HIGHLY POTENT NEWS THAT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS

Archive for January, 2012

The Syria debacle – part II

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 20, 2012

This is part two in my new series following the complex developments in the Syrian uprising which I began just days ago. For previous coverage of this issue please scroll to the bottomof the article to find a reading list of previous material I have written.

Today the Washington Post reported that senior officials in the Obama administration have said that they are preparing to close the American embassy in Damascus and evacuate all personnel if President Bashar al-Assad cannot provide additional security.

If Assad cannot give additional security to the U.S. embassy, they reportedly plan to close the facility by the end of January.

Officials said that the United States is not alone in pulling their diplomatic missions out of Syria with other Western countries and Arab embassies making similar moves over the past week.

Currently they are still in talks with Assad’s government and have not reached a final decision.

Yet, they do say that there have been no visible results in terms of additional protection for the embassy.

This is hardly a surprise given that U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford previously met with leading figures in the opposition, a move which not only rightly enraged the Assad government but also the Syrian people who reacted in a violent manner.

“We have serious concerns about the deteriorating security situation in Damascus, including the recent spate of car bombs and about the safety and security of embassy personnel,” said a statement from the United States’ State Department.

“We have requested that the government of Syria take additional security measures to protect our embassy, and the Syrian government is considering that request. We have also advised the Syrian government that unless concrete steps are taken in the coming days we may have no choice but to close the mission,” the statement said.

The car bombs mentioned are part of no less than three unexplained car bomb attacks recently which killed up to 80 people in the Syrian capital of Damascus which was previously relatively peaceful.

Emphasizing that these car bombings are unexplained is quite important as there is a good chance those responsible very well might be the Western-backed opposition forces and their armed insurgent arm (arguably a terrorist organization) known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The FSA have bragged about attacking government targets in the past, so bombings in the capital very well might be an attempt to create chaos and further destabilize the Assad regime.

The process of removing personnel from the American embassy began last week, reportedly due to the bombings.

The Syrian government put the blame for the bombings on al Qaeda, while some activists predictably pointed the finger at the Syrian government itself, according to the Washington Post.

Of course, this would be completely illogical as car bombings in the nation’s capital only serve to further destabilize Assad’s power and erode his support.

A poll commissioned as part of the Doha Debates – thus sponsored by Qatar which has called for foreign military intervention in Syria – actually found that the majority of Syrians do not, in fact, want Assad to resign immediately.

The poll found that 81% of the Arabs questioned (over 1,000 which is far from a huge sample) wanted Assad to step down but since these individuals are not Syrians, their opinion is completely irrelevant.

Therefore, with 55% of the public supporting him, I can see absolutely no reason why he would seek to weaken such support by conducting bombings which make the Syrian people feel as though they are in danger under his rule.

The Obama administration has, unsurprisingly, not ruled out possible involvement in the attacks on the part of the Syrian government, but unnamed American officials stated that signs indicate Syrian and Iraqi militants linked to al Qaeda were involved.

“It smells like a terrorist attack and looks like a terrorist attack, but none of us knows for sure,” the anonymous official said, according to the Washington Post.

Logic alone would tell us that the most likely culprits would be militant opposition forces like the FSA who would benefit from such a terrorist operation.

By murdering innocent people in Damascus, they could say that Assad cannot even keep control over his own capital and keep his people safe, proving that he should step down from power immediately before more people die.

The specifics of the security measures being sought by the United States for the embassy have not been disclosed.

U.S. officials also refused to comment on if there had been specific threats to the embassy other than saying that the car bomb attacks “have brought the situation in Syria to another level.”

The Washington Post says that if Sunni extremists had come from Iraq to become involved in the Syrian uprising “it would add an alarming new dimension to what has been an overwhelmingly peaceful uprising that has been brutally attacked by the decades-old dictatorship.”

Of course, for those of us who have been paying attention, it is quite obvious that it has not been “an overwhelmingly peaceful uprising” but in fact both sides have engaged in violent acts since the beginning.

The Washington Post cites “Many Syrian opposition activists” (the typically ambiguous label leveraged by the Western media to control the narrative by giving a false sense of consensus) who “already are concerned about signs of a creeping Islamization of the revolt,” much like what is occurring in every other nation embroiled in the so-called Arab Spring revolts.

They claim nonsensically, “the failure of the West to intervene will open the door to Islamists, threatening the kind of destabilization that took hold in Iraq following the U.S. invasion there.”

Of course to most analysts like myself, this is nothing short of laughable.

Western intervention will not help stifle the Islamist element in the uprisings; in fact it will just serve to reinforce this anti-Western Islamist sentiment.

This is because many people will see the intervention has unwelcome meddling in their domestic affairs, which is exactly what it is.

Informed citizens would know immediately that the West will move in, destroy the infrastructure, and then loot the nation’s natural resources and wealth by getting all the contracts to rebuild the same infrastructure they destroyed.

We have seen this exact process in Libya and I do not see how any individual in the Arab world would think Western intervention is a good idea after seeing what happened there.

It appears that the car bomb attacks – if they are indeed carried out by the FSA – are achieving exactly what I believe they could be trying to do.

The anonymous senior official in the Obama administration cited by the Washington Post made this very clear in saying that the deteriorating security situation in Syria “demonstrates further that Assad is losing control of the country and reinforces our point that Assad has lost all legitimacy.”

Knowing that these bombings are in fact hurting the Assad regime, as I said, how could they still say that his government might be involved?

We can apply the classic qui bono logic here and in doing so realize that all roads lead to the armed insurgent groups like the FSA.

The Washington Post speculates that in explicitly warning that they might close the embassy, the Obama administration might be “signaling Assad that [the Obama administration’s] patience is running out.”

However, I would argue that they have been attempting to give that impression for months now and instead this move might be a warning that foreign military intervention is just over the horizon.

The Washington Post also mentions that Robert Ford returned to Syria last month after he was removed in October due to threats.

These threats were hardly surprising given that Ford not only vocally criticized the Assad government on the official embassy website (behavior hardly becoming of a diplomat) but even met with opposition leadership which clearly angered the many pro-Assad Syrians.

It seems the United States either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that Syrians do not take kindly to the United States openly getting involved in Syria’s domestic problems.

The Washington Post writes that, “Officials emphasized the importance of maintaining direct contact with opposition leaders and providing the opportunity of real-time reporting from Damascus.”

Do American officials really think that having a close relationship with opposition leaders will make them look impartial or evenhanded in their approach to Syria’s problems?

The Washington Post makes sure to highlight the Assad government’s security efforts, saying “Damascus felt as though it was under siege. Soldiers sealed off several major roads and checkpoints dotted the city. Outside one of the main offices of the security branches, there were sandbagged machine gun positions. Soldiers wearing flak jackets and machine guns kept guard.”

This is hardly a drastic measure given that the FSA has attacked government targets several times.

Furthermore, it is almost guaranteed that whatever police state measures they have in place pale in comparison to the security situation near American military facilities or in places like Washington.

Al Arabiya is also reporting today that “Pressure mounted on the Arab League Friday to seek U.N. intervention in the face of growing exasperation that the bloc’s hard-won observer mission in Syria has failed to staunch 10 months of killing as [the] death toll mounted across the country.”

However, U.N. intervention is very unlikely given Russia and China’s opposition to such an operation.

Many analysts, myself included, say it is much more likely for the West to create something like the “coalition of the willing” created to invade Iraq outside of the U.N.

General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi is preparing to report to foreign ministers of Arab League nations who will then decide if the Arab League’s observer mission will be extended for another month.

Meanwhile, Burhan Galiun, the head of the opposition’s Syrian National Council, traveled to Cairo in an attempt to get Arab ministers to refer the findings of the Arab League’s observer mission to the United Nations Security Council for what Al Arabiya called “tough action.”

Of course this is ignoring the veto power of Russia and China – both nations wholly opposed to another foreign intervention after the horrific Libyan intervention.

An official statement from the Syrian National Council (SNC) said that Ghaliun planned to “ask the head of the Arab League and Arab foreign ministers to transfer the file on Syria to the U.N. Security Council with a view to securing a decision to establish a buffer zone and a no-fly zone.”

It is hard to understand why anyone would call for a no-fly zone over Syria after seeing what NATO and the Arab League nations did in Libya, but then again given that many of the SNC’s members are not even inside Syria at the moment; it is somewhat understandable that they would be divorced from the situation on the ground.

“The SNC delegation will insist that the report contain a clear text concerning the ‘genocide’ and ‘war crimes’ carried out by the [Syrian] regime against unarmed civilians,” the SNC’s statement said.

This makes it clear that they care not what the observers actually find, but instead care only that they come to the conclusions the SNC and the West want.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the Arab League should urge the United Nations Security Council to impose more targeted sanctions which should include an arms embargo.

However, this is one again failing to recognize the strong opposition in the Security Council from Russia and China.

The Arab League’s panel on Syria is set to meet Saturday before the foreign ministers meet.

This panel is far from objective, with Qatar chairing the panel and calling for Arab troops to invade Syria, as I discussed in the previous part of this series.

However, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe claimed such an approach was not in the works in an interview published today in the French Ouest-France daily.

“In the present regional context we are not working towards such a scenario,” Juppe claimed.

On the other hand, French President Nicolas Sarkozy gave a much different impression of France’s position.

Sarkozy said that France would not silently stand by and watch the crackdown occur, hinting that indeed such an approach was being considered, if not planned as the Russians have been saying for a long time now.

“We cannot accept the ferocious repression by the Syrian leadership of its people, a repression that has led the entire country into chaos, and a chaos that will help extremists of all kinds,” Sarkozy said.

Sarkozy also seems to hold the delusional position that the United Nations Security Council must vote in condemnation of the crackdown and support the Arab League’s mission in Syria, despite the fact that Russia and China have made it clear no United Nations Security Council resolutions targeting Syria will be passed.

Repeatedly saying that the Security Council should do something doesn’t change this fact, although far too many individuals seem to not realize this.

In an interview with BBC’s world service recently, I heard a representative of the SNC repeating these same statements while constantly contradicting herself when confronted with the facts.

In a span of about five minutes the representative said that they represent the people demonstrating on the streets then said that they do not represent anyone and thus are not legitimate in the traditional sense because no one voted for them.

It was an incredibly painful interview with the BBC presenter lobbing softballs in the SNC representative’s direction just to have the representative fall on her face trying to swing at it.

The BBC presenter’s most important point, one which was likely made unintentionally, was made when the presenter pointed out that most of the SNC not only doesn’t live in Syria currently but in fact many haven’t lived there for years.

The woman being interviewed had not even been in Syria since she was around 10-years-old, proving that she is no more connected to Syria’s domestic affairs and on-the-ground daily reality that most Westerners.

Sufian Allaw, Syria’s Oil Minister said yesterday that the sanctions imposed by the European Union and the United States were in fact having a drastic economic impact on Syria. “We have suffered important losses as a result of our inability to export crude oil and petroleum products,” Allaw said, citing over $2 billion in losses since September 1.

The sanctions have also hurt the Syrian currency, pushing it down to record lows which hurts the average Syrian civilian more than anyone else.

Adib Malayeh, the governor of Syria’s central bank said that they will be introducing a managed float of the currency this coming week, which is essentially devaluing the currency, according to the Financial Times.

MENA quoted Ahmed al-Tayyeb, the grand imam of Cairo’s al-Azhar, the highest seat of Sunni Muslim learning according to Al Arabiya, urging “Arab rulers to take the necessary measures to halt bloodshed in Syria,” quite clearly hinting at foreign intervention.

In addition to all of the unilateral sanctions currently being leveraged against Syria, the European Union is expected to expand the sanctions against Syria to include individuals, institutions and companies as well.

Before the oil sanctions were imposed back on September 2, the European Union purchased the majority of Syria’s estimated 130,000 barrels of oil exports every day.

As we saw with Iraq, the people who are ultimately hurt the most by the sanctions aren’t the governments and corporations they are supposed to target, but instead everyday people who have absolutely no ability to change their government’s policies.

This led to the deaths of countless Iraqis and likely will lead to the deaths of many Syrian civilians.

The unfortunate reality is that we will likely not see the impact these sanctions have until years after they have already impacted the lives of innocent people.

The push for foreign intervention is only increasing by the day and I sincerely hope that people around the world – but especially in the Western nations that are pushing so hard to oust Assad like the United States and the United Kingdom – start fighting back against the tide of disinformation in order to give a more accurate impression of what is really going on there.

We must also realize that the majority of Syrians do not want Assad to be removed from power right now, and if the West really values democracy as they so often claim to, then this will be respected.

Unfortunately, democracy only counts to them when they say it does and when the democracy aligns itself with Western interests.

However I do think that through raising awareness of the situation in Syria and what is really going on there, we can avoid an all-out conflict which would undoubtedly involve Russia and whatever foreign powers decided to take part in the intervention.

Please take a few moments and share this with your friends, family and contacts in order to help us get this information out there.

If I missed anything or you would like to contribute to our coverage, please do not hesitate to email me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your tips, comments, or insults.

Recommended related reading (in chronological order, oldest to latest):

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

January 27, 2012 | Categories: co-opting and/or destabilization, news, sovereignty, Syria, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

Resisting the Police State: Answers and Solutions [video]

Boiling Frogs Video
January 24, 2012

CONTINUE WATCHING: http://ur1.ca/7os9i
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3797

With TSA abuses back in the headlines, continued concern over the NDAA and other legislation codifying martial law, President Obama’s unchallenged use of his self-proclaimed authority to assassinate American citizens without trial, and an increasingly bewildering array of tracking, tracing and pain-compliance technology being used against law-abiding citizens, more and more people are becoming aware of the police state that currently exists in the US, and indeed throughout much of the so-called “free world.”

With this understanding comes a certain amount of apprehension: after all, the enemies of liberty are organized and persistent, and they inhabit positions of authority. The defenders of liberty, meanwhile, seem few and far between, and more time seems spent convincing others that the police state even exists than in working to dismantle these systems of control.

What these concerns obscure, however, is the simple fact that the police state constitutes a mental prison as much as a physical one, and that part of its power is in convincing the public that it is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful. Once that illusion is shattered, the police state can be seen for what it is: a system of coercion that can only function if a majority of the people go along with it.

January 27, 2012 | Categories: news, police state, tyranny, victories | Leave a comment

The Syria debacle – part I

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 18, 2012

I have been writing about Syria and the attempts at pushing a foreign intervention on the nation for months now (see the bottomof the article for a partial list of previous works on the subject).

I believe it has become such a multifaceted and important issue that I must devote a series to covering the developments as I have done with Iran and the global growth of the United States’ and NATO’s hegemony.

As the days go by the tensions between the West and Syria only get more pronounced, especially when it comes to the increasingly vocal opposition from Russia.

Russia’s opposition is far from something new. They were one of the first nations to come to Syria’s defense and protect – or at least attempt to protect them – from foreign meddling.

This has incarnated in many forms, some overt and military in nature – like the delivery of anti-aircraft missile systems and most recently a Russian naval group docking in the Syrian port of Tartus – others political, like the statements of the head of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev.

The political rhetoric has become increasingly heated and firm, and today’s news is no different.

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reportedly had a phone conversation in which they “affirmed the need to defend the independence and [sovereignty] of Syria and Iran from the siege and interference in their internal affairs carried out by colonialist countries,” according to Syria’s SANA.

This is just another affirmation of Russia’s staunch opposition to any foreign intervention in Syria and Iran which is indeed a real threat, despite any assurances otherwise coming from the wholly untrustworthy Western establishment.

The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry said that Chavez and Putin also discussed the strategic ties between the two nations in the fields of finance, the economy, commercial and industrial matters and military cooperation as well.

What remains to be seen is how Russia will actually step in on Syria’s behalf if the press to intervene in Syria continues.

Russia and China have both blocked increased sanctions when they were brought to the United Nations Security Council, but it is unclear exactly what they would do if the West ignores the writing on the wall and conducts another intervention like in Libya.

Russia has made their military presence in the region very well-known and their transfer of advanced military equipment underlines their position.

China, on the other hand, is a bit of a more unknown variable in this equation.

They have repeatedly voiced their distaste with the Western attempts at intervening in Syrian domestic affairs and blocked new sanctions, but it is unclear if China would take up arms in defense of Syria if it came down to such a situation.

If Russia were to take action and come under threat from the Arab League, NATO or the West as a whole, I think it is only logical to assume that China very well might come to Russia’s aid.

The Arab League has had a very interesting role in the Syrian conflict, given that most leaders of Arab League states are little more than Western puppets.

The League’s observer mission has been characterized as a failure in some quarters, and I found the entire situation quite ironic given the presence of a general accused of creating the brutal “janjaweed,” which was responsible for some of the worst atrocities during the Darfur genocide, in the Arab League’s observer force.

Yesterday China’s Xinhua reported that the Syrian Foreign Ministry has totally rejected Qatari Emir’s suggestion of dispatching Arab troops into Syria, supposedly to help curb the violence.

This is hardly a stupid move on Syria’s part, given that Qatar is now openly admitting that their forces were running most of the ground operations for the rebels in Libya.

Knowing this, it is only logical to think that the Qatari forces would not, in fact, act to help stop the violence but instead encourage it and run operations for the armed opposition in order to enact regime change.

Ultimately, the whole uprising is about regime change, as the opposition has made it clear time and time again that they will not consider negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad nor any option that does not involve Assad being removed from power completely.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry stated that they absolutely reject any calls like the ones coming from Qatar as it could not only make the situation worse but also set the precedent for a greater foreign intervention in Syria’s domestic affairs.

Of course, al Jazeera, the Qatari state-funded propaganda house which operates under the guise of anti-Western alternative news (laughable though the claim may be, many consider it indeed to be such an outlet) would utilize their position to push for a greater intervention just as they did in Libya.

Pointing to the failure of the Arab League’s observers to stop the violence in Syria, Qatar Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani stated that he was in favor of deploying Arab troops into Syria.

Statements like this are regularly made, usually claiming that such a move would stop or at least decrease the violence.

Based on what we’ve seen in Libya, I think it is hardly an accurate assumption to make. Bringing in armed foreign troops to solve a domestic conflict is hardly conducive to peace.

In making the statement, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani made himself the first Arab leader to openly call for military intervention in Syria, saying, “For such a situation … some troops should go to stop the killing.”

Once again, this is operating on the nonsensical assumption that for some reason bringing armed troops into a conflict would not increase violence but in fact decrease it.

We saw how well that worked in Libya, not to mention Iraq, both of which are still rife with violence and civil strife.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry’s statement was quite strongly worded, saying that Syria “rejects all kinds of foreign intervention in its affairs, under any title, and would confront any attempt to infringe upon Syria’s sovereignty and integrity of its territories.”

What exactly they mean by “confront” isn’t quite clear but I believe it is safe to assume that they mean they would meet military intervention with military confrontation in hopes that Russia and perhaps China would come to their aid.

Syria also stated that while they are agreeing to stick to the Arab League’s plan, they ask for Arab nations and the Arab League as a whole to make an effort “to stop all instigating campaigns and media mobilization that aim to ramp up the situation in Syria.”

I believe this to be a not-so-subtle jab at Qatar which has used its propaganda arm to shape the narrative throughout the so-called Arab Spring since the beginning.

The statement also said that Arab states should assist Syria in blocking the movement of weapons into Syria in order to “reinforce stability and security that would pave the way for a constructive national dialogue that aims to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria.”

Unfortunately, it seems this hope is a bit misguided, as the Syrian opposition – especially the armed insurgent group the Free Syrian Army – have repeatedly stated that they have no interest in “a constructive national dialogue” nor a political solution unless it involves complete regime change.

The Arab League’s monitors began their mission in Syria on December 26, 2011 and they are due to issue an assessment on January 21.

Contrary to the Western narrative, the Syrian government states that the violence in Syria is being incited by terrorists and foreign-backed armed gangs, which is not entirely untrue as the establishment media makes out.

Indeed the United States has been busted funding anti-government propaganda stations which were beamed into Syria via satellite.

The United States’ ambassador to Syria has also openly met with opposition leadership, a move which elicited a violent reaction from the Syrian people.

According to Syrian government reports, over 2,000 army and security personnel have been killed during the uprising.

The Free Syrian Army, for one, has openly bragged about attacking government forces, even blowing up government transport vehicles.

The United Nations has estimated the death toll to be over 5,000 although their numbers are based largely – if not entirely – upon the unverified reports of so-called “activists” and “human rights groups” which have dubious intentions.

While NATO has repeatedly denied that they are working towards a no-fly zone over Syria along with so-called “humanitarian corridors” or “buffer zones” along the borders, Russia today dismissed these claims and insisted that they have information that such tactics are currently being discussed.

“Our partners int he West are in fact discussing a no-fly zone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow, according to Bloomberg.

“There are other ideas being realized, including humanitarian convoys, in the hope they could provoke a response from government forces, border guards,” Lavrov added.

Lavrov also said that Russia would continue to block any attempt at passing a resolution for military intervention in the United Nations Security Council.

He also dismissed the American condemnation of Russian arms shipments to Syria, saying that they were not violating international law by simply supplying Syria with weapons.

Indeed this is true and one must consider the almost laughable hypocrisy displayed by such statements coming from the United States when they are providing the weaponry to Bahrain used to crack down on their own domestic uprising.

Both the European Union and the United States have already put an arms embargo against Syria in place.

The United States’ ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, stated that the U.S. has “very grave concern[s]” about Russian arms being given to the Assad government.

One must wonder if this is because it would allow the government to put up a greater level of resistance to foreign intervention and Western-backed armed insurgent groups currently operating in Syria.

These statements echo ones I reported on previously made by Patrushev which at the time were by far the most heated we had seen.

Patrushev stated that Turkey may play a key role in such an operation and unsurprisingly the same day Turkey along with the United Kingdom and France all denied that such a move was a possibility.

However, the French denial makes very little sense when one remembers that in November Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister, suggested that military forces should establish humanitarian corridors to deliver aid in Syria.

Of course the aid would likely only be delivered to anti-Assad groups and insurgents, while pro-government demonstrators and citizens would probably end up getting shafted as they were in Libya.

There is very little we can do at this point to stop another bloody foreign intervention other than spreading the awareness of this campaign.

Please make an effort to share this article and other works by myself and the many others who have been bringing attention to this situation as much as humanly possible.

Only through a greater number of people becoming fully cognizant of the destabilization operation in Syria and other nations which don’t tow the Western line can we hope to stifle these deplorable efforts.

Please, take the less than 30 seconds to share this with your Facebook friends, Twitter followers, or whomever you can on whatever social network/medium you prefer.

Every single person who becomes aware of these issues is another person who can spread the truth and help push back against the wave of disinformation and warmongering.

Recommended related reading (in chronological order, oldest to latest):

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

January 27, 2012 | Categories: co-opting and/or destabilization, news, sovereignty, Syria, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

Foreign Syrian intervention and the Russian-Chinese opposition

Nikolai Patrushev (left) and Vladimir Putin (right) (Photo credit: http://www.kremlin.ru)

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 13, 2012

The push for foreign intervention in Syria has been going on for quite a while now and never seems to relent in ferocity. I have been writing about this issue for months now, so if you would like to get a strong background on this topic I highly recommend you scroll down to the end of the article to find a list of related reading materials.

Despite the large conglomeration of Western nations and allied nations in the Arab League’s relentless full-court press, some countries continue to resist this effort.

The most glaring example is, of course, Russia.

Russia has not only been a vocal opponent of sanctions and resolutions in the United Nations Security Council, indeed they have actually backed up their rhetoric with muscle; something which China has yet to do.

I previously reported on Russia moving complete advanced anti-aircraft missile systems and all that is required to operate them into Syria, a move which was likely an attempt to dissuade the West and/or Arab League from moving to establish a no-fly zone over Syria.

Russian warships have also moved into Syrian waters previously, and most recently it was announced that a Russian naval group docked in the Syrian port city of Tartus.

All of these actions make some quite pronounced statements to the United States, NATO and Arab League members who are seeking to topple the Assad regime.

However, it just becomes more heated as the days go by and the statements coming out of Russia just get increasingly unequivocal.

Remarks made by Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev have been some of the strongest to date.

In an interview with Russian newspaper Kommersant, Patrushev stated that NATO member states are planning “direct military intervention” in cooperation with the Arab League, according to RT.

Such an operation would likely be mostly in the blueprint of the foreign intervention in Libya which led to the brutal murder of Qaddafi, the desecration of his corpse, Western puppets being put in power, Western nations reaping the windfall profits of the contracts to rebuild Libya, and of course a massive civilian death toll.

This seems like hardly the course of events anyone would seek to repeat, yet this is exactly what they are apparently planning to do.

However, I must encourage the reader to keep in mind that this is not the first time such a report has been released, but in the previous case no such no-fly zone or so-called “buffer zone” ever emerged.

This operation would likely break from the mold of the Libyan operation in one important way: instead of the United States, France, Italy and the United Kingdom providing most of the firepower and personnel, it very well might be Turkey in this case.

Turkey might turn its back on a former ally due to the Turkish-Iranian rivalry.

Turkey reportedly has “huge ambitions” in the region and the major impediment to the realization of such ambitions is Iran, which continues to maintain close ties with Syria – something which obviously irks the West.

Patrushev has stated that the United States and Turkey are thought to be in the process of negotiating the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, which obviously would directly benefit the armed insurgent forces in the nation like the Free Syrian Army.

Recently a foreign journalist was killed in Syria, but not by government forces as many in the controlled establishment media immediately assumed.

This became quite obvious when it came out that the journalist was in fact at a pro-government rally, and a government under siege domestically shooting its own citizens who support them makes so little sense that it is surprising that anyone would say otherwise, even in the chronically nonsensical mainstream media.

Events like this have been occurring since day one, but the mentions of the armed opposition and their actions are usually either omitted, marginalized, or strategically buried in articles.

Obviously this is a concerted effort as the presence of opposition gunmen is hardly an insignificant detail and it thoroughly contradicts the mainstream media’s manufactured narrative.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has continued to point to a foreign conspiracy as the cause of the uprising, statements which are routinely derided by the Western media and governments.

Assad’s statements are usually either ignored or brushed off as the insane rantings of some paranoid lunatic, which is a classic diversionary tactic intended to keep people from actually looking into his claims.

When one does, it becomes quite clear that there is, in fact, a Western conspiracy against Syria, and it is hardly unclear when one takes the time to look past the myopic coverage of the establishment media.

Often a news outlet will actually report on the Western backing of opposition groups, funding of anti-government propaganda, etc. while somehow managing to forget to integrate this knowledge into their future coverage.

This is because it wouldn’t look very good for a news outlet to cover the statements of chronic deceiver Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then mention how there is evidence that clearly shows all of her statements to be bold faced lies.

The same State Department has been guilty of pumping anti-government propaganda into Syria via satellite while American ambassadors have met with prominent Syrian opposition figures and Syrian opposition non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have had high-level meetings with the British government as well.

Unsurprisingly, instead of even attempting to address the mounds of evidence that show covert foreign involvement in the Syrian uprising – and the greater “Arab Spring” uprisings in general – Clinton just derided the comments as a whole.

Clinton made her typically laughably baseless statements during a joint press-conference with the Prime Minister of Qatar, calling Assad’s speech “chillingly cynical” adding that America “cannot permit President Assad and his regime to have impunity.”

The presence of the Qatari PM is quite ironic given their heavy involvement in the Libyan intervention, including running all of the major ground operations for the NATO-backed rebel forces.

We must keep in mind that al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded propaganda arm, thus the news they publish must be viewed with the necessary skepticism, like all media but especially the controlled establishment media.

It is also worth noting that the Clinton just stated that the Arab League’s monitoring mission should be brought to an end because they have so far totally failed to “deter the government’s 10-month campaign of violence against dissidents,” according to Bloomberg.

The timing of Clinton’s remarks is quite interesting as well, not only because she had just met with Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani, but also because American President Barack Obama also recently met with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal at the White House.

Saudi Arabia has been a key partner in the Western growth in the region, especially in the effort to encircle and isolate Syria and Iran.

As I have previously covered, the United States is also arming these allied states in the Persian Gulf, in the case of Saudi Arabia it is with new and renovated fighter jets.

A Middle East analyst at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Irina Zvyagelskaya, said that Russia is concerned that if Assad’s government is toppled, Islamic radicals may come to power.

This is hardly a baseless claim given that we have seen the  heavy involvement of Islamic forces throughout the so-called Arab Spring uprisings, especially in Libya and Egypt.

Zvyagelskaya stated that while Russia would continue to block any attempt at approval of a no-fly zone in the United Nations Security Council, Western nations and their allies very well might take an approach similar to that in 2003 in the case of Iraq.

This would be an independent coalition, outside of the United Nations, which could then engage in anything and everything without concern over operating outside of a UN mandate or a UNSC resolution.

“Syria has not become an object of interest for a new coalition of the willing itself,” Patrushev said. “The plan is to punish Damascus not so much for repressing the opposition as for its unwillingness to sever friendly relations with Tehran.”

Then again, as we saw in Libya, the West and others have absolutely no problem with breaching a United States Security Council Resolution if they decide to do so.

“We have seen before what a no-fly zone means, it will be used to overthrow the regime,” Zvyagelskaya said.

This is quite right, as we have seen in Libya where the no-fly zone actually killed civilians instead of protecting them as it was intended to do.

Instead, it was used to advance the NATO-backed and Qatari-controlled rebel ground forces in their effort to kill Qaddafi and enact regime change.

As I have previously reported, the Free Syrian Army – comprised mostly of military defectors – has been pushing for a “buffer zone” (a less intimidating term for a no-fly zone) in the north on the Turkish-Syrian border and the South on the Syrian-Jordanian border.

The Jordanian aspect of this equation becomes more important when one considers the reports of American troop buildups on the Syrian-Jordanian border in the recent past.

There is the real possibility that this force (if it is actually still there, which is unconfirmed as far as I know) could be used to create or assist in the establishment of this so-called buffer zone.

Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense policy in Moscow, said that these statements from Russia are likely due to either intelligence regarding Western military plans in Syria or perhaps it may just be an effort to make it clear that they will actively oppose any efforts made by the West or its allies to intervene.

However, I would argue that this has been quite clear with the instances of Russian warship presence and the delivery of advanced missile systems that Russia has always intended to take an active role in opposing any foreign efforts.

“After the Libyan experience, Russia will do everything to stop this scenario from happening,” Lukyanov told Bloomberg, adding, “Syria is much more important than Libya from Russia’s point of view.”

I think that it is quite obvious at this point that Syria is more important to Russia given that Russia never docked naval vessels on the coast of Libya or delivered weapons systems.

All of these statements from the Russians only serve to make it even more obvious that they will not stand for yet another Western intervention under the guise of humanitarianism.

Wu Sike, China’s Special Envoy to the Middle East said that China rejected the internationalization of the Syrian crisis while showing their support for the Arab League’s efforts to resolve the situation, according to Syria’s SANA via Azerbaijani Trend News Agency.

Sike stated that the situation should be addressed within the Arab framework, clearly implying that the Western companies trying to meddle in Syria’s domestic affairs need to mind their own business.

Interestingly, Sike’s statements conflicted with those of Clinton most significantly in that the Chinese Envoy said that the Arab League’s monitors should be assisted by the Syrian government and the other sides involved in hopes that they will succeed.

On the other hand, Clinton seems to believe that it has been a total failure which should be chalked up as a loss, indicating that the next option they will be pursuing will likely involve some kind of military action.

Hopefully the significant opposition from Russia – backed up with the threat of military action – coupled with China’s more diplomatic approach will serve to dissuade the West and the regional allies from engaging in another imperialistic regime change.

Unfortunately the wild brazenness with which the West has been operating as of late does nothing to reassure me that this will not occur.

Recommended related reading (in chronological order, oldest to latest):

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

January 27, 2012 | Categories: co-opting and/or destabilization, news, Syria, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part VII

The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) underway in the Atlantic Ocean (Photo credit: US Navy)

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 23, 2012

With the European Union passing new sanctions on Iranian oil exports and freezing the assets of the Iranian central bank and the suspicious murder of yet another Iranian military figure, the grim situation in Iran does not seem to be letting up.

Ramin Mehmanparast, the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry called the EU’s new sanctions “psychological warfare” aimed at trying to halt Iran’s nuclear program, an assessment which I think is hardly inaccurate.

Russia has already come out against the new EU sanctions, saying in a statement, “Under pressure of this sort, Iran will not make any concessions or any corrections to its policies.”

Seeing as Iran is doing nothing more than pursuing the same civilian nuclear technology as every other Western nation, I do not think this statement is out of line in any way.

However, as the weeks and months have passed, it has become clear that the United States and the West in general will not be satisfied with the fact that Iran is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, something which United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had to admit himself.

It appears that they will not give up until Iran has given up all hopes of a domestic nuclear program for energy or research purposes, something which is hardly fair or justified.

The European Union’s sanctions are arguably the harshest that have been passed thus far.

They include an immediate halt to any and all new contracts for Iranian crude oil and other petroleum products.

However, existing contracts are allowed to run until July, meaning that Iran will not feel the full force of these sanctions for some time.

The 27 nation European Union also froze all assets belonging to the Iranian central bank, something which will likely end up hurting the average Iranian citizen more than anyone else, just like the rest of the sanctions.

Currently it seems that the Iranian currency is being hurt most by the sanctions, with the value dropping to record lows compared to the US dollar.

Seeing how roughly 80% of Iranian oil revenue is derived from their exports, these latest sanctions coming from the EU could severely damage the Iranian economy and skyrocket the cost of living for average Iranians due to the devalued currency.

Whereas a year ago the Iranian rial was trading roughly 10,500 to the US dollar, it is now trading around 21,000 to the dollar.

Obviously this is a massive devaluation and in just the short period from Friday to Monday, the rial dropped around 14% in value.

We must keep in mind who these sanctions are hurting: working Iranians and others who do not have access to foreign currencies or the assets to absorb such an immense devaluation of their currency.

For those unfortunate Iranians that are just scraping by and do not have some kind of foreign investments to protect their assets, these sanctions could very well be a matter of life and death.

With the European sanctions on Iranian oil exports, Iran will likely be forced to turn East and sell at a discount to those operating outside of the Western markets.

However, the United States has been pressuring Asian nations to move away from Iran as well, something which has the potential to be quite devastating if the US manages to get Japan, South Korea and India to cut off Iranian crude.

With these latest sanctions, Iran has renewed their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, something which led the United States to make some remarkably pointed statements about what they would do if Iran decides to close off the strait.

Many analysts, myself included, believe the chances of Iran actually following through with their threats to close the strait are quite slim.

This is because it is likely the case that Iran is well aware of the fact that the West is getting “an itchy trigger finger” as it were, and thus any remotely aggressive move would be exploited and used to justify an attack on Iran.

The United States’ Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, stated that international navies will work together to keep the Strait of Hormuz open amidst renewed Iranian threats to close the channel through which an estimated 20-40% of the world’s oil passes (estimates are chronically unreliable and the same publications will routinely publish the 20% number and the 40% number without reconciling the massive difference).

“I have not looked at the exact military contingency plannings that there are and how long that would take,” Daalder said on BBC Radio 4′s “Today” program, according to Bloomberg.

“But of this I am certain: the international waterways that go through the Strait of Hormuz are to be sailed by international navies including ours, the British and the French and any other navy that needs to go through the Gulf; and second, we will make sure that happens under every circumstance,” he added.

It is important to note here that the British have already deployed their most advanced warship to the region and the United States appears to be increasing their presence there with the USS Abraham Lincoln moving into the 5th Fleet’s area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Persian Gulf region.

Furthermore, the United Kingdom’s defense ministry said in an e-mailed statement that American, British, and French warships sailed as a group through the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the statement, this was done not in an attempt to provoke the Iranians as I suspect it was intended to do, but instead “to underline the unwavering commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law.”

“I am convinced that the Straits of Hormuz need to remain open and that we need to maintain this as an international passageway and we will do what needs to be done to ensure that is the case,” Daalder said to the BBC.

While this statement is somewhat cryptic, what is clear is that a military strike is not only on the table but a viable and quite possibly imminent option.

In my analysis of this situation, which has now stretched into a seven part series (see the end of the article for a list of links to previous articles in this series) with more to come and many other materials outside of this series to be read on End the Lie (click here to see a list of articles related to Iran), it has become clear to me that the West wants to attack Iran but will not do so without having some justification which would not be politically and diplomatically unpopular.

This justification could be real, or could very well be contrived through the use of a false flag attack in the blueprint of the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident which brought the United States into Vietnam.

Indeed I believe that the chances of a false flag attack are growing with the presence of the USS Enterprise in the region.

The USS Enterprise would be the perfect target for a false flag attack, because like the World Trade Centers which were plagued by asbestos, the Enterprise would cost a great deal to decommission.

The USS Enterprise, or CVN-65, was launched all the way back in 1960 and originally ordered in 1957 and is scheduled to be decommissioned next year.

The Enterprise has actually been in operation since 1962 and boasts a whopping 8 Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors, meaning that all of this would have to be disposed of in the costly manner in which nuclear waste is supposed to be dealt with.

The Enterprise, or “Big E,” is an incredibly symbolic vessel due to the fact that she is the longest naval vessel on the planet, and is the second oldest commissioned vessel in the US Navy.

The Big E has also been in operation for the longest of any aircraft carrier at 51 consecutive years.

Originally, she was slated to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015, but the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 changed this to 2013.

If a false flag attack was carried out on the USS Enterprise and then blamed on Iran to justify an attack, it would be hitting two birds with one stone.

Firstly, it would save the military a great deal of money dealing with the process of decommissioning the vessel and handling the eight nuclear reactors.

Secondly, it would give the West the justification they have sought to attack Iran while keeping the international community on their side.

It would also make it harder for Russia and China to come to Iran’s aid in a politically popular manner as it would just appear that they are helping the aggressor.

The sad fact is that we know our military and intelligence establishment is capable of such an operation as evidenced by the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other false flag attack plans like Operation Northwoods.

Hopefully our so-called leaders are not psychopathic enough to carry out such an operation but given the historical precedent and the current situation in the region, it is hardly possible to rule it out entirely.

Previous installments in this series:

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part II

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part III

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part IV

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part V

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part VI

January 27, 2012 | Categories: Iran, news, sovereignty, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

Iran: a quickly evolving geopolitical imbroglio – part VI

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
January 18, 2012

I truly wish that this situation would fizzle out and I could stop writing these articles, but unfortunately it only seems to be getting more heated and I feel increasingly obligated to continue this in-depth series.

I have also been converting these articles to audio, so if you would like to listen to these articles or share them with your friends and family please do check them out on YouTube here and here (this article will be up in the near future as well).

I am doing this for you, the reader, so please do let me know if you appreciate these articles or if I have missed anything by contacting me directly at admin@EndtheLie.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

Now let’s move on to the latest developments in this worrisome war of words which very well might be leading to a real war.

Some troubling statements were published recently by the Iranian Fars News Agency (FNA) coming directly from Iran’s military.

Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army’s Self-Sufficiency Jihad Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri stated that one of the United States’ largest concerns should be Iranian subsurface naval vehicles, “since Iranian submarines are noiseless and can easily evade detection as they are equipped with the sonar-evading technology” and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, according to FNA.

This statement was made even more pointed by adding that “When the submarine sits on the seabed it can easily target and hit an aircraft carrier traversing in the nearby regions.”

This is clearly a statement which is directed towards the United States given that the US has not only been moving aircraft carriers through the region in spite of Iran’s concerns but even more importantly have actually been dispatching more aircraft carriers like the USS Abraham Lincoln to the region, as I outlined in the previous installment of this series.

Similarly, Iranian Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi called for the US to avoid sending back military vessels to the Persian Gulf earlier this month.

This came after the massive Iranian naval drills pushed Washington into moving an aircraft carrier out of the region, according to FNA.

Of course, the United States would insist that this was purely routine transport and has nothing to do with Iran whatsoever, as they repeatedly assert regarding the military movements in the region.

Salehi stated that the United States moved the carrier out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz into the Sea of Oman before the Iranian naval drills began.

“We advise, warn and recommend them [the US Navy] not to return this carrier to its previous location in the Persian Gulf,” Salehi said.

It is unclear what would happen if this warning is not taken seriously, and I seriously doubt that Iran would move to attack the United States unless provoked to do so as they are well aware of the fact that it would mean a massive assault on Iran, Iranian forces and Iranian interests.

It is noteworthy to point out that Salehi didn’t mention which aircraft carrier he was actually talking about, although one can safely assume that he was referring to one of the United States Navy’s largest vessels, the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier.

“We are not in the habit of repeating the warning and we warn only once,” Salehi said.

It appears that one of the United States’ greatest concerns is the possibility that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western aggressive movements due to the massive amount of oil (estimated in the range of 40% of the world’s supply) that moves through the strait.

This capability was affirmed by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said.

This is a threat Iran has repeatedly made and the United States’ Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain said they would not let such a thing happen.

Despite the rhetoric from the Western establishment media and the claims made which repeatedly say that the US Fifth Fleet on its own is more powerful than the entirety of the Iranian navy, Dempsey made it clear that in fact they do have a strategic advantage in the region.

In late November, Iran expanded their submarine fleet with an additional three Ghadir-class submarines (making a total of 17 according to Iran), something which likely made the United States even more concerned about their military dominance in the region.

Amiri said that the United States has focused on Iran’s “astonish surface capabilities” and thus has ignored the power of their subsurface vehicles.

Business Insider erroneously claims that Amiri said he will move his subs onto the floor of the Persian Gulf and “fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously,” when in fact what he was saying is that they have such a capability.

Like so much of the Western media, Business Insider seems to confuse a statement of capability or a threat with a guarantee of action.

Iran is merely asserting their dominance over the Persian Gulf in order to deter further incursions in the region on the part of the West and to underline their threat to close the vital Strait of Hormuz.

I don’t find this to be nearly as threatening as Business Insider and others are making it out to be. Why wouldn’t any nation make it clear that they can defend themselves? This is not an act of aggression in any way and taking Amiri’s quote to mean that he “plans to … ‘fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously,’” instead of what he was really saying which is that they have the capability is disingenuous and misleading.

The Naval Commander of the Iranian Army, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said at the time that all parts of the submarines had not only been designed but also manufactured by Iranian experts.

This military and nuclear self-sufficiency has become something that Iran brings up often, likely to point out that the West’s sanctions aren’t nearly as damaging as some may think.

Highlighting the domestic design and production of the submarines, along with the nuclear fuel rod, is something we should take note of as such statements will likely increase as the West continues to push for sanctions and European Union ministers are set to discuss further sanctions at the end of this month.

While United States Secretary of Defense emphasized that the United States military is fully prepared to address any threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, he claimed that they were not taking any “special steps” to bolster American forces in the region at this point.

This assertion is likely laughable to anyone who has been reading this series, as I have shown a steady effort to bolster the presence of American forces in the region along with the military capabilities of allied nations surrounding Iran.

The most glaring fact which completely contradicts Panetta’s claim is the deployment of 15,000 American troops to Kuwait.

How this does not constitute any “special steps” is beyond me, and likely is beyond anyone who is remotely capable of independent critical thought.

“We are not [taking] any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation,” Panetta said.

“Why? Because frankly we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now,” he added.

However, this does not explain the movement of the USS Abraham Lincoln, nor the arming of neighboring states, or the massive troop movements.

It appears to me that Leon Panetta is just attempting to be boastful and nonchalant, while the statement from Dempsey reflects the fact that the United States is indeed well aware of the superior strategic positioning of Iran in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

Reuters cites unnamed analysts who say that the Iranian navy “does not have the size for a sustained physical blockade of the strait, but does have mine-laying and missile capability.”

This obviously leaves out the submarine variable in this complex equation, along with the dual missile/torpedo firing capability.

It also seems to be ignoring the recent successful Iranian missile tests, including the test of a shore-to-sea anti-ship missile which is likely designed to be able to take out American vessels in the region if a conflict were to occur.

The Reuters article marginalizes Dempsey’s affirmation that Iran could indeed close the strait and instead highlights his expression of “confidence earlier this month that the U.S. military could reopen the strait if Iran blocked it.”

To be fair, the do cite “speculation that additional U.S. forces might be needed to do so, and U.S. media have been closely watching the movements of U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups.”

Unsurprisingly they fail to point out the troop movements and naval movements which are already occurring in order to prepare for such an operation.

“We have continually maintained a strong presence in the region to make very clear that we are going to do everything possible to secure the peace in that part of the world,” Panetta said.

However, to the independent observer it seems quite clear that what the United States is doing in the region is not promoting peace in any way but is instead designed to push Iran into striking first in order to justify an all-out Western assault against the nation.

With so many undeclared conflicts (or wars depending on how you define the term) going on at once, the United States and the West in general cannot afford another public relations problem.

Having Iran strike first would get much of the international community behind the West and thus give them free license to utterly destroy Iran with impunity.

Yesterday FNA also reported that Ramin Mehman-Parast, the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman, said that a recent letter from the United States regarding the Strait of Hormuz does not signal any new development in American-Iranian ties.

“No new development has happened with regard to Iran-US ties,” Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran yesterday.

Iran confirmed that they had received a letter from the US and the Iranian Foreign Ministry stated, “A reply will be sent if Tehran finds it necessary.”

“The US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice had handed a letter to Iran’s Ambassador to the UN Mohammad Khazayee; the Swiss Ambassador to Tehran [Livia Leu Agosti] also conveyed the same thing; and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani delivered the same message to Iranian officials,” Mehman-Parast said.

In response to the American warnings to Iran regarding closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami said that Iran “never asks for anyone’s permission to carry out what it desires.”

“Iran does not ask permission to implement its own defensive strategies,” Salami told FNA in late December.

It remains to be seen if Iran will reply to the American letter at all, and if they do, what tone the response will take.

Iran has made no effort to tone down the heated rhetoric or to counter Western saber rattling with anything other than saber rattling of their own.

It is hard to blame them when they have such a large conglomeration of nations itching to pull the trigger on them, especially when the group is being lead by the United States – hardly a nation known for overwhelming peacefulness.

Today Russia said that a military strike on Iran would be what AFP called “a ‘catastrophe’ with the severest consequences which risked inflaming existing tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.”

“As for the chances of this catastrophe happening you would have to ask those constantly mentioning it as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said.

Here Lavrov is clearly hinting at the United States and Israel which repeatedly say that a military option has not been taken off the table.

Although, it is worth mentioning that Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister did say today that Israel considered a military option to be “very far away.”

Then again, Israel is not a nation known for being straightforward and public with their plans so I think Barak’s statement is worth very little, if anything at all.

Lavrov emphasized that such a military operation on Iran would create a refugee crisis in the region along with inflaming sectarian tensions which already run quite deep.

“I have no doubt in the fact that it [would] only add fuel to the fire of the still-simmering Sunni-Shiite conflict. And I do not know where the subsequent chain reaction will end,” Lavrov said.

I believe this assertion is quite accurate as we’ve seen a great deal of sectarian violence in Syria, especially in cities like Homs, along with constant violence along sectarian lines in Iraq.

“Additional unilateral sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with a desire to ensure the regime’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation,” Lavrov added.

Again, I find Lavrov’s assessment to be entirely accurate as it has become quite clear that the West is just using the nuclear issue as an excuse to pressure and/or attack Iran.

This is highlighted by Leon Panetta openly admitting that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon on national television in the United States, while still insisting that we must be concerned.

It has become obvious to even the casual observer that the United States cares not about the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program and instead is just using it as a way to steer the opinion of the international community against Iran.

“It is seriously aimed at suffocating the Iranian economy and the well-being of its people, probably in the hop of inciting discontent,” Lavrov said.

Indeed these moves seem focused upon cutting off Iran’s economic ties (which directly affects the well-being of the Iranian people) while reducing their self-sufficiency.

As I have previously mentioned, while Iran has a massive oil reserve, they do not have the refining capability to keep up with domestic demand.

This leads them to have to look outside their borders for sources of refined gasoline and the United States has been attempting to cut off these supply lines in every way possible.

Furthermore, the pressure on their nuclear program is designed to reduce their ability to domestically produce energy and become self-sufficient.

Lavrov also said that Russia has evidence that Iran not only was ready to cooperate more closely with representatives of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but also were preparing for “serious talks” with the West.

Interestingly, Lavrov hinted that the United States and Europe were intentionally imposing new sanctions in order to kill a new round of nuclear talks.

This seems quite plausible given that the West appears to have no interest whatsoever in letting Iran pursue a nuclear capability be it peaceful or military.

“Iran is now waiting for an [IAEA] delegation so that it can discuss serious issues. So the sanctions that can now be adopted by the European Union can hardly improve the atmosphere or make the talks productive,” Lavrov said.

“All possible sanctions that could impact Iran’s behavior in the nuclear sphere or its cooperation with the IAEA have been exhausted,” he added.

Lavrov is emphasizing the point that I have been attempting to drive home with a vengeance: the West has no interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program or working towards peace in the region.

It is becoming increasingly clear that all the United States and the West in general wants is regime change and/or war.

It is also being reported that European Union diplomats have set a july date for a full embargo on Iranian oil imports, something which Iran has repeatedly said would lead them to close the Strait of Hormuz.

It remains to be seen if Iran will follow through with this threat, and if they do how the United States and the West will react or retaliate.

If the rhetoric is any indicator, I think the United States very well might take some sort of action against Iran for closing the strait.

This is due to the fact that it appears that the United States believes that such an action constitutes an act of war or at least an aggressive enough maneuver to justify an attack.

Of course, the United States has been incredibly ambiguous with the threats issued in response to the Iranian statements, so it is unclear what would happen at this point.

To speculate a bit, I think the United States might make aggressive maneuvers in the region in an attempt to goad Iran into striking first.

This would give the West the green light to go all-out on Iran and “wipe them off the map,” as the constantly cited (and incorrectly translated) statement from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad goes.

At this point I just hope that the saber rattling will fail to lead to any real conflict and this will all become a distant memory.

However, the nature of the rhetoric and the persistence of both sides of this war of words does not paint a pretty picture of what the future holds.

Please do the world a favor and share this article along with the rest of the series with your friends, family and internet contacts.

Only through raising awareness, countering the Western propaganda, and spreading the truth can we fight against what could very well bring about World War III and instead bring about a new era of peace in the region and the world at large.

So long as the establishment media can keep the blinders on Americans and Europeans and keep them thinking that Iran is a threat to the rest of the world, they will be able to push the public to support war.

Once we can eradicate the constantly promulgated falsehoods and instead perpetuate truth and justice, we will be able to see a real dialogue for peace.

If I missed anything or if you have any feedback, please remember to contact me directly at admin@endthelie.com and I will do my best to get back to you immediately.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

January 27, 2012 | Categories: Iran, news, sovereignty, tyranny, war | Leave a comment

SUPERPOWER – Official Movie Trailer [video]

Global Research TV
January 24, 2012

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.”
-Harry S. Truman

SUPERPOWER: A documentary film by Barbara-Anne Steegmuller
Available to order from Global Research:
https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/superpower-dvd/

SUPERPOWER is a comprehensive film that asks tough questions and goes behind the scenes of America’s national security apparatus and military actions. Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy.

Featuring interviews with Michel Chossudovsky, Bill Blum, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky, among many others.

SUPERPOWER has won a number of awards, including the 5th Annual Hollywood F.A.M.E. Award for Documentary of the Year 2011 as well as the 2011 32nd Annual People’s Choice Bronze Telly Award.

For more information, visit:
http://superpowerthemovie.com

Available to order from Global Research:
https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/superpower-dvd/

January 27, 2012 | Categories: documentaries, news, tyranny, videos | Leave a comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »