From Volume 3, Issue Number 38 of EIR Online, Published Sep. 21, 2004

Latest From LaRouche

LaRouche Interviewed on IRIB Iran Radio

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Sept. 11 by Mehdi Diba for the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), which broadcasts from Tehran. It airs in English in the Asian subcontinent, Europe, and the United States.

MEHDI DIBA: Hello. Mr. LaRouche, how do you do?

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Pretty good.

DIBA: It's a pleasure to be able to talk to you again, with Iranian English radio. Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, thank you very much again, to join us in this interview.

LAROUCHE: Thank you. I'm glad to be with you.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, I would like to begin by asking about the Franklin spy case. As you know, most people have heard about the Franklin spy case in [the past] weeks and days, who have passed classified documents to Israelis. And there are some investigations by the FBI in this regard.

My question is that, what is the need to pass classified documents from Washington to Israel? When design is, regime of Israel and the U.S. are two close allies?

LAROUCHE: Well, I think the Franklin part, is, in a sense, an accidental feature of the whole case, which came up, while the main case was already under investigation. The leaking of the information on the Franklin case came from inside the Administration itself. And the purpose was, to defeat those neo-conservatives, who were on the verge of cooperating with the Sharon government, or perhaps Netanyahu, for an attack on the nuclear stations in Iran, which would probably be a nuclear attack. They might use, you know, one of these special types of micro-effect nuclear weapons, for a high-impact attack.

So therefore, the realization in the saner elements of the establishment here, that this is insane—just as the more reluctant recognition that this place, the game that was played in Beslan with Russia, was also insane—says, "Hold off. Expose the connection, which is a rotten connection—it always has been rotten—between people like AIPAC, the lobby in the United States, and the right wing in Israel, the right wing of the Likud—this thing must be held in check now, so that we do not have an action condoned by the Bush Administration, which would cause all kinds of hell for the world, for years to come."

And so, therefore, there was actually an honest motivation, which was an institutional reflex, from among saner circles within the institutions of government here, which caused the thing to be leaked. And what's happening now, is that Ashcroft and others are trying to do everything possible to prevent this from being developed further.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, as I've understood, the FBI was informed about the Franklin spy case. But, why was the story broken at this special time, when we don't have more than two months to the Presidential election in 2004 in the U.S.?

LAROUCHE: As I say, it was not really an election campaign issue. It was a much more deep issue. The issue was: Prevent the spread of what is already an impossible situation, created by what's happened in Afghanistan, and what's happened in Iraq, under Bush. Afghanistan is a worse mess than it was, when Bush went in there. Far worse.

Iraq has become a focal point of a threatened split of Iraq into a group of micro-states, which some idiots want to create. This would involve all kinds of involvement. It involves a threat to Iran; it involves a threat to Syria; a threat to the Arab world in general. And also, has now already begun to engage Turkey, in a posture about the danger of a split-off of the Kurdish section in Northern Iraq, into a real security problem for Turkey.

And so, we have a situation, which combined with Brzezinski and others targetting the areas around Chechnya—the whole Caucasus region around Chechnya—creates a general danger of putting the whole world into a kind of extended, thermonuclear-armed, asymmetric warfare.

So that those of us who understand what's going on, strategically, do not pick on isolated issues, like the Franklin case, or something like that, as isolated. We treat this as part of a strategic effort, to prevent all hell from busting loose on this planet.

DIBA: You've called some people within the U.S. Administration, as "culpable instruments." Who are exactly these people? And the subsuming intent of these "culpable elements" within the U.S. institutions?

LAROUCHE: We have typical—you have Lewis Libby, who is the chief of staff of Vice President Cheney. Lewis Libby was long the lawyer for Marc Rich, operating out of Zug, Switzerland, who is part of the Kalmanowitch operation. Which is this right-wing Israeli and related forces, which have been running these kinds of things around the world for a long time.

This crowd, in the United States, is typified by the circles associated with Cheney primarily, but also Rumsfeld, as an also-ran with Cheney: But, these people come from a special group—goes back to Sen. Henry Jackson, in the United States, who was a key part of forming this thing; Richard Perle; Bill Kristol, and Irving Kristol before him. Richard Perle is one of the most notorious figures. One of the most dangerous figures is Michael Ledeen. Paul Wolfowitz is a protégé of this. The Office of Special Plans, which is a nest of this thing, inside the Administration.

So, all over the place, you have this group which are called here "neo-conservatives," which I've got referred to as "the Children of Satan." And these fellows are a very significant part. They're not the only danger of instability in the United States, and internationally, but they are the leading edge, together with Tony Blair in London: They're the leading edge of the problem, strategically, globally.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, to which group are these neo-conservatives affiliated? To which right-wing party, or to Jewish right-wing party?

LAROUCHE: Well, it's the right wing. There are certain Jewish elements, who are tied to this Likud. This is a phenomenon—if you read the literature, for example, there's a very important couple of books by Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, here, a friend of mine, who has written about this, from his experience, as a rabbi in dealing with Israel: about the turn that occurred toward the end of the '60s and beginning of the '70s. And this produced an element, which is tied also to religious crazies in the United States—I mean the Jewish religious crazies are not normal Jews: They're crazy. And this is a very important element with Sharon, and with Netanyahu, in Israel and in the United States. And these are people who are being used. They are not the source of the problem: They are an instrument of the problem.

But the source of the problem lies inside the establishment, inside Britain and the United States. The kind of elements that go with Tony Blair, today, for example.

For example: Tony Blair is a liberal imperialist, a Fabian liberal imperialist. And he represents the contemporary, leading imperialist threat, right-wing threat, from Britain, even though he's supposed to be a Labour Party representative. They correspond to this group we call the "neo-conservatives," here in the United States. They're all the same thing. They have a global plan of empire, in their mind. And one of their things, which was developed by Brzezinski, together with his sidekick Huntington, was to actually target Islam, as the first target for global, religious, ethnic warfare. And this global, ethnic, religious warfare is their agenda, and they use the Israeli factor, the right-wing Israeli factor, as a key weapon, like a hand-grenade in the whole Southwest Asia region, as part of their program.

But, this does not come from inside this Israeli group. The Israeli group, which is on a self-destructive course, if you look at the state of Israel today: Israel is about to be destroyed by its own hand, if it doesn't stop. And so, this is a hand-grenade thrown by these Anglo-American forces, into the situation, which now results in the threats we experience in the whole region.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, there has been an escalation in terrorist acts, in the past few weeks. And the most dangerous one, was seen in Russia. Is there any relationship between these terrorist activities around the world?

LAROUCHE: Oh yes, sure! This is what is the most dangerous strategic development. Because, what you have—Russia knows, and Putin knows, the establishment of Russia knows, that the events in Transcaucasia, the instability is a long-range policy. I actually produced a film on this subject, called "Storm Over Asia," back in 1999. And this is a strategic thing, which targets the oil-rich centers, of the Caucasus and adjoining Central Asia. This group comes from the United States. The key figure behind this, politically, is former National Security Advisor Brzezinski. Brzezinski is using the Jamestown Foundation and other conduits, to run terrorist operations against Russia, from within Transcaucasia and Central Asia. As a result of that, a gang, which was not Chechens as such, it was an operation run by this crowd, targetted this Beslan school in North Ossetia.

This is recognized—as Putin said, and as others are saying in Russia, today—this is recognized as a strategic threat. And when you talk about strategic threat to Russia, and they perceive it, then you're talking about Russian methods, which mean asymmetric warfare, like Russia used in Indo-China against the United States; that this means asymmetric warfare against a faction in the United States, and Britain, by a country which has thermonuclear and other advanced weapons, of a type which are actually comparable to what anyone has today. Because Russian science, left over from the Soviet science, has this kind of capability. It may be very reduced in power, but it has the scientific capability, and the knowledge, experience, to conduct very serious forms of general asymmetric warfare.

And we're on the verge of causing that. Unless the United States backs off, and Europe backs off, from this Transcaucasia policy, of terrorism, then, we are going to be deeply into a period of asymmetric warfare. Who knows what'll happen to civilization as a whole?

