French Bloodthirst: Sarkozy wants Syria (video)
RT
November 25, 2011
As predicted, Arab League and Turkey reportedly plan no-fly zone over Syria with U.S. logistical support
Madison Ruppert
End the Lie
November 23, 2011
A past meeting of the Arab League
I have been reporting on the real possibility of yet another foreign intervention under the false pretense of humanitarianism in Syria for months now, and quite unfortunately it seems that I was right.
Indeed I first brought up this issue on April 16th and April 26th, followed by several other articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) outlining how the West was moving towards yet another “humanitarian intervention” that will leave countless civilians dead in the name of “democracy.”
I have not been the only researcher and writer covering the Syrian debacle in detail with an eye for the truth, indeed Tony Cartalucci of the Land Destroyer has done a phenomenal job of exposing the situation as well.
This issue is one that requires extensive research and analysis, and I highly recommend that everyone reading this article explore other articles of mine and those who cover the reality of the situation like Tony Cartalucci, as without doing your own research you will be easily deceived by the corporate media’s propaganda.
Al Bawaba revealed that anonymous “Senior European sources” said that America will provide logistical support for Arab fighter jets and possibly Turkish warplanes in an effort to implement a no-fly zone over Syrian airspace.
This would come after the Arab League, who has already booted Syria, will issue a decision calling for the protection of civilians in Syria, as was the case with the UN’s resolution to “protect” civilians in Libya.
It appears that the Arab League is opting to spearhead this effort because of Russian and Chinese opposition in the United Nations Security Council.
However, this would not change the real fact that Russia is wholly opposed to any foreign intervention in Syria whatsoever, as evidenced by their move to send warships into Syrian waters.
Unfortunately it seems that some Syrians are actually ignorant enough to call for a no-fly zone themselves.
One can only assume that they have been solely consuming the whitewashed Western establishment news which glossed over the massive civilian deaths in Libya as a result of NATO “protecting” them.
The unnamed senior European sources told the Kuwaiti al Rai daily that the no-fly zone will also include a total ban on movement of the Syrian government’s military vehicles.
Claiming that this would be aimed at curbing the movements of Bashar al-Assad’s forces, they will restrict the movement of all tanks, personnel carriers and artillery.
They claim that the no-fly zone and ban on the movement of military vehicles will cripple the Assad government’s ability to bomb cities and could paralyze the Syrian government forces “in less than 24 hours.”
Al Rai also reports that the Turkish General Staff’s leadership said that they would not launch an invasion into Syria in order to establish a so-called “buffer zone” which Riad al As’ad, the leader of the Free Syrian Army has previously called for.
The Turks have apparently ruled out such an option and informed all of the parties involved with the evolving Syrian imbroglio that they will not be launching such a “buffer zone” mission to protect fleeing civilians for reasons which are not yet clear.
The Syrian National Council, or SNC, which was created in the mold of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) has explicitly voiced full support for the Free Syrian Army, which amounts to nothing short of an armed terrorist group.
The looming issue is that the countries involved could bring the wrath of countries like Russia and China on their heads for intervening in Syria, and as Assad has previously said, it could very well lead to an “earthquake” in the region if the West intervenes.
Israeli news outlet YNet News said that the plan is already complete and that it will not only restrict the movement of the Syrian military but also follow Assad’s Presidential Palace, military command and intelligence activities.
These countries making such a decision to intervene in Syria while knowing that it very well could spark a larger conflict with Russia and perhaps China is beyond any and all reason.
The United States entering into such a conflict without so much as consulting our so-called representatives is similarly nonsensical and in typical fashion, an affront to everything America was founded upon.
If the plan materializes, which it looks like it will if al Rai’s reporting is accurate, the Obama administration will likely use the same ridiculous justification they used in the case of Libya, claiming that it does not amount to “hostilities” under the War Powers Act.
During last night’s foreign policy debate the Republican candidate Rick Perry supported a no-fly zone over Syria, despite the considerable threats that would arise if we were to assist in such an operation.
Then again, given that Rick Perry can’t even remember his own platform; I don’t expect him to grasp even the most simple of foreign policy matters.
What is even more worrisome is that Russia and China might not be the only ones involved in opposing intervention in Syria.
Indeed in mid-August the spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, warned against any Western intervention in Syria.
“The events in Syria are its internal affair and there is no justification for any foreign intervention as it can only create many problems,” Mehmanparast said during a press conference.
“Western leaders, especially Americans, are used to interfering in the internal affairs of countries and using any pretext to march with their military forces and occupy the country,” he correctly pointed out.
He said that any American intervention in Syria will only serve to stoke the “public hatred” of the United States throughout the Middle East, which is likely the case, even if Washington falls back on the claim that they are only playing a support role just like they did in the case of Libya.
Mehmanparast said that neighboring nations should held in “bringing stability to the region and resolving, through appropriate channels, the problems between the Syrian government and people who have claims,” which seems like a much more logical solution than supporting foreign intervention that will undoubtedly leave countless civilians dead as a result.
Furthermore, an adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran sees Arab nations “meddling” in Syria to enact regime change and replace Assad with a government that is “submissive” to Israel, according to Bloomberg.
The top Iranian human rights official, Mohammad Javad Larijani, said that the Arab League’s condemnation of Syria didn’t stem from any concern for human rights, seeing as a “good number” of the Arab League nations are guilty of human rights violations themselves.
I find this analysis to be quite accurate, although to be fair Iran isn’t a saintly nation itself when it comes to human rights.
Larijani also made another quite bold statement in saying, “Our position is that all the hands should be cut off from this kind of interference,” adding, “Iran’s future relations with Syria will be as strong as they are now.”
The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, claimed in testimony before Congress, “Syria is essential to the extremely negative role that Iran has been able to play in the region. Take Hezbollah. The transit routes for the arms to Hezbollah are via Syria. The facilitation that Iran gives to Hezbollah to undermine the state of Lebanon, to put Israel at risk, to basically destabilize the region, it comes via Syria. Syria is basically Iran’s only friend.”
As per usual, it comes out to the surface that one of the major driving forces behind the intervention is Israel, as any nation in the region that isn’t wholly subservient to Israel is immediately marked for regime change.
Feltman also alleges that Iran is helping Syria repress the “demonstrations” as he puts it, when in reality they are actually armed gangs of terrorists attacking government forces and buildings.
Mohammad Esmail Kowsari, the Deputy Chairman of the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Committee also issued a grave warning to the United States should Washington decide to play a role in openly intervening in Syria.
Kowsair said that American meddling would cost us dearly and that instead of meddling in Syrian domestic affairs Washington should focus on the demands of the Occupy Wall Street protesters at home.
“Continued foreign intervention in Syria will only make the Syrian nation more united,” Kowsari said.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also condemned the Western interference in domestic conflicts throughout the world, saying that such actions would push afflicted regions and the entire system of international relations into total chaos.
Lavrov pointed out that economic and political reforms should be achieved through peaceful and inclusive negotiations that are broad in scope and include all social groups and political parties.
Unfortunately, the Syrian opposition has declared that they will not have any discussions with Assad whatsoever, just like the Libyan opposition said about Gaddafi.
As I have previously pointed out, it is absurd for anyone in the United States to claim to be against the government attacking armed groups like the Free Syrian Army that are fighting and killing Syrian government forces given that American police assault unarmed, totally peaceful protesters on a regular basis.
The United States has absolutely no right to claim moral authority while torturing and detaining people indefinitely throughout Europe, the rest of the world and in Guantanamo Bay and while our domestic police forces are steadily militarized, only serving the elite and brutally assaulting anyone who cares to express their right to free speech.
UPDATE: CBS is now reporting that the United States has urged Americans to leave Syria “immediately” which could very well be a sign of an impending intervention.
This is exactly what preceded the NATO assault on Libya when the United States shipped citizens from Tripoli to Malta via a government-chartered ferry.
Turkey issued a similarly ominous advisory, telling Turkish pilgrims to fly back home via Saudi Arabia in order to avoid flying through Syria entirely for security reasons.
The official announcement, released via the U.S. Embassy in Damascus’ website cites a decrease in commercial flights as the reason behind the announcement.
If a no-fly zone is created over Syrian airspace, commercial flights would be severely restricted indeed.
