Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dubai ports takeover linked to Iran attack?
WND ^ | 2/25/06 | Jerome Corsi

Posted on 02/25/2006 5:06:56 PM PST by freedom44

Is the Bush administration's recent deal to allow the Dubai government effectively to take over control of container and stevedore operations in 22 U.S. ports part of a secret plan to launch a military strike on Iran?

Maybe the Dubai Ports World, or DPW, deal is the quid pro quo, the pay-off, for Dubai allowing us to use military facilities in the United Arab Emirates as staging points for a planned Iran attack?

Maybe the Bush administration is turning a blind eye to the extensive flight of capital and people from Iran to Iraq because the U.S. wants to protect those Iranians who can flee to Dubai (as well as the capital they bring with them) before a "shock and awe" military attack on Iran takes out the Ahmadinejad regime and all the mullahs who stay home with him? Strangely, the pieces begin to add up to these conclusions.

We have amply document that Dubai has been a welcome home for the capital flight from Iran as the mullahs and their cronies seek to find a safe haven for the billions they have stolen from the Iranian people. Dubai calculates that by the end of 2006, some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Over 7,000 Iranian companies operate in Dubai, and some 300,000 to 400,000 wealthy Iranians make Dubai their home some or all of the year. Billionaire former President Akbar Hashami Rafsanjani owns vacation resorts on Dubai's world-class beaches.

Meanwhile, Iran announced last week that 10 centrifuges have now gone operational at their uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. In meetings with leaders of Hamas, Iran agreed to fund the terrorist organization, making up the shortfall caused by the decision of the United States and Israel to withhold funds. Yet, in meetings with officials of the United Arab Emirates this week, there is no suggestion that Secretary Rice insisted that the UAE could face sanctions for continuing to support Iran.

Under pressure over the DPW deal, President Bush decided to emphasize how important the UAE was to the United States military, allowing us to us UAE military bases and ports for our troops, Air Force, and Navy warships, as well as for American military personnel on R&R from Iraq or Afghanistan. Suddenly we're told that Dubai has "turned around," reversing the previous open door policy to al-Qaida operatives and their money.

Maybe the secret agenda is that the United States needs the UAE bases to attack Iran successfully.

As a payoff for allowing the U.S. to use the UAE as a staging point in the Iran attack, the Bush administration agrees to push the DPW deal through in a "hush-hush" manner. Next, the government of Dubai raises $7 billion in government-guaranteed international debt so DPW, the government of Dubai's front company, does not have to use any equity capital to make the purchase. Then Dubai makes decades of huge profits by operating the container and stevedore activities in 22 East Coast and Gulf ports.

To allow Dubai to make money from all sides, the U.S. will allow UAE to function as an escape hatch for as many of the mullahs and their cronies that can get out of Iran before the war starts. Maybe it is all a "wink-wink" game where Dubai is involved, as long as we get to use Dubai bases in the planned attack on Iran.

No wonder Dubai is one of the wealthiest Arab states in the Middle East. As we "follow the money" on the DPW deal, how much more of America does the Bush administration plan to sell to our friends in Dubai?


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: corsi; iran; iranstrikes; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2006 5:06:57 PM PST by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedom44

2 posted on 02/25/2006 5:08:54 PM PST by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

I guess we will never know thanks to the 'conservatives' who joined with Clinton and Schumer on this.


3 posted on 02/25/2006 5:09:39 PM PST by Perdogg ("Facts are stupid things" - Pres. Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

What makes anyone think they have to reach the ports?

If they ship out of an enemy port, all they have to do is get within a few miles of any shore before inspection, set off a Nuke and you get nearly the same damage (plus a giant wave).


4 posted on 02/25/2006 5:10:13 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Wow! Look at all the "Maybe's! " LoL!


5 posted on 02/25/2006 5:12:15 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

What has happened is that the Bush administration is no longer being given the benefit of the doubt. Things go a lot smoother when we give each other and the administration the benefit of the doubt. I am still undecided, so lets just wait for the hearings. There could be a plan.



6 posted on 02/25/2006 5:13:04 PM PST by FreeRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yep. Funny how after people think about this, they seem to go from "against" to "for" and not the other way 'round.


