← Videos
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: The Same Forces Are Planning War With Iran (2013)
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff, confirming Clark's account is basically correct.
10 Years After the War in Iraq, the Same Political Forces are Planning a War with Iran · The Real News Network · uploaded 2013-03-19 · 10:24
Original: youtube.com/watch?v=owlWNyL0nSs · IPFS QmainTiMTh4fpTAcHMZvsyBLyidWqYU2aJHagttXtzBkzg
What this video is evidence for
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and was inside the preparations for Powell's 2003 UN speech on Iraq. On the tenth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, The Real News Network (March 19, 2013) asked him whether it could all happen again with Iran. His answer:
"Unfortunately, Paul, I think it could, and probably at the hands of some of the very same people, the neoconservatives in general... could march us into war. Another catastrophic war in Western Asia, this time with Iran."
He describes the method as "basically the same plodding, careful, methodical use of the media, use of the Congress, use of Israel, and AIPAC." Asked whether Iraq was meant to be "the first in a set of dominoes, which would include Syria, which would include Iran," he answers, "I think that's true." That is the same sequence General Wesley Clark described.
On a Senate resolution pushed by Senator Lindsey Graham, which the interviewer summarized as committing the US to Israel's defense if Israel attacks Iran, Wilkerson says: "a senator of the United States Congress wants to surrender the sovereign war power of the United States of America to another state, in this case, Israel." These are Wilkerson's characterizations. Wilkerson also notes that much of the American Jewish community he speaks with opposes war with Iran.
Where this fits: see Pentagon Greater Israel Wars for the full explanation and sources.
Transcript
Machine transcription (apple-speechanalyzer) of the full 00:10:24. It can mishear names and words, so check exact wording against the video before quoting it.
Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul J.M. Baltimore, and welcome to this week's edition of the Wilkerson report with Lawrence Wilkerson, who now joins us. Larry was former Chief of Staff, U.
S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. He's currently an adjunct professor of government at the College of William and Mary, and he's a regular contributor. Thanks very much for joining us, Larry. Thanks for having me, Paul.
So, 10 years ago, you were very involved in Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. You were in the midst of all the preparations and politics for the Iraq War. And I'm not gonna actually ask you again about that. You and I have discussed this many times, and down below this video player, and next to it, you'll find a link to a whole series of interviews we've done with Larry about that. But I wanted to talk about more today and what we have or have not learnt from the Iraq War and how it began.
So I guess the simple question to kick off, Larry, is, could it all happen again? Unfortunately, Paul, I think it could, and probably at the hands of some of the very same people, the Neo Conservatives in general, but the Richard Pearls, the Bill Crystals, the other people liked him, could march us into war. Another catastrophic war in Western Asia this time with Iran. Now, last time, they had this document called The Project for New American Century, which kind of set a tone, I think, for the Bush administration. The idea that the United States should use its overwhelming superiority in military power, to sort of reshape the world as it likes.
It really came down to the issue of regime change, and one could manipulate the media, and the intelligence in whatever way was necessary to achieve that. Is that still the agenda? I think that's basically the game plan. It's a little more sophisticated this time, as you might suspect, they learned a little bit. And it features some new characters, but it's basically the same plodding, careful, methodical use of the media, use of the Congress, use of Israel, and APAC, use of all the instruments that they can get their hands on.
to kind of prod the American people, and mostly, of course, the administration, into a point where it really doesn't have any choice, but to go to war with Iran. Now, that said, I'm confident here lately, or at least I'm more confident, and I'm guardedly optimistic that we're gonna stop them, partly because it's a different administration, partly because the American people are war weary, partly because they are sick and tired also of physical irresponsibility and trillions of dollars going down the drain, but in many respects, because they are beginning to realize just how badly, how truly badly we have messed up Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much that has hurt our prestige and real power in the world. So, is it fair to say, now that you can look back 10 years, and again, we'll bring it back to current time, that the dye was set when the Bush Cheney administration was elected? They already knew they wanted to find an excuse, a way, a rationale, a regime change in Iraq, that would be the first in a set of dominoes, which would include Syria, which would include Iran. I'm not so sure, they actually cared about Libya at the time, that sort of fell into place.
But, uh, they would say, kind of, or do anything to achieve that agenda. I think that's true. Various ones of them, whether you're talking about Paul, Wolf Woods, or Bill Crystal, or Richard Pearl, or Douglas Fitz, or whatever, or the ultimate non neo conservative, but ultra nationalist, Dick Cheney, whose single man documentary, is making its way ponderously across showtime right now, you'd get a different, you know, a different angle, a different perspective, and maybe a different force behind it. But basically, it's about pushing American power across the face of the globe and anyone who gets in our way. And, uh, the group that recently, I don't know, I don't think they've actually passed this resolution in the Senate, yet, but, uh, Lindsay Graham is pushing this resolution that essentially says that if Israel attacks Iran, then the United States has to come to the defense of Israel, uh, am I reading that right?
'Cause doesn't that mean that Israel gets to decide what war the United States participates in? You're reading it right, Paul. You're reading that a senator of the United States Congress wants to surrender the sovereign war power of the United States of America to another state in this case, Israel. Now, the alliance of forces that helped bring us the Iraq War was not just the Neocons, though. At the same time, we're running this interview, we're running an interview we did with Michael Ratner, and he focused, to a large extent, on the role the New York Times played in all of this.
Is that kind of, you know, unholy alliance, if you will, also still there to be had. In other words, forces that like to describe themselves as liberals, teaming up with neocons to bring us a war. I think that's true. I think you've got oil interests who are behind it. I think you've got people who are on the right wing, like APAC, who are behind it.
You've got people who are messianic about freedom and democracy, but let me just address that last point you made about liberals. Paul, I was in New York City at Temple Emmanuel, which is the synagogue in Great Neck, New York, Saturday, Friday and Saturday, and Friday night, after having Shabbat dinner, and then going into the synagogue service with them, they asked me to speak, and I spoke, and my subject was, We need not be enemies. Iran and the U.S. in the 21st century.
And I will tell you that I got an overwhelming feeling, in both conversation afterwards, in the Q and A and their response during my general remarks, that that community is very much opposed to war with Iran, very much opposed to the current situation that seems to be marching us there. So, this is a liberal Jewish community, very affluent, very, shall we say, comfortable, taking care of themselves in that area of the world, got their schools there and everything, doing a good job, basically looking after one another, warm, hospitable community. That's very much opposed with war to war with Iran. So I think it's unfair, for example, to say that the bulk of America's Jewish community is marching along with these neo conservatives. That brings up an interesting point, which was back at in 2003, I guess it was on February 15th before the war.
There was massive protests around the world. In the tens of millions of people, if you add it all up. I think the greatest anti war protest in the history of the world. I was in London and saw the sum of it there, and I can tell you, it was awesome. And did it have any influence at all?
I mean, the war went ahead. Does that administration pay attention to such a thing? Well, that administration didn't. And that brings up another point, Paul. You know, I lived through the '60s.
You did, too. I saw the rage generated by the war in which I participated, and I've talked to many who either participated in that war or participated in that rage. And frankly, I have a lot of respect for the people who participated in the rage part. Uh, particularly people like uh, Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay, who actually went to prison for his beliefs. I have a lot of respect for those people.
They were right, and basically, I was wrong. Uh, and I don't see that rage today. I do not see people standing up and going out of the streets and saying, stop this silliness. Stop this murder. Stop this slaughter.
Stop sending less than one percent of America's citizens, most of whom are socioeconomically determined, to war and to death, and to horrible wounds. I just don't see the rage, and I wonder what's happening to this country that has become so apathetic. Well, some people argue, it's now, at least, it's partly because there's a Democratic Party in power, and the president sounds like he's more rational about all these things. But, in fact, what's going on even still in Afghanistan, what would think there'd be a more serious anti war movement about that, and you don't see it. How much of that is because it's a Democrat and not a Republican?
I'm sure that's part of it, and the Democrats are trapped, of course, in their own political need for not showing any ankle, any weakness at all on the issue of national security, now that they seem to be balancing the polls, or even maybe ahead in the polls, with the Republicans. But that said, too, someone somewhere in here, and it ought to be the American people, have got to pull this back from polls and politics and put it back in the venue of the interest of this country. The ultimate interest of this country. And once that's done, I think we probably could write the ship of state, so to speak, can get it back on a more palatable course, but I think it's going to take the people. I don't see any moral courage.
With very few exceptions, Angus King from Maine, for example, the independent from Vermont, maybe one or two Walt Jones from North Carolina. I don't see other than these sort of mavericks. I don't see any moral courage amongst the leadership of this country. So I have to turn to the American people and say, over to you, it's your turn. Alright, thanks for joining us, Larry.
Thanks for having me, Paul. And thank you for joining us on the real news network.
Last Updated: 2026-09-27