I was also informed by a reader that Zero Hedge has covered a recent STRATFOR naval update which revealed a disturbing movement of a U.S. aircraft carrier.
I disagree with Zero Hedge’s assertion that STRATFOR’s geopolitical assessments are “always controversial,” in fact I would argue they usually tow the government line in terms of the false “war on terror” narrative, and the non-existent threat of terrorism, along with the Western propaganda regarding Syria and Libya.
Nonetheless, Zero Hedge reports that STRATFOR’s weekly naval update revealed that the USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) has left its traditional stomping grounds off the Strait of Hormuz.
On the ship’s official website, the USS George H. W. Bush’s mission is described as: “USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77) will be mission ready to conduct sustained Carrier Strike Group operations and all other operations as directed and required by our National Command Authority to support national goals around the globe.”
It usually occupies the highly strategically important waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, the Strait of Hormuz, with the Stennis, but now it has moved right next to Syria.
Yet another grim portent pointing towards the unfortunate and increasingly real possibility that there will be a foreign intervention in Syria in which the United States will play a major role.
Of course it will be under the guise of “logistical support” or a “purely supportive role” as they claimed in Libya while flying the majority of combat missions throughout the NATO bombing campaign that left Libya in ruins only to leave the spoils for the same corporations that backed the destruction.
Yet the USS George H. W. Bush’s goal of being “mission ready to conduct sustained Carrier Strike Group operations” does not reinforce the notion of a purely support role, indeed if the ship’s movement are any indicator, it could represent a much more significant American role in a possible no-fly zone operation.
According to the comment accompanying the entry for the USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77), it is under way in the U.S. 6th Fleet AOR, which stands for area of responsibility.
The Sixth Fleet is the United States Navy’s (USN’s) operational unit and staff of the United States Naval Forces Europe.
The Sixth Fleet is part of the European Command and Africa Command, so without knowing knowing exactly what Task Force the USS George H. W. Bush is a part of or what their mission is (which is very unclear as of now) we can only speculate.
You can see the STRATFOR naval update map via Zero Hedge below. You can click on the image to see it full size.
Withdrawal of US Troops From Iraq Highly Suspect
Think-tank designs for Iran leave only Israeli attack & coaxed provocation for total war on table.
Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer
October 22, 2011
For ten months the Obama administration has presided over the “Arab Spring,” a geopolitical gambit years in the making, and executed simultaneously in multiple nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the beginning of 2011. The regional conflagration was stoked by a steady stream of first, denial, even feigned surprise, with covert support for US-backed opposition groups, then more overt support, and finally NATO airstrikes, weapons, training, and special operations forces lent to the rebellion in Libya and weapons and support sent to Syria’s militants. These collective efforts stretching from Tunisia and leading up to Iran’s doorstep serve a singular agenda -that is, to contain and ultimately overturn the reemergence of Russia as well as containing the rise of China.
Toppling Iran
Integral to this stated agenda, is the toppling of Iran’s government and its integration into the Wall Street-London “international order.” Efforts to topple Syria’s government by US-backed and now apparently armed opposition groups aim to isolate and even provoke the Islamic Republic into a suitable justification for US or Israeli (or both) retaliation. As reported on extensively, the literal playbook from which these stratagems are drawn is the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report. In it, it specifically states:
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”
The 2009 “Green Revolution” was just such an attempt at “covert regime change” to “goad Iran into such a provocation” though it ignominiously failed. It appears that in addition to funding, arming, and harboring the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), the US has also taken to entirely fabricating “such provocations.” The recent DEA-Saudi bomb plot announced by Attorney General Eric Holder stands on tenuous grounds, even more so now that Iran has counterclaimed that the supposed Quds Forces member the US implicated may in fact be a member of the above stated US-backed MEK terrorist organization. The US has done all in its power to coax Saudi Arabia into taking a harder line against Tehran. The Brookings report had this to say about that in 2009:
“For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take.”
“…it is hard to imagine what it would take.” Perhaps MEK terrorists posing as Quds Forces, entrapping a drug addicted used-car salesman to arrange a bomb plot against a Saudi ambassador and then blaming it on Iran.
With the fate of Libya hanging in the balance, with US troops still occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with renewed vigor aimed toward Syria after the alleged fall of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, it is incredibly unlikely that the US has abandoned its plans to ultimately topple the Iranian regime as the crescendo to this ongoing regional campaign. In fact, many amongst Obama’s own administration have been the most rabid supporters of executing the final leg of this long-term strategy started under the Bush administration. The 2008 presidential runner-up John McCain, and of course the same collection of unelected, corporate-funded policy makers from the halls of Brookings Institution, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have also been more than eager in pushing this agenda along.
That these policy makers, who have helped engineer and support the current course Obama is on, are now sulking over Obama’s decision to pull troops out of Iraq when in fact Obama doesn’t, never has, and never will make such decisions, is highly suspect. Kenneth Pollack, one of the co-authors of the “Which Path to Persia?” report, recently expressed dismay in his article titled, “With a Whimper, Not a Bang.” Frederick Kagan, the corporate-funded AEI architect behind the Iraq “troop surge” also lamented in a piece titled, “Obama abandons Iraq.” Kagan explicitly claims that the withdrawal would be “giving Tehran the single most important demand it has pursued for years—the complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.”
Possible Scenarios
The US is at least peddling the illusion it is clearing out its holdings in Iraq, leaving a symbolic force for a reason – a reason that has to do with a final gambit to be played against Iran, the last domino to fall in the US-contrived “Arab Spring.” These are two possible scenarios:
1. Leave a small symbolic force for the Iranians to attack in Iraq after a “unilateral” Israeli airstrike. Whatever Iran decides to do, it may not be able to do sustainably, but will do viciously in the opening phases. By leaving a symbolic force in Iraq, the US can garner the necessary sympathy and anger politically at home to launch a wider operation against Iran in “retaliation.”
2. Feign as if the US is disengaging from the Middle East so when a false flag terror attack or other provocation is perpetrated against the US, it will look like an egregious act of war by Iran. While a shrinking US presence in the Middle East would logically engender even more patience in Tehran, the script writers of the latest DEA-Saudi bomb plot took special care to ensure the “Iran has become bolder” talking-point made it repetitively on air and into the minds of unsuspecting Americans.
This is more than mere idle speculation. In the Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?” nearly all but the most extreme measures proposed in the report have been executed. The only options left on the table unused include a unilateral Israeli airstrike designed to provoke a significant retaliation thus bringing the US into war with Iran and a variety of options to provoke a full-scale invasion.
In a section of the report titled, “Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” (page 89, page 102 of the .pdf) it appears that Israeli intelligence is also working with the terrorist organization MEK:
“Israeli intelligence operations against Iran were stepped up even earlier and have included use of third parties to publicize the Iranian threat without revealing the Israeli hand. Iran’s secret enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs were publicly exposed in August 2002 by an Iranian dissident group (the Mujahedin-e Khalq), which reportedly was unwittingly fed the information by Israeli intelligence.”
The report goes on to say of an American approved Israeli airstrike:
“However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion.)”
Allowing the Israelis to attack by air, and sacrificing US troops on the ground in Iraq as a pretext for greater war is most certainly a possibility. The report continues on by stating the necessity of maintaining a certain level of plausible deniablity regarding the Israeli airstrikes. US troops in Iraq would by default implicate America in any Israeli airstrike that would need to pass over Iraqi airspace. US troops “in retreat” in Iraq could possibly mitigate such implications as well as make an Iranian retaliation seem all the more “outrageous, deadly, and unprovoked.”
We can be sure that after years of carrying forth an agenda that proceeded his presidency, Obama has not all the sudden decided to unilaterally pull troops from Iraq. His administration’s duplicity and eagerness throughout the US-contrived “Arab Spring” all but assure us that the overarching agenda still includes encircling and toppling the government in Iran. It has not escaped the attention of the White House that a withdrawal from Iraq would give Iran its greatly desired breathing room and would greatly diminish America’s influence throughout the Middle East.
Just like the false rapprochement of the West with Libya’s Qaddafi before the US rearmed, reorganized, and let loose the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), when the West returns to torment Tehran, it will come back with a vengeance. Keep an eye on Israel for their attack and the complicit United States waiting to once again “lead from behind.” And if you have someone you know in the US military stationed in Iraq staying behind, prepare for the absolute worse. As Henry Kissinger once so bluntly stated, “military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.” (Woodward and Bernstein The Final Days in chapter 14). Certainly, a few dead G.I.s in Iraq after an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli airstrike would be just the pawns needed for “foreign policy” to move forward.
One can only hope this pessimistic analysis is entirely wrong, and that the US has overreached and has simply decided to withdraw from the battlefield and ultimately from empire. However, if unrest continues to unfold in Syria, which is essentially a low-intensity US proxy war against Damascus, and in turn against Tehran, we can be sure any optimism will be quickly dashed against the rocks by the Wall Street-London corporate-financier oligarchs.
Tear Gas, Barbed Wire, Isolation: NATO Tools for Kosovo Raid (video)
RT
November 24, 2011
Serbs protesters have thwarted attempts by NATO to dismantle a barricade in Northern Kosovo. And while NATO claims their decision to fire teargas came as 21 of their soldiers were injured, Belgrade has warned Pristina against any further violence.
The Serbian Minister of Internal Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Dacic has called on the Prime Minister of Kosovo Hashim Thaci to restrain his NATO led forces from attacking Serbian civilians.
“The red line for Belgrade would be Hashim Thaci’s decision to initiate an armed attack on Serbs in Kosovo. Thaci must know that any attack against Kosovar Serbs means an attack on Belgrade,“ Dacic said in a statement aired on local television Thursday.
Dacic went on to warn Pristina it would be mistaken to think that fears of upsetting the current balance of power would exclude the possibility of war.
Dacic was quick to point out “historically, we’ve lost Kosovo several times, and then it’s returned to us.”
War With Iran: History and Consequences (video)
Global Research TV
November 21, 2011
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3219
This month’s release of a new International Atomic Energy Agency report into Iran’s nuclear energy program has caused a flurry of diplomatic activity, political posturing, and breathless news headlines about the supposed imminent threat of an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Given the nature and tenor of the coverage of the IAEA report in the mainstream press, one might be forgiven for believing that the agency has in fact uncovered new signs that Iran has made any concrete steps toward creating a nuclear weapon since it suspended that program in 2003 or that there is any evidence whatsoever that Iran has made any progress in the development of nuclear weapons technology.
In reality, however, the report contains no new information about Iran’s alleged attempts to create nuclear weapons, a fact quietly conceded by even the most hawkish opponents of Iran’s nuclear program, including former weapons inspector David Albright.
Find out more about the recent moves toward war with Iran in this week’s GRTV Backgrounder.
Syria: Arab League Provides Pretext For Western Military Intervention
Global Research
November 21, 2011
Xinhua
DAMASCUS, Nov. 21 (Xinhua) — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has accused the Arab League (AL) of trying to internationalize the crisis in his country to find a cover for a foreign military intervention in Syria, as the latter rebuffed Damascus’ proposals regarding regional observers’ monitoring mission to Syria.
During an interview with the British Sunday Times published Sunday, al-Assad said that the AL initiative was aimed at giving the international community an excuse to meddle in his country.
“It’s been done to show that there’s a problem between the Arabs, thus providing western countries with a pretext to conduct a military intervention against Syria,” he was quoted as saying.
He, however, warned that the consequence of any such intervention would be an earthquake that would shake the entire Middle East.
The AL rejected on Sunday Syria’s proposed modifications on the mission of a 500-member delegation to visit the country, saying that the proposals introduced “drastic changes” to the mission of the observers.
The Syrian proposals changed the nature of the mission’s task that aims to solve the Syrian crisis and protect civilians, the AL said in a statement.
But Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem accused shortly after the AL’s rejection that the regional body of being used as a tool to take the Syrian crisis to the UN Security Council.
(hat tip: NWO Truth)
Arab League Suspends Syria: What’s Next?
RT
November 14, 2011
The U.S. and its allies are more interested in regime change in Syria than a peaceful solution to the unrest – that’s according to the Kremlin. Russia’s Foreign Minister says Western countries are trying to stir-up Syria’s opposition to topple President Bashar al-Assad. Independent web journalist James Corbett thinks the Arab League suspension of Syria means the West is now much closer to achieving its goal of regime change in Damascus.
