The world in the palm of their hands
[extract from Online Journal article http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/060705Estulin/060705estulin.html]

Iran

The presence of a top US general, James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and retired US Army General John M. Keane at the meeting in Germany suggested to us that the next stage of the conquest is about to begin.

An American neocon at an afternoon drink-fest said he was convinced that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the mullahs. Nicholas Beytout, editor-in chief of the French periodical Le Figaro, exclaimed "You don't really
believe that!" A tall, bold, well-dressed Swiss gentleman, believed to be Pascal Couchepin, head of the powerful Department of Home Affairs, replied reflexively that it will only succeed in having the Iranians rally behind their government. He ended by saying "You don't know Iranians."

Tempers boiled over momentarily when a Frenchman raising his voice told Kissinger that "an attack on Iran will escalate out of control." According to sources working for the CIA and the special unit of the US Army charged with protecting the US delegation at Rottach-Egern, both the CIA and the FBI are in open revolt against the Bush White House.

A member of the Greek Parliament asked Eival Gilady, strategic adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "What would happen if Iran were to retaliate?" Someone pointed out that even if the United States or Israel were to show restraint in their use of tactical nuclear weapons, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would surely not only engulf neighbour state,s raising the likelihood of a broader war, but also would succeed in creating a nuclear disaster through nuclear radiation spilling over a wide area. As a follow up question, someone asked, "How much of this war has to do with America doing its utmost to prevent Iran from becoming a regional power?"

A Frenchman wished to know if the impending attack on Iran would involve the United States and Israel working in tandem or "would it be a NATO operation?" The question was directed at NATO´s Secretary General Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer. Another European wanted to know how the US was planning to cope with three wars simultaneously, referring to Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran. The reader should be reminded that there are now 150,000 US troops deployed in Iraq who are unable to move to another theatre of operations because of effective resistance tactics.

The Israeli delegation was pressed to answer if they were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The answer was incoherent.

What is so terrifying about the Iran theatre of operations is that according to our deep sources, both of whom belong to the Group, there are two alternative dates set for the invasion. The earliest possible date would be the "deadest of summer" sometime in August and the other alternative is the late fall campaign. It substantially confirms the information provided by Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector, who stated that "George W. Bush has `signed off´ on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005." Ritter goes on to say that the June date suggests that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness."

Iran-Russia-China

A Frenchman pointedly asked Henry Kissinger if the US government's sabre-rattling against Iran means the beginning of new hostilities. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), asking for his turn to speak, dismissed the notion of an Iran invasion as unrealistic due to the sheer physical size of the country and its population size, not to mention billions involved in getting the operation off the ground. Up to the eyeballs in the Iraq quagmire, the United States military is wary of any new adventures in the hostile terrain against a much healthier enemy, both better prepared and organised. A Swiss man asked if a hypothetical attack on Iran would involve a preemptive strike against its nuclear sites. Richard Haass replied that such an attack would prove to be counterproductive because Teheran's counterattack options could range from "unleashing terrorism and promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to triggering oil price increases that could trigger a global economic crisis".

During dinner, according to several sources, Richard Perle criticised Haass´ position and explained his opposition to his view.

A woman believed to be Heather Munroe-Blum, vice-chancellor of McGill University in Quebec, Canada, asked a rhetorical question about what would happen if Iran were to continue building its nuclear arsenal? Haass replied that in this case scenario, the United States would have no choice but to grant Iran the same status as it does to Pakistan and India.

A US general commented that the China-Iran-Russia alliance is changing the geopolitical situation in the area. Rapprochement between Russia and China is viewed by them as a significant event not to be taken lightly, even though it has received little media attention in the west. A secret US government report was cited wherein, according to sources, the Chinese have spent upwards of several billion dollars in acquiring Russia's latest and most sophisticated weapons technology. Someone pointed out that the Sino-Russian alliance is not limited to military trade and that the non-military exchange of goods has grown 100 percent since the beginning of the Bush presidency. A delegate at the conference, believed to be, but not positively identified by the secret service sources, Anatoliy Sharansky, Israeli former minister for Jerusalem & Diaspora Affairs, stated categorically during a Friday night cocktail party that the counterweight to the Moscow-Beijing-Teheran axis is the US-Israeli-Turkey alliance.

A financial expert from a European nation intervened by stating that Russia financially is much better off today than four years ago because tax revenues, generated by fuel and arms production and exports as a result of heavy emphasis on military production, have financed strong growth of wages and pension incomes, boosting private consumption. A German pointedly asked Richard Perle if the "war on terrorism" will intensify over the second term of the Bush presidency.

The feeling of enough-is-enough wasn't limited to the Europeans wary of Bush's Hitler-like delirious proclamations of regime changes worldwide. Haass had pointedly told Richard Perle during a Saturday night cocktail party that the Bush administration has over-estimated its ability to change the world. Haass, according to several sources at the conference is reported to have stated that regime change can be attractive because it "is less distasteful than diplomacy and less dangerous than living with new nuclear states." However, he noted, "There is only one problem, it is highly unlikely to have the desired effect soon enough."

Russia

The discussion began with a European expert on international relations pointing out that over the next several years Russia is poised to assert itself and to increasingly challenge the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. Someone openly asked the committee if the world is safer today than in 2001 and will it be safer in four years time? A Dutchman responded by saying there is little doubt that the hand of international terrorism has been substantially strengthened by the US and its heavy-handed policy in the Middle East. A Danish man wondered out loud what happened to the US promise to take a lower key approach in Iraq, referring to the heavy-handed tactics employed by the American troops in the siege of Fallujah, which played an important role in alienating a large cross-section of moderate Arab states. Additionally, pointed out the Dutchman, terrorism hasn't been confined to the Iraq theatre of operations, but has escalated across Asia, Africa and most of the Middle East.

A blond woman believed to be Thérèse Delpech, director for Strategic Affairs for the Atomic Energy Commission, said that unilateralist policy actions by the US will only succeed in alienating friendly nations and emboldening enemy combatants. "US is not all-powerful. It must coordinate its policy with other great powers to achieve its ends."

An oil expert believed to be from Britain, possibly John Kerr, a director for Royal Dutch Shell, focused on the oil pipeline from Siberia to northern China. They openly wondered at the medium-term repercussions of this deal. An American investment banker asked just how much oil is expected to flow through this pipeline. Another member of the oil cartel offered a 65–80 million barrels per year as a ballpark figure.

Miscellaneous News

During a Saturday night session at the bar, neocon Richard N. Perle was seen and heard talking to a group of financiers, amongst them Philippe Camus, president of the European Space Agency, EADS; Donald Graham, chairman of the Washington Post and James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, about the near-future test-firing of India´s Agni 3 intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. James Jones said that such a weapon would greatly increase India's capabilities because, according to the four-star general, India's strategic deterrence will be able to strike targets deep inside neighbouring China. In fact, Dr M Natarajan, head of the prestigious Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), said as much two weeks later in New Delhi on 17 May.

Additionally, they discussed how to dust off a "boring" image of Angela Merkel, Germany's future leader. A short, over-sized male offered an opinion that in order for the widest cross-section of the German public to accept Merkel, the leader of the opposition Christian Democratic Union, as chancellor, it would be important to give a new definition to the term "family values." Germans well-versed in conservative Bavarian collective psyche believe that Merkel´s image, a divorcee with a doctorate degree in physics, isn't considered "reliable" to attract sufficient votes in this staunchly conservative area of the country. The idea, according to people within ear shot of the discussion "in the up-coming campaign would be to stress the importance of families rather than marriage as an institution."

Those pushing Schroeder aside in favour of a new candidate could very well signify that after three years of strife between American and European Bilderbergers over the war in Iraq, the secret society is ready to move forward with a much revised and cohesive policy. It must be remembered that Schroeder, along with French President Chirac, was one of the most vociferous European critics of the US-led Iraq intervention. Both Schroeder, representing the left and Merkel, representing the right, are owned by them. It has been the group's policy since its inception in 1954 to own both horses in the race. For the record, every US president belongs to the Group or its interlocked sister organization, The Council on Foreign Relations. Although Bush junior didn't personally attend the secret meeting in Rottach-Egern, the US government was well-represented by William Luti, Richard Perle and Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Conclusion

History teaches by analogy, not identity. The historical experience is not one of staying in the present and looking back. Rather it is one of going back into the past and returning to the present with a wider and more intense consciousness of the restrictions of our former outlook.

If democracy is the rule of the people, secret government agendas and influence-peddling sinister cliques, which stand for cunning selfishness, are incompatible with it. The whole idea of clandestine spheres of influence waging secret campaigns is therefore foreign to the notion of democracy and must be fought with zealous determination.

Through lies and obfuscations, these men are desperately trying to foist onto the unwilling world population a totalitarian, one-world government, a single global currency and a syncretic universal religion.

Those of us who care deeply about the future of politics, domestic and international, cannot afford to ignore the fact that the grimly political One World Government is no longer merely a shadow subculture. It has, in fact, emerged as the dominant force in world affairs. On this secretive level globalisation is already almost complete.


Daniel Estulin is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderbergers for over 13 years. Estulin was one of only two journalists in the world who witnessed and reported (from beyond the heavily guarded perimeter) the super secret meeting at the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel in Rottach-Egern, Munich, Bavaria, Germany, on May 5–8, 2005. He can be reached at  d.estulin@ctconsultoria.com.