In the spring of 2002 many experts concluded that the war on Iraq would take place in the summer or at the latest the autumn of that year. Myself and others disputed this in stating that the war had been delayed until at least early 2003. How did we know?

There is an internal fissure within the New World Order between what is known as the Anglo-American establishment and the European bloc. It is a contrast in ideology. The European power bloc, which is dominated by France and Germany, holds that a global government system can only be established without popular uprising in a piecemeal fashion. Policies and manufactured crises need to be broken down into bite-sized chunks over a long period of time so as to gently acclimatize and lull people into accepting the New World Order. This is best represented by the European Union, which began as ‘just a free trade zone’ and over the course of time has slowly evolved into a giant centralized and unelected federal superstate.

On the other hand you have the Anglo-American establishment dominated by Britain and America that seeks to forcefully impose the agenda swiftly and with an iron fist. They prefer to blow things up and immediately propose openly fascistic legislation crushing basic rights and liberties. The Europeans dislike this approach because they see it as rash and being more likely to stir up an awakening and a resistance to the agenda.

The Europeans favour Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World approach to conquering humanity, namely by conditioning the program into them. The Anglo-Americans favour the George Orwell 1984 approach, fear and terror to brutalize humanity into compliance. Both methods have been successful at different points in history and judging at what time to play which particular card is a constant headache to the Globalists. This is why there is often bitter infighting between the two factions and this inevitably spills out publicly. 

But the point to stress is that, despite there being two different strategy formats, the final goal is essentially the same. In the case of Iraq we had the Germans and the French supposedly ‘opposing’ the invasion of Iraq and standing in the way of an American led attack. And yet if you took the time to read what the Germans and French were proposing, it was essentially the same as what the Americans and British were ultimately proposing, namely full scale United Nations occupation of the country. But before the occupation, the Americans and British wanted make a huge profit from sales of military hardware and equipment via Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s Haliburton and of course they wanted full control of the oil fields. The Bush administration is awash with oilmen.

This split within the New World Order was evident at the May/June 2002 Bilderberg meeting. Veteran correspondent Jim Tucker of the American Free Press, utilized his informants within Bilderberg to
ascertain that the war on Iraq had been postponed because it was considered too much of an impulsive manoeuvre,

“The issue of America going to war in Iraq has been delayed, with the White House agreeing to wait at least until next year, instead of late summer or early fall, but many issues simmer at this year’s secret Bilderberg meeting.”

Bear in mind, this was at a time when the media were beating the war drums for a summer invasion. The amount of times these ‘conspiracy theories’ turn out to be accurate geopolitical forecasts is simply amazing!

Tucker added further details about the role of Donald Rumsfeld in a subsequent

“Rumsfeld is known to have been summoned to reassure the Europeans there would be “no immediate” U.S. invasion of Iraq as had been planned by the White House.  He was pressed, but refused to say, that the United States had no plans for future wars.”

And so the timetable was set for a February/March 2003 war, which is precisely the time American and British forces were stationed and ready for a war. I repeated time and time again on my website that the war had been delayed while the media reported that the invasion was imminent. As I write in February 2003, the war has been delayed and might even be deferred beyond the March time frame.

The decision to attack Iraq for the second time was made in September 2000; even before the Bush administration came to power.

This decision emerged from a
report by the Project For a New American Century. THE PNAC describes itself as, “a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.” After reading its proposals, I think they should carry a subtitle of, ‘we have no more enemies so to justify massively increased defense spending let’s invent some’. The organization and its goals are a precise example of the thinking behind the Anglo-American establishment power bloc.

The document is entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century’ and was written for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The participants of the project include Harvard University, John Hopkins University, the RAND Corporation and the Carnegie Corporation along with several military figures from the U.S. Naval War College. According to British Labour MP Tim Dalyell,

“This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.” 

The report reads like a laundry list of imperial conquest. It calls for conquest of Iran, conquest of Syria, conquest of Libya, conquest of North Korea, militarization of space, ‘regime change in China’, development of biological weapons to be used in war and a host of other colonial adventures which are summed up in their jargon as being ‘simultaneous major theatre wars'.

The most interesting section of the report relates to Iraq. The report states,

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

This is solid proof that the Bush administration’s real intention behind invading Iraq is to impose its own geopolitical primacy and has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or the moral removal of Saddam Hussein. The report was picked up by the
Sunday Herald and a handful of other news outlets but for some strange reason has received no attention in the mainstream American press.

Issues of geopolitical primacy and the occupation of Iraq go hand in hand with American oil interests in the region. Leftists have used the phrase “it’s all about the oil” so many times that they have worn it out. They rarely present much evidence to verify this claim and this is why the phrase has become a cliché in the media. I do have the evidence to make this claim without it being just an empty maxim.

The era of cheap and abundant oil is coming to a close. Many experts predict that demand will outrun supply in 10 years time. Therefore it is inevitable that world oil prices will dramatically rise. The benefit of controlling the world’s biggest oil supplies will be greater than it has ever been. Iraq contains the second largest oil supply on earth, at least 112 billion barrels of proven reserves, one tenth of the world’s supply, with some suggesting it is even more plentiful than number one in the world, Saudi Arabia. The script is set for America to turn on its ally in a matter of years because the Saudis have threatened to raise their oil prices and so an extra source of oil is a necessity for America to retain its superpower status. A puppet regime in Iraq would pump three times the amount of oil than current levels, as reported by
Newsweek.  The fall in supply from Venezuela has also hit hard, which is why the CIA have attempted on more than one occasion to overthrow Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

In April 2001, a
report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy revealed the Bush administration’s desperate urge to remove Saddam Hussein from the scene to protect their oil interests. The report was commissioned by U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney. It read, 

“The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.”

The Baker Institute was set up by former secretary of state under daddy Bush, James Baker, another key man in the arming of Iraq and numerous other criminal activities. The advisors for the report included Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, and a host of top oil company executives. The Council on Foreign Relations were also involved in the proposals. 
The document presents a strategy to deploy United Nations weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq of any remaining arms and then to move in and take control of the oil within three to five years. This is the exact course of events we saw unfold in late 2002 and into 2003. Remember, the dossier was released in April 2001 and so this clearly indicates that September 11 and the much repeated ‘it’s a more dangerous world so we must take out Saddam’ mantra is an outright lie. The Sunday Herald
commented that the document, “fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.”

The Sydney Morning Herald of Australia made a similar

“While the US now presses for "regime change" in Iraq, more than 18 months ago the report repeatedly emphasised its importance as an oil producer and the need to expand Iraqi production as soon as possible to meet projected oil shortages - shortages it said could be avoided only through increased production or conservation in the near-term.”

The report is a smoking gun and tells us that the agenda to commandeer the Iraqi oil fields was decided upon two or more years before the proposed invasion itself. However, the White House still insisted it had not even considered what the consequences in the oil market would be from a war even as they were massing troops.

Mainstream Indian analysts also went
public to point out the oil agenda of the invasion of Iraq in September 2002,

“Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country.” 

Even as people like Tony Blair were calling the ‘alleged’ oil agenda a conspiracy theory, the biggest newspapers in the world were

“A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.”

Former CIA director James R. Woolsey went on the record as saying that the oil windfall would be divvied up fairly between the nations that agreed to support the war.

And so it was no surprise that the first priority after the invasion of Iraq was to secure the oil fields. Talks on this began in secret because, according to the
London Guardian, “The companies are reluctant to mention oil in public, fearing it will feed Arab suspicion that it is the main factor in the confrontation with Iraq…According to the officials, Mr Cheney's staff held a meeting in October with Exxon Mobil Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConcocoPhilips, Halliburton, but both the US administration and the companies deny it.”  Of course when the plan became public the media put out the blatantly ridiculous spin that control of the Iraqi oil fields was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Just like the U.N. oil for food program has been to the benefit of the Iraqi people too, killing 500,000 of them. Colin Powell was the main proponent of this supposition and yet when asked if U.S. oil companies would get the contracts for the operation of the oilfields he said, “I don't have an answer to that question.”

On the eve of the war the U.S. cited fabricated and unreliable evidence to try and justify a war in the face of mounting anti-war demonstrations.

Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N. on February 5 2003 was described as a watershed because it firmly divided the world into pro and anti-war camps. At this point blatantly demonization-driven stories were emerging suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s spies were running and organizing anti-war protests across the world. Hussein can barely control his small region of dominance and so how his agents were able to leave the country and infiltrate the anti-war movement is baffling.

Powell’s ‘evidence’ consisted of satellite photographs which arrows drawn on pointing to objects that could have been anything, if the satellite photos were even genuine at all. The Secretary of State also outlined that the Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, which he linked to Hussein, were operating a chemical and poisons factory in north-eastern Iraq. When journalists from several different countries visited this location, they
found out that it was in fact a bakery,

“It emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.”

The London Observer concluded that Powell’s charge was ‘cheap hyperbole’. 

During his presentation, Powell also held up a British intelligence dossier that claimed to detail Iraq’s links to terrorist organizations. Powell stated,

“I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.”

The dossier, entitled ‘Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation’ was
revealed just a day after Powell’s speech as a compilation of 6-year-old magazine articles and a graduate student thesis which cited information that was 12-years-old. Four of the report’s nineteen pages were copied verbatim from an Internet version of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Downing Street copied the text without even removing the spelling mistakes. The only changes that were made were detailed by U.K. Channel 4 News,

“In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading. Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq".  The original reads: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq." And the provocative role of "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes" has a weaker, political context in the original: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes.”

The British government made itself look even more foolish by refusing to apologize and actually
defending the material as accurate. They couldn’t see the harm in passing off a student essay as high-level MI6 intelligence. Former Labour MP Glenda Jackson commented,

“If that was presented to Parliament and the country as being up-to-date intelligence, albeit collected from a variety of sources but by British intelligence agents..... it is another example of how the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq. And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying.”

Tim Dalyell, the longest serving member of the House of Commons, was actually ejected from the House by presiding officer Michael Martin after

“To plagiarize an out of date Ph.D. thesis and to present it as an official report of the latest British intelligence information, surely it reveals a lack of awareness of the disastrous consequences of such a deception. This is not a trivial leak. It is a document on which is the basis of whether or not this country goes to war and whether or not young servicemen and servicewomen are to put their own lives at risk and indeed thousands, tens of thousands of innocent civilians.”

The fraud deepened when it was established that the group who actually put the dossier together were not affiliated with MI6 but were a selection of junior aides from the office of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s propagandist and spin master.

Immediately after this story began to circulate and build in intensity, the U.S. upped the terror alert level to orange and Tony Blair stationed troops and tanks at Heathrow airport. The government again terrorized the people into becoming distracted by fear and the story of the fraudulent Iraq dossier never resurfaced again. Compare this to the case of ‘Cheriegate’ where Blair’s wife was revealed to have some second hand links to a conman. This was nothing compared to the dossier story and yet it dragged on for weeks and months. 

There were also numerous attempts to link Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. There is a link between the two and that link is that both of these monsters were initially funded, armed and empowered by the CIA. Apart from that, the two are arch enemies. Hussein is a womanizing hedonist Socialist while bin Laden is a devout fundamentalist. Why would Hussein want to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups that would use them against him? The New York Times

“Like other Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam Hussein has long recognized that Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has shown no interest in working with them against their common enemy, the United States. This was the understanding of American intelligence in the 1990's. In 1998, the National Security Council assigned staff to determine whether that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all the available intelligence that could have pointed to a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the group found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship.”

And yet we were subjected again and again to people like Tony Blair, George Bush and Jack Straw telling us there were clear links between Al-Qaeda and Hussein but not surprisingly they ‘couldn’t tell us the nature of those links’ because of security concerns. Polls were then released showing that over 50% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were the same person. People have been brainwashed by the media and Hollywood to only think in black and white, to think that there are just good guys and bad guys.  Rohan Gunaratna is an expert on international terrorism at St. Andrews University. He

“I have examined many thousands of documents from Afghanistan I could not find any links whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. If there are links, they should prove it. They have an enormous intelligence budget, they have interviewed more than 1,000 al-Qaeda suspects, they have examined thousands of documents, and they have found nothing.”

Amid empty accusations of a link between Hussein and bin Laden, angry British intelligence officials leaked a top-secret report saying that there were no links. There was, according to the
BBC, growing disquiet at the way their work was being politicised to support the case for war on Iraq. 

Powell’s dossier of ‘evidence’, the student essay ‘intelligence report’, the phantom links, the whole façade was an endless stream of bullshit intended to convince people who never look behind the curtain that war was justified. The contention that the biggest military power in the world bombarding a small country to ashes for the second time in twelve years and killing thousands more innocent people is ‘justified’ beggars belief. North Korea has nuclear bombs that can hit America and has publicly threatened to use them. North Korea has a dictator ten times worse than Hussein who has starved a million of his people. North Korea has a network of concentration camps that hold 200,000 people in horrific conditions. Where is the invasion of North Korea? There isn’t one. There isn’t one because the war on Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is about advancing the New World Order agenda via the muscle of the United States.

So when the talking heads announce that ‘we’ are going to war just remember that it is not ‘we’ who will be slaughtering families. It is not ‘we’ who will be using depleted uranium ensuring another generation of deformed babies. It is not even ‘we’ who will profit from the takeover of the oil supply. It is the global elite, notching up another sovereign country on the road to constructing their dark empire of world government.

Paul Joseph Watson is a writer and researcher based in Sheffield, England. He is the webmaster at both and Alex Jones' Watson's new book Order Out of Chaos - published by Dandelion - will be released later this year. Contact him at
Permission to reprint this article is granted providing the original author is cited and a link to
PRISON is included. The views expressed in this article may not necessarily be those of Alex Jones.
Enter recipient's e-mail:

Middle Eastern Chessboard Part 2: The Invasion of Iraq

By Paul Joseph Watson

Saddam Hussein may well have small stocks of chemical and biological weapons in his arsenal because we know from confirmed Senate reports that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched as Ronald Reagan’s envoy in 1983 to sell them to him. I have already covered how the U.S. government provided Saddam with the weapons they now use as a reason for wanting rid of him. My argument is not centered on whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because the war on Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction and this is admitted by the government itself in its own policy documents.