I think the warning from Iran, about the danger to the world of an attack on Iran, by Israel, is appropriate. It's just one aspect of the thing. But, it's typical of the kind of world in which we've entered now.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, your assistant, Mrs. Angela Vullo, told me that you have endorsed John Kerry. Do you support his policies? And does he have any chance of being elected in this Presidential election, or not?

LAROUCHE: Absolutely. Kerry, as you run a profile on him, you see that his record, as presented, that he's played a very important role, in the kind of function he was performing in two tours of duty in Vietnam, as an officer. What is reported about the Swift Boat operation, is merely the obvious part about what he did there. He's a man who is very intelligent, in the intelligence side of international affairs, personally. He is a man, like Hamlet, of Shakespeare's play Hamlet, who is a very good soldier, a courageous fighter. But, he, like Hamlet, shrinks from facing the intellectual responsibilities of really thinking about global policies in the higher sense, as I do.

Now, behind Kerry now, the change in Kerry's policy, recently, has come from two sources: First of all, it came from Bill Clinton. And Kerry's campaign has been changed in character, by Kerry's acceptance of Bill Clinton's, the former President's, suggestions. Bill, of course, is somewhat incapacitated at the moment, with this angina attack that he had to receive surgery for. But, Clinton's people are now in a leading position in the Kerry campaign. As a result of Clinton's coming in, and as a result of other things, I have been brought in to this campaign process, as an independent factor in cooperating with the Democratic campaign committee.

We are trying, now, to introduce those changes in the Kerry campaign, nationally, which will make Kerry, who is potentially—he's not the best man for President, but he's a good man for President compared to the present Presidency. He's a guy you can work with: intelligent, well-meaning, sincere, so forth. If we can make up the difference, of what he lacks, and through bringing various people into the picture, which means that his Presidency would be well-equipped, and he would be well-advised, I think the world should look forward to the hope, that this works out, because that's the best chance for the world right now.

The United States will have to determine, in the way it plays the game, how history goes in the coming period. We need a good Presidency, and we've got to get rid of the present one—quickly. Otherwise, all hell will break loose: If Bush were reelected, with Cheney, I can guarantee you, the world will be at war, beyond anyone's belief, in a very short period of time, perhaps even after the day of the election. So, we must get rid of the Bush Administration. We must replace it. And Kerry is the only available instrument for replacing it.

We now have, what I believe to be, a workable approach to a Kerry election, and an elected Kerry Presidency. It's not an absolute guarantee, but with Clinton in there, and with my participation, and some other things like that, I think that we can have that kind of solution.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, we may see another probable preemptive attack in the Middle East, if George W. Bush is reelected this year. What are the early consequences, or long-term consequences, of another possible Mideast war, with the U.S. and its ally?

LAROUCHE: Well, for you, your knowledge of what Iran really is, today, as opposed to the propaganda picture outside: If Israel were to start an attack on Iran, it could not conduct and sustain an effective attack on Iran, and the consequences of that attack, by itself. It's not in good condition.

Therefore, the function of an attack on Iran would be as an extension of the Bush Administration policy. Particularly the Cheney policy.

So therefore, you could not have an attack on Iran, by Israel, which would not include a U.S. support of that attack. And it would have to be U.S. actual active support: Because, you would have, immediately, you would have chain-reaction effects in the entire region. I mean, an attack on Iran would set ablaze a lot of things, particularly in the context of the present, recent attack on Russia. This creates a very high-tension situation, beyond anything, that I think that most people appreciate. It's extremely dangerous.

So, that is our situation. The United States would be involved. And therefore, as I say, the exposure of the Franklin case, as putting a label on something, it's very serious. And there's a very serious fight here, to bring AIPAC under control, because the AIPAC influence inside the establishment here, is part of the ability for somebody to get an Israeli-U.S. combined attack on Iran, now. Or, on Syria, for example, similarly.

DIBA: So, Mr. LaRouche, what are your proposals for the forces around the world, which acclaim and support the effort to bring the influence and spreading situation in Southwest Asia under peaceful control?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, the problem is essentially an economic system collapse. The world is still run by a group of financial oligarchs, of the type that used to be associated with Venice, in the days that Venice was an imperial power; when Venice, together with the Norman Crusaders and the Norman chivalry, was creating most of the mess in the world. That factor in history, has never been eliminated. It was really the cause of World War I; it was the rise of Hitler; all these things are results of this influence, of this tradition, which is now Anglo-Dutch imperialist, actually—liberal, so-called.

This tendency, of oligarchical banker-controlled nation-states and economies, is the danger factor, always, in general warfare, as now. The present international monetary-financial system is now in the process of collapsing. Nothing can prevent this system from vanishing from the planet, in the immediate future. Therefore, we're going to go to a change. And most of the warfare threats and so forth, are results of orchestration of behind-the-scenes influence, which are responding to that time of change we have now entered.

We'll come out of this either with a fascist attempt, an international fascist attempt, to establish a global empire, an Anglo-American liberal global empire, with ideologies very much like those of the neo-conservatives. Or: We will go back to a Roosevelt orientation to a depression, in which in the United States and other nations, take Franklin Roosevelt's intention, from his inauguration as President until the moment of his death, which was to eliminate all vestiges of imperialism and colonialism from the planet, and to enter into a message of cooperation, like those of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, of a cooperation for common purpose among sovereign nation-states, which are each perfectly sovereign. That's the alternative.

We can create a new monetary system, on the model of the original Bretton Woods system. That would work. A worldwide protectionist system, of trade and financial agreements, with fixed-exchange rate in currency, and international cooperation with the common purpose of economic development.

So that's what, really, the choice is. What we're seeing as the dangers and the options, the opportunities now, is a reflection of these as the two great grinding wheels, which are turning the wheat into flour. And these grinding wheels of conflict between the banker-controlled group, especially centered around the liberal imperialists around Blair, and our similar people in the United States; and those of us, who either believe, or would accept, facing a meltdown of the present monetary system which is on the way now: that responding to that meltdown, by launching a revival, in a new form, of the original Bretton Woods system, on the basis of the idea of the cooperation among nation-states, rather than imperialism. Those are the two alternatives.

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche, shortly, one last question: As today is Sept. 11, do you think, if the truth has come out, or will ever come out?

LAROUCHE: The truth has not come out, really. It's come out in part. Some of us know some of the truth, a lot of it. The Report is—there's some truth in the Report. But the conclusions are not useful, though some people are pushing them.

The truth is, that, as in 1933, when Hitler in January was made the Chancellor, and the Germans laughed at him, because they thought he wasn't going to be around. But, then, Hermann Goering organized a fire in the Reichstag, and emergency powers were put into effect, under which Hitler became a dictator. And World War II was inevitable, then.

That's the kind of period we're in. But, in those circumstances, as I warned in January, just before Bush was installed as President, I said, his Administration—because of the economic situation, and because he and his party are incompetent to deal with this problem—that we must expect very soon, a major incident in the United States, which would be like, politically, the equivalent to what Hermann Goering did in setting fire to the Reichstag, in 1933. That was what happened.

Now, the question of exactly how it happened—who did what to whom—is not clear. Though I know what the nature of the problem is. I know the nature of what was done. But I don't have the names and addresses of those who did it.

But the story that comes out, is false. It's not true. This was a planned incident. It was strategic in nature. It was aimed, not at the United States as such; it was aimed to provoke the United States, into the kinds of policy which the Bush Administration has followed since the aftermath of that incident.

And that's typical: That we are in a period where we must expect orchestrated catastrophes, atrocities, whose aim is to provoke reactions. We've seen that in the United States, and the state of the United States, today, on its policies, has been a policy-shift which was made possible, by an incident which was orchestrated by people within the Anglo-American establishment itself.

DIBA: Well, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, executive director, editor, and columnist at the Executive Intelligence Review, based in Virginia, an economist, and a U.S. Presidential pre-candidate: a pleasure and honor to have you with me. Thank you, very much.

LAROUCHE: Thank you. Good day!

DIBA: Mr. LaRouche? I really appreciate your time. Thank you, very much.

LAROUCHE: Okay. I'll see you again.

All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS