Threat to world peace: The possibility of a US attack on Iran

Excerpts of presentation, Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

“I have been speaking in public for 60 years, but this is perhaps the most important topic I have ever spoken about.”

“I want to talk about the threat to world peace, and the possibility of a US attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on Iran.”

Even The New York Times is worried about it, and has reported on the split between the pro-war Vice-President’s office and Condoleezza Rice’s State Department . . . the plans are there, and they concern a lot of people within the Bush administration, who are leaking them. One thing the leaks show is that the plans are massive.”

“There has been talk of this for three years now, and Seymour Hersh has been predicting it about every three months . . . Does that mean we shouldn’t be alarmed [because it keeps getting predicted and doesn’t happen]?

“The recent replacement of Robert Gates [as US Secretary of Defense] may be taken as a sign that the Bush administration has become less likely to attack Iran. However, paradoxically the lessening influence of the hawks increases the chance of another 9/11 . . . The plans were drawn up to be in response to a supposed attack on the US” [hence pro-war factions may require one in order to trigger the war].

Scott quotes a military officer: “As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional with Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism against the United States” A similar warning has been given by former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

On the 9/11 movement:

“Like all research movements, the 9/11 movement is becoming ingrown, debating matters that alienate the general public. [This debate] focusses on detail rather than anlysis . . . false simplicities as opposed to analytic depth [a mirror opposite of the Bush simplicities]. LIHOP [the theory that the Bush administartion allowed 9/11 to happen] and MIHOP [the theory that the Bush administration caused 9/11 to happen] are also false simplicities . . .”

“The 9/11 movement is a movement that wants the truth. It cannot be said to be a movement that has the truth.”

“I find it very hard to believe that the Bush administration either let or made it happen. It’s clear that people within government were involved, but we should avoid condemning an entire administration.”

“There is a whole milieu of Saudi capital allied with Texas capital . . . somewhere within the Saudi/Texas/Geneva [banking] milieu there is the place for a meta-group . . . with resources necessary for a successful plot.”

Quotes Russian general: “‘9/11 changed the direction of the world in the direction desired by transnational oligarchs and and an international mafia.’ That’s what I mean by a meta group.”

Nevertheless, Scott regards Cheney as likely involved: “Cheney should be made to testify again under oath . . . The most likely candidate for involvement in the first 9/11 for Iraq is also the most likely for a second attack on Iran.”

“The more status someone has in this society, the harder it is for them to accept that there is something wrong with that society . . . my book [The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, forthcoming from the University of California Press] is addressed to the problem of the ignorance of the highly educated.”

“The 9/11 report only lies in certain places. . . there is a pattern: a diminishment of the role played by Cheney on that day.” Scott cites [former Secretary of Transportation] Norman Minetta’s testimony that Cheney was in the White House bunker by 9:20; 9/11 commission simply ignored it, and reported instead that he arrived shortly before 10.”

Cheney himself told the press five days after 9/11 that he had arrived in the bunker before the Pentagon was hit. He later changed his account. “One of the accounts has to be wrong. Should we believe this man when he comes before us and says we should go to war with Iran? I think we need more information about the first thing he told us.”

“If he was in the bunker before 9:37, he had time to issue all the salient commands on that morning.”

“It is inconceivable that the Secret Service waited 14 minutes to rush Cheney into the bunker. And we now know that the first report of a plane incoming to The Pentagon was at 9:21. If we ever receive the Secret Service timeline, we will most likely find that that is when he was taken there.”

The 9/11 Commission didn’t investigate the flagrant contradiction between Minetta’s testimony and Cheney’s [statements]. The White House implied that Minetta got the time and plane wrong, based on the account given by Cheney. “A third version comes from Mrs. Cheney and the leading White House perjurer, I. Lewis Libby . . . that’s the one the 9/11 Commission chose.”

“On the basis of the track record, the one that would carry the most credibility is Norman Minetta’s. The notes of I. Lewis Libby should be subjected to severe scrutiny. Mr. Cheney should be recalled, leading either to charges of perjury or a very different version of what happened.”

In the 1980’s, during the Reagan administration, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. were charged with creating a plan that, in the event of a national emergency, would “dispense with legal procedures and replace them with a secret procedure for putting in place a new President and his staff,” in the name of continuity of government. George H. W. Bush also had input.

“By this means Cheney was able to put in place a radical change of government before 9:54 on Sept. 11, 2001.”

“What we have seen since 9/11 is the constitutional government being replaced by deep government.”

Similar tactics used used in the JFK assassination. “When deep government makes these encroachments, they turn to their ties in drug trafficking . . . in the case of 9/11, those drug proxies were almost certainly people embedded in 9/11 . . . my hypothesis is that there is still a deep-state, there is still an Al Qaeda involved in drug trafficking, and they are still capable of creating another 9/11.”

“We are talking about the largest homicide in the history of the US, and it is a homicide that hasn’t yet been properly investigated.”

“We know that Cheney disappeared for long periods of time to a bunker on the Pennsylvania-Maryland border and became, according The Washington Post, the leader of a shadow government.”

On the morning of 9/11, Both Cheney and Rumsfeld absented themselves from their staffs. Rumsfeld claimed he was outside the Pentagon, helping carry stretchers. But Scott proposes they were absent “in order to discuss a topic their staffs were not cleared to know about, and that was COG [“Continuity of Government.]”

Areas to focus on:

1. Who authored the June, 2001 document giving control of the air command to Cheney?

2. The contested time of Cheney’s arrival in the White House bunker.

3. Cheney’s orders regarding the plane approaching the Pentagon [see Norman Minetta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission].

4. Cheney’s calls with Bush and Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11, and did they talk about COG?

“My last paragraph is addressed to you in this room. If what I have said about peace and 9/11 has any meaning to you, then what you do in the months to come will be very important.”

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, is a former Canadian diplomat, researcher, professor, University of California, Berkeley

Articles by: Prof Peter Dale Scott

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]