Did the Cold War End So that the War on Terror Could Begin?

Did the Cold War End So that the War on Terror Could Begin?

By James Perloff | Red Pill Reports

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union. This marked the beginning of glasnost and the end of the Cold War. Communism, we were soon told, was no longer a threat.

Did the Cold War End So that the War on Terror Could Begin?
Portrait Of Ronald Reagan & Mikhail Gorbachev


Many of us regarded the mysterious transition with skepticism. Why would communism, which had slain some 100 million people1 during is ruthless conquest of half the planet, suddenly don a smiley-face, introduce freedoms, and abandon its sworn goal of world domination?

Mainstream media alleged the Soviet Union fell apart because, under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. successfully tested an anti-ballistic missile, demonstrating our capacity to put up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). If implemented, this system, nicknamed “Star Wars,” could have repelled a missile attack. The USSR allegedly collapsed because it couldn’t meet the cost of competing with SDI.

This explanation didn’t hold much water, however. As I document in Truth Is a Lonely Warrior (pp. 113-15), by 1985 the Soviet had achieved a decisive lead over the United States in virtually every category of nuclear and conventional weapon. Furthermore, Congress, then controlled by Ted Kennedy and the Democrats, vigorously opposed SDI. They were only willing to fund research, not deployment. Why would the Soviets cave in over such an improbable threat?

New Lies for OldSkepticism was bolstered by discovery of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s remarkable book New Lies for Old. Golitsyn, the highest-ranking KGB officer to defect during the Cold War, had predicted glasnost with stunning accuracy five years before it started. He forecast everything from the rise of a Gorbachev-like leader to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Furthermore, he stated that the liberalization would only be a temporary deception. Ultimately, he said, “all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear.”2

Nevertheless, over time it became clear that the changes to communist nations were more genuine and durable than skeptics had anticipated. For example, although China remains statist, its economy has undeniably been overhauled and significantly Westernized since the days of Mao Tse-Tung’s Cultural Revolution.

However, with the disappearance of Communism as “the enemy,” a new one almost immediately emerged: Islamic terrorist threats. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power. Just one year later, 1986, Reagan launched air strikes on Libya, the first round in what would be a growing, never-ending conflict with the Muslim states of MENA (Middle East and North Africa).

In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into 15 republics. That same year, Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, oversaw the First Gulf War, America’s first land war in the Middle East. Since 9/11, the United States has been involved in so many wars, in so many Middle East regions, that they’ve become hard to keep track of.

Nearly all Truthers today know that 9-11 was a false flag. What is less widely known is that Reagan’s air strikes on Libya were also predicated on a false flag.

In 1986, U.S. soldiers were frequenting a Berlin discotheque called La Belle. On April 5, a bomb tore through it, killing two American servicemen and wounding well over 50 others. U.S. intelligence then intercepted radio messages, originating in Libya, that congratulated alleged perpetrators of the crime. President Reagan sent bombers which struck Libya. The adopted daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed in those raids. This was the first blood drawn in what the Reagan administration then called “war against terrorism,” meaning that America would punish not just terrorists, but any nation it believed guilty of sponsoring terrorism. (Based on this definition, the United States could have declared war on Israel several times, going back to the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, if we define that incident as terrorism.)

La BelleOstrovsky
Victor Ostrovsky is a former agent of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service. In his book The Other Side of Deception, Ostrovsky revealed that the Mossad originated the radio signals from Libya, completely deceiving U.S. intelligence:

A Trojan was a special communication device that could be planted by naval commandos deep inside enemy territory. The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP [LohAma Psicologit – psychological warfare], and intended to be received by American and British listening stations. Originating from an IDF navy ship out at sea, the prerecorded digital transmissions could be picked up only by the Trojan. The device would then rebroadcast the transmission on another frequency, one used for official business in the enemy country, at which point the transmission would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain.

The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication, hence the name Trojan, reminiscent of the mythical Trojan horse. Further, the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad. The only catch was that the Trojan itself would have to be located as close as possible to the normal origin of such transmissions, because of the sophisticated methods of triangulation the Americans and others would use to verify the source.3

After detailing how the Mossad succeeded in planting a Trojan in a Tripoli apartment in 1986, Ostrovsky describes the results:

By the end of March, the Americans were already intercepting messages broadcast by the Trojan, which was only activated during heavy communication traffic hours. Using the Trojan, the Mossad tried to make it appear that a long series of terrorist orders were being transmitted to various Libyan embassies around the world . . . . As the Mossad had hoped, the transmissions were deciphered by the Americans and construed as ample proof that the Libyans were active sponsors of terrorism. What’s more, the Americans pointed out, Mossad reports confirmed it. . . .

Heads of the Mossad were counting on the American promise to retaliate with vengeance against any country that could be proven to support terrorism. The Trojan gave the Americans the proof they needed. . . .

Ultimately, the Americans fell for the Mossad ploy head over heels, dragging the British and the Germans somewhat reluctantly in with them. Operation Trojan was one of the Mossad’s greatest successes. It brought about the air strike on Libya that President Reagan had promised . . . . 4

Glaspie meets Hussein

Likewise, the 1991 Gulf War was contrived though deceptions. First, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie deceived Saddam Hussein by assuring him that the United States was indifferent to his conflict with Kuwait. Glaspie has been muzzled ever since. And when polls showed the American public divided on the prospect of the war, a story was fabricated about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators:

Each of America’s Middle East wars has been based on false pretexts. The 14-year-old war on Afghanistan was predicated on 9/11, the false flag which spurred the nationwide Truth Movement, populated by responsible groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The War in Iraq was based on falsified claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell, Bush’s Secretary of State, who made such definite assertions of WMDs before the UN, has admitted his claims were based on faulty intelligence. Well before the UN speech, Scott Ritter, the UN’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, had confirmed that Saddam had no WMDs:

Perhaps most pathetic was George Bush joking about the missing WMDs while American soldiers were dying in Iraq:

Watch Reg Keys, father of a serviceman who died in Iraq, take down Tony Blair for misleading Britons on this matter:

In 2011, NATO attacked Libya on the pretext of supporting a “popular democratic uprising against a dictator.”

Libya bombing

In fact, Gaddafi had turned Libya into the most prosperous nation in MENA, and had proposed a gold-backed currency for Africa, which was apparently the last straw for the banksters. The “popular uprising” consisted largely of mercenaries sent in by foreign intelligence services. For truth about Libya, I suggest this short article and this one, and the following video:

In 2013, it was Assad’s turn to get hit. The U.S. government claimed the Syrian leader had used chemical weapons on his own people. This seemed unbelievable since UN weapons inspectors had just arrived in Syria at Assad’s invitation. Many believed it was the Western-backed insurgents themselves who wielded the weapons as a yet another “false flag,” a view thought credible by Ron PaulPat Buchanan, and other responsible observers. Obama was unable to procure support for air strikes on Syria from a war-weary American public.

So it was back to the drawing board. In 2014, in a brazen paradox, the Obama administration sought air strikes on Syria again – this time not against Assad, but upon the very “rebels” the U.S. had backed the year before! Uploaded beheading videos proved more effective in garnering support than the previous year’s “chemical weapons” dud.

Watch as General Wesley Clark reveals that in 2001, a plan already existed in the Pentagon to “take out” seven MENA nations, including Iraq, Libya and Syria:


These same intentions were discussed by syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan (above), who was the Reform Party’s Presidential candidate in 2000. He wrote in 2004:

In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power” as an “Israeli strategic objective.” Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush’s foreign policy team on 9-11.

In 1998, eight members of Bush’s future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote President Clinton urging upon him a strategy that “should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein.”

On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks “to broaden the [Middle East] conflict to strike fatally . . . the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza . . . to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

“Crises can be opportunities,” added Wurmser.

On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.5

Clearly, an entrenched plan already existed, long ago, to attack the nations of the Middle East. To justify each of these attacks in the public’s view, false flags would be necessary. Thus 9/11, “weapons of mass destruction,” “chemical weapons attacks,” viral beheading videos, and, yes, the Charlie Hebdo incident:

What has all this to do with glasnost? As many students of realpolitik know, the Bolshevik Revolution, which created the Soviet Union, was financed by the same Rothschild-centered banking cabal that runs our world today. This support continued even during the Cold War through trade, financing, and technology transfers.  I will not elaborate all the details here, but for those who wish to learn more, see my article on this blog, chapter 9 of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, and such books as Juri Lina’s Under the Sign of the Scorpion (now available in an updated 2014 edition), Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and Joseph Finder’s Red Carpet. What the banksters turned on, they could also turn off.

As many students of realpolitik also know, the cabal has supported a three-headed hydra of “isms”: globalism, communism and Zionism. Globalism expresses their ultimate goal of a tyrannical world government; communism, posing as a movement of “the people,” used revolution to overthrow governments to make way for that world government; and Zionism is the plot to create the seat of this government in Jerusalem – a city holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Need I mention that this plot is satanic?

Given the degree of design and planning that has gone into all of this, I make a radical suggestion: that the timing of the ostensible end of communism, coinciding with the beginning of America’s “war on terror,” was not by chance. Communism was being given a back seat to Zionism. To throw the entire weight of the American military machine against all of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East, Americans had to be persuaded that the threat of communism no longer existed. This, I believe, is the most probable solution to the riddle of glasnost.


  1. Stéphane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4.
  2. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), 347.
  3. Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda (New York: HarperPaperbacks, 1994), 143-44.
  4. Ibid., 146-48.
  5. Patrick J. Buchanan, “Have the Neocons Killed a Presidency?” WorldNetDaily, February 16, 2004, www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37139.
Scroll to Top