The Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that development andfunding problems have forced the US to give up a key part of itsEastern European missile defense plan.The priority will now be given to efforts aimed at preventing apossible North Korean nuclear attack, which would require adding 14new interceptors to the 26 already placed in Alaska.Former intelligence officer for MI5, Annie Machon, believes thatthe North Korean threat is just as unrealistic for the US as theone from Iran, with control over natural resources once again beingWashington’s true aim. RT: The Pentagon will put 14 more missile interceptors inAlaska, which is a roughly a 50 per cent increase on the currentnumber. It blames recent nuclear threats from North Korea. But isit really likely that Pyongyang would launch a strike?Annie Machon: It would be suicidal if you were to do that.What we’re looking at – at this point – is North Korea being the‘useful idiot’, a pretext for America to defend a resource-richpart of the world. When I was in MI5, the one thing we were alwaystaught in terms of assessing the threat from any sort of source ora country: one – do they have the capability; two – do they havethe intention. Now, of course, North Korea has very loudly saidthat they have the intention to try and attack America, butcertainly doesn’t have the capability at this point.RT: Iran has been the main focus of US concern foryears now, but has North Korea become enemy No.1 now?AM: It has always been a puzzle as, of course, bothcountries featured on George W. Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ list allthose years ago. But North Korea has always been much morebelligerent. I think Iran… and this is the assessment of the entireUS intelligence community, which came out in the NationalIntelligence Estimate in 2007, which was – Iran stopped developingany sort of nuclear weapon capability in 2003. And this has beenstood up time and time again since 2007.So, we all know that Iran isn’t a real threat to America’sinterests. We all know it’s not a threat to the West. And this fakeshield they were trying to provide to Eastern Europe because theywould be in range of any missiles Iran would be able to launch wasjust a fake ploy, I think. It was used as an excuse. So, it’sinteresting now that the focus is moving to an overtly aggressive,but very small and incapable country away from Iran. I hope it’snot a feint to make people stop watching Iran, stop watching the USgovernment’s lies trying to find as excuse to attack Iran. RT: Washington’s aborted plans to use Poland for itsmissile defense due to spending cuts and development issues. How doyou see the future of the European missile defenseshield?AM: It’s true that America is effectively bankrupt as acountry. And if they are beginning to cut military spending becausethey’ve militarily overreached – they’re in serious problemsbecause that’s the one thing they’ve never cut before. Andcertainly in terms of what they’re doing in Europe, we have asituation where they are practically admitting that Iran isn’t athreat to Eastern Europe. And that’s a problem. But the final pointreally on this one is looking at where the money goes when they’retrying to develop a ballistic missile defense system. It has yet tobe proven to work. Nobody knows if it works, nobody can make itwork yet. So, effectively, ever since Ronald Reagan announced ‘StarWars’ way back in the 1990s, what we’ve seen that this is threat isused as a cash cow, which is milked by the defense industry.Particularly, Boeing, I believe, and Raytheon, who made billionsout of making these fake defense shields. RT: How do you think the Chinese new government willreact to the US increasing its arms around the Pacific?AM: Well, that’s going to be a very interesting question.It’s almost like North Korea is a patsy, used to put up this newmissile defense in Alaska. And the key part is that there’s beenthis covert war to control the diminishing resources of the world,which is waged across continents – between, certainly, the US andChina over the last decade. And what we’re looking at now is, Ithink, a very careful geopolitical strategy to control and putbases in Alaska because anyone, who has Alaska can control theArctic area. And, as the arctic area melts more quickly, morecountries are going to fight for the resource-rich area as the icerecedes. America, by having these defenses in Alaska, will be verywell-placed to protect its economic interest in that area.
Continue reading here: