Friday, January 13, 2012
Gerald Celente Predicts False Flag Could Close Banks
Guest Post by Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul
Trends Research Institute Founder Gerald Celente forecasts a false-flag by the United States will provide a needed excuse to shut down the banking system and institute an overnight dollar devaluation.
Speaking with GoldSeek Radio host Chris Waltzek this week, Celente suggested that covert plans from Washington for a staged event to cover up a financial collapse could take the form of either another act of terrorism or an all-out war with Iran.
“We believe that something [false flag or war] is going to happen,” Celente said. “There’s going to be a financial collapse; it’s collapsing in front of us, but they [Washington] may use a false flag rather than calling it a financial collapse—like maybe they’ll have the brassiere bomber, or the granny bomber in a wheelchair, you know, who’s going to threaten the entire country, or it maybe war. And war is ratcheting up with Iran.
Washington politicians from both sides of the aisle posture in preparation for an increasing likely military confrontation with Iran.
In a communique released to the European Union on Jan. 10, eight U.S. senators urged the EU to join the United States in an oil embargo and sanction of Iran’s central bank. The group also indicating that 2012 must be the “turning point in the confrontation” with Iran.
“We believe that both (steps) are absolutely necessary if we are to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons and thereby foreclose either a regional war or a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” reads the communique.
Incidentally, signatures to the communique include Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Mark Kirk, R-Ill.; Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and five others.
It should be noted, that Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, in particular, has studied the alleged Iranian threat to Western allies in detail, as he is the founder of a “bipartisan Iran Working Group” in 2004. Kirk also serves the Navy Reserves as a Commander.
Because of his work studying Iran, Kirk was asked to participate in a Q&A Congressional Roundtable discussion sponsored by The Jewish Policy Center publication inFocus in May 2007. Kirk, at that time, a Congressman, stated during the discussion that the “one rising threat – the existential threat – has the potential to destroy this little democracy and end more than 100 years of Zionism in an instant. And that is the growing danger we see in Iran, where a dictator openly calls for a fellow member of the United Nations to be wiped off the map. The Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile programs pose a mortal danger to the State of Israel, a danger we must remove through diplomatic means as soon as possible.”
Kirk’s proposed solution to the alleged Iranian threat to the “tiny democracy” is a simple one: quarantine gasoline imports to Iran in a similar technique deployed against Cuba by the Kennedy Administration during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
“Despite its status as a leading OPEC nation, the mullahs have so mishandled the nation’s energy sector that Iran lacks the refining capacity to turn its oil into gasoline,” Kirk explained. “Iran is dependent for almost half its gasoline on foreign imports – most delivered by one Dutch company, Vitol, aboard tankers mostly insured by one British firm, Lloyds of London.
“Looking at history, we find an interesting diplomatic lever effectively used by President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We can see how a naval quarantine of gasoline would grind Iran’s economy to a halt, leaving thousands of pro-Western Iranian young people to wonder why its leaders would choose nuclear weapons over their economic welfare.
“And because Iran’s naval strength is limited, a quarantine administered 200 miles off the coast would leave Iran with no military response. A quarantine of gasoline would pit our strength against their weakness, achieving our objectives without a shot being fired.”
So in May 2007, Kirk explained a rather simple and effective solution to the alleged Iranian problem, a full 16 months prior to the dramatic collapse of Bear Stearns in September 2008.
Instead, token sanctions imposed on Iran have only served to posture the U.S. as a patient negotiator in a trumped up scheme to justify military action if such action would provide political cover for domestic economic problems, according to many U.S. foreign policy pundits familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and U.S. actions taken against other “enemies” of the U.S.
Iran, like Libya and Iraq before it, is being set up as a scapegoat for an imminent U.S. economic collapse, according to Celente.
The sales job to the American people as a means of stirring up jingoism is underway, while U.S. policymakers coax Iran into war.
“The United States and the European Union have effectively declared an act of war,” said Celente. “They’re making it impossible for Iran to sell its oil. About sixty (60) percent of Iran’s GDP is derived from oil sales. They’re the third largest oil supplier in the world. So if that happens [war with Iran], they’ll call a bank holiday of some sort. So I’m very concerned.”
Further evidence suggesting an attack on Iran would occur under false pretenses came from U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on January 8 on CBS’s Face the Nation, where he said, “Are they [Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they are trying to develop a nuclear capability.”
A “nuclear capability” includes the production of 20 percent uranium compounds used in the making of a nuclear powered energy, a detail not expounded upon by Panetta, allowing the viewer to potentially miss the ambiguity of his statement in the midst of his theatrics of body language to matching a shift in tone.
Whether Washington embarks on another false flag attack or engages in other provocative acts against another sovereign nation, or creates a ‘catastrophic event’ through the use of an FBI-staged “brassiere bomber” in an attempt to disguise an economic collapse, Celente believes Washington needs some form of diversion to divert public anger away from failed political policies and the illegitimacy of a privately-held Federal Reserve.