in right now. Yet as we all grow and mature with the world we live in, and the people that have, and currently do inhabit it, and following the stories of people like Dr. Farrell here, we see that none of us really had a chance. Doomed from the start almost as the current powers and systems that have been installed and ingrained into society and life itself, are far too large to fell on one’s own AND HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING FOR LONGER THEN MOST OF OUR LIVES, if not longer.

      • Jay on October 24, 2011 at 3:36 pm

        Tesla wasn’t talking about doing it with a few thousand 2011 dollars and a remote controlled plane.

        The point wasn’t about who predicted cruise missiles.

  7. Charles Frith on October 21, 2011 at 6:33 am

    I had reason to express by email, my “reservations” to an acquaintance recently when I discovered their Brookings Institute membership. I’m quite sure he was unsettled enough to do background research on me. His response took a few days but was pregnant with ‘guess what I know about you’. In a way he did me a favour. Up until then I was more informed about the Trilateral Commission and CFR but the defensiveness implicit in a veiled personal attack has given me the incentive to inspect more closely who they are, who their members are and scrutinise what they say. They are perhaps the latest manifestation of the banality of evil.

  8. Vinnie on October 21, 2011 at 6:10 am

    Of course, never consider the option of peacefully trading with and not intervening in the affairs of other nations and peoples. That would be too simple and certainly might make all of us realize we don’t need leaders…..or a ruling class…..or endless crusades to battle…….or men creating our money out of nothing and becoming enormously rich and powerful.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events