UN Defends NATO’s Premeditated Genocide in Syria
by Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer
December 21, 2012 (LD) – As early as 2007, it was reported that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, together were not only organizing, funding, training, and arming militants directly linked to Al Qaeda to be used against Syria and Iran, but knew well in advance that by doing so, they would trigger an unprecedented “cataclysmic conflict” driven by sectarian extremism. Not only was such sectarian violence expected, it was desired ahead of redrawing a new map for the Middle East – one that favored Western corporate-financier and geopolitical interests, while keeping the region weak, divided, and infighting.
Now, the UN is feigning indignation over the inevitable, increasingly overt sectarian nature of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” and its so-called “rebellion.” Entire communities of minorities face extermination. To blunt the impact this will have on public opinion, UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng has preemptively stated:
“I am deeply concerned that entire communities risk paying the price for crimes committed by the Syrian government.”
According to Reuters’ article, “U.N. anti-genocide envoy: Syria minorities face reprisal risk,” the genocide NATO and its allies are arming, funding, and willfully fueling is merely “reprisals.” What Reuters doesn’t report is that US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials had for years warned that US foreign policy, started under Bush and continued in earnest under Obama, would trigger this very sort of sectarian violence – driven by Al Qaeda-style fanaticism, not “reprisals.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh writing for the New Yorker, wrote in his 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” that:
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Hersh’s report would continue by stating:
“the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Further admissions of a joint US-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy against Syria included:
“…[Saudi Arabia’s] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
In regards to sectarian extremism in particular it was forewarned that:
“Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah was also featured in Hersh’s report and had also warned of imminent and spreading sectarian war purposefully stoked by the West:
Nasrallah said he believed that President Bush’s goal was “the drawing of a new map for the region. They want the partition of Iraq. Iraq is not on the edge of a civil war—there is a civil war. There is ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The daily killing and displacement which is taking place in Iraq aims at achieving three Iraqi parts, which will be sectarian and ethnically pure as a prelude to the partition of Iraq. Within one or two years at the most, there will be total Sunni areas, total Shiite areas, and total Kurdish areas. Even in Baghdad, there is a fear that it might be divided into two areas, one Sunni and one Shiite.”
He went on, “I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’ ”
Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.”
The UN once again is abusing its own self-appointed authority by excusing and spinning premeditated sectarian genocide designed to advance a documented conspiracy admitted to years ago. More recently, this conspiracy to destroy Syria through engineered and purposefully protracted violence was documented further by the very corporate-financiers themselves amongst the pages of reports turned out by their own policy think-tanks.
The Brookings Institution in their “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” openly stated they sought to “bleed” Syria in purposefully protracted violence:
“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.” –pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Such documents completely contradict the public statements issued by the West, which attempt to portray their involvement in Syria as motivated by “humanitarian concerns,” “moral imperatives,” and the “promotion of democracy.” In reality, the goal is to prolong the violence as long as possible, expedite the loss of life, and to destroy the nation by fueling violent militants – just as it was the plan in 2007 when Hersh penned “The Redirection.” The sectarian component of the current conflict is not an unexpected result of violence that began only in 2011, it was an integral part of the West’s foreign policy since 2007.
The sectarian genocide in Syria was purposefully engineered by Western policy makers, and now is willfully covered up, spun, and excused by the UN and the Western mass media alike.
Lebanon Bombing is Impetus for West’s Planned Sunni-Shi’ia War
Land Destroyer
October 20, 2012
Repost: Saad Hariri Aides Western Syria Destabilization from Lebanon.
by Tony Cartalucci
October 20, 2012 – It was, starting at least in 2007, the goal of the US, Saudis, and Israelis to trigger a region wide sectarian war with which to overrun the governments of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. This was documented in detail in Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection” which was covered in depth in, “Syrian War: The Prequel.
A recent bombing in Beirut, Lebanon left high ranking security chief Brigadier General Wissam al-Hassan dead. Al-Hassan is described as “anti-Syrian.” Before Al-Hassan’s death was announced, and literally as bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage caused by the bombing, politicians from Saad Hariri’s faction began immediately blaming Syria for the attacks. Hariri himself also laid the blame on Syria, offering no other details or supporting evidence.
Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran have all condemned the bombing and cite it as a provocation to start a greater sectarian war, from which none will benefit. Each in turn suspect Israel and the West, as greater sectarian tension is expected to result, playing into long documented attempts by US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to trigger a sectarian war they hope will be the downfall of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.
Suspicious op-eds in pro-Western “Lebanon Now” insist that Syria is responsible, and again without evidence, concludes that blaming Israel is inappropriate, and that the Wall Street-London militant beachhead is by far a lesser threat to Lebanon than what it calls “the most deadly virus” of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria.
The blast has given impetus to Hariri’s mobs to flood into the streets, who will no doubt portray themselves to be as “spontaneous” and “independent” as US-engineered mobs were throughout the equally premeditated “Arab Spring.”
Hariri in 2007 was, according to US journalist Seymour Hersh, building an armed militant front in northern Lebanon, across the boarder from Homs, Syria. Many of these militants admittedly had direct ties to Al Qaeda, and with US, Israeli, and Saudi support, they were continuously armed, funded, and prepared for the sectarian bloodbath now unfolding. Homs to this day remains as one of the strongholds for terrorist militants operating in Syria.
While the Western media claims it is a shocking revelation that Al Qaeda is “amongst” the fighters attempting to overthrow the Syrian government, it is well documented that it was Al Qaeda from the very beginning who began armed operations against Syria, using Lebanon and Turkey as a base of operations, with explicit support from the West. The operations were carried out under the tenuous cover of “pro-democracy” protests and with a constant torrent of disinformation provided by the Western media.
While the current story in Lebanon develops, it will be useful to understand the role Hariri has so far played. The republished article below, originally posted in May, 2012, is by no means an exhaustive expose of Hariri and his role in executing the foreign agenda driven by Wall Street, London, Tel Aviv, Doha, and Riyadh, which starts well before 2007.
Originally posted May 21, 2012 -The United Nations has been inexplicably silent over revelations that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf states, are arming militants in Syria in direct violation of a UN brokered ceasefire. Additionally, the US has openly threatened to arm Kurd militants in Syria to “rise up” against the government. While in reality this constitutes a greater threat to neighboring Turkey, and perhaps an attempt to motivate Ankara to take a more aggressive stance against Syria, the threat of purposefully inciting more violence in a conflict that has allegedly claimed “10,000” lives, seems not only grossly irresponsible, but a violation of international peace.
Image: A bomb detonates in Syria, May 19, 2012, killing and maiming scores. This is the latest manifestation of overt US and Gulf State military support for terrorists attempting to destabilize and overthrow the Syrian government. The West has planned and prepared years in advance for implementing bloody regime change