7 posted on 02/25/2006 5:17:08 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (No respect for conservatives? That's free speech. No respect for liberals? That's hate speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: freedom44

quid pro quo, yea that makes perfect sense to keep Islam from controlling our country and invading our territory we hand over our infrastructure, sort of reminiscent of the presidents plan on illegal immigration, they ain't illegal if we just give them amnesty, problem solved , brilliant idea on how to win the war on insurgents,we just surrender and call it by another name....


9 posted on 02/25/2006 5:25:08 PM PST by seastay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep

The CFIUS bypassed their own rules by not conducting an investigation of the deal, as required by law. Why the hurry?


10 posted on 02/25/2006 5:25:28 PM PST by La Enchiladita (God bless our troops and their families.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

This is getting sillier by the second.


11 posted on 02/25/2006 5:27:04 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

All highly doubtful since President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld both said that they didn't know anything about the deal until, at best, days before it was signed.

I do like Corsi's world better than the one that we live in, though.


12 posted on 02/25/2006 5:33:07 PM PST by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Or maybe his brother needs another million for his business? (seeing they have given him a million before)


13 posted on 02/25/2006 5:36:25 PM PST by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep

Lets look at what we do know so far.

1) this company has funded a couple of Bush family interests in the past. (A Bush business in Fla and a big shot into the arm of Cargill an interest of the father Bush)

2) this "contract" includes 22 ports not 6

3) Part of this contract is moving military equipment from Texas to Iraq

4) There is a top secret plan for the protection of US ports that will go into the hands of this Foreign Government hands when they have authority over the ports.

5) Contrary to the paid US taxpayer paid lobbyists selling this, American security of the ports ENDS when the containers are off loaded from the ships.
Once on land the "security " then shifts to the paid security agents hired by the contracting company .

I have come to the belief that there are people in this country that will sell their souls and our Nation cause they love Bush more than their security, or nation


14 posted on 02/25/2006 5:44:06 PM PST by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Has Jay Rockefeller been to Iran yet?.....Alone?


15 posted on 02/25/2006 5:44:10 PM PST by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

This is the second time I've heard of this possibility, and if that is indeed the case I'd say go for it. In the WOT we've taken Iraq out of the equation, Iran and Syria are possibly the only two rogue states in the ME with the will, determination and the means to actually try to smuggle any WMD potent enough to do real damage to America. Take out Iran and Syria should fall by itself, if not then it wouldn't be such a big deal to invite Syria to the fireworks with a few surgical strikes while Iran is getting wacked.

Now with Iraq, Iran, and Syria out of the equation, the risk of a WMD smuggled into the U.S. from the ME is greatly reduced in my opinion. I am still against the deal going forward, but if I was going to be convinced to change my position, this reason would be it because I am convinced that Iran wants to attack both the U.S. and Israel by proxy. If the above is true then I'd be willing to change my position.


16 posted on 02/25/2006 5:48:04 PM PST by quesera ("The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear

Maybe we should give George a little slack on this. He has done such a magnificent job with our southern border and besides that Jimmy Carter says it's a great deal.


17 posted on 02/25/2006 5:56:51 PM PST by Quigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

George W. Bush wants the UAE to run the ports so that The Jews, big corporations, oil companies, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, white men, SUV owners, the Christian Coalition, and gun owners could oppress women.


18 posted on 02/25/2006 5:58:06 PM PST by mirkwood (Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesera
This is the second time I've heard of this possibility, and if that is indeed the case I'd say go for it.

I don't think this possibility is realistic, mostly because on Dubai's end, this transaction is all about spreading islam by building islamic law compliant financial markets. To anyone who's okay with the idea of more islamic law influence around the world, this deal is fine. But to anyone who understands what happens when islamic law gains a foothold, it's not good at all.
19 posted on 02/25/2006 6:00:20 PM PST by BubbaTheRocketScientist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

Few will appreciate what you said. To many seem bent on just looking at a few angles to a given issue, and not at least attempt to become better rounded. I have been meaning to enter this simple fact over the past few days, it was on my mind. And in some cases God forbid it would happen what you describe would be the best way to nuke some of our major cities. In fact it would be the preferred way. Why screw around with trying to get a container unloaded and then be moved off it's route. I hope some will take to heart what you just mentioned in their dealings on the port issue. I do hope it is ok to repeat it on future postings.


20 posted on 02/25/2006 6:00:42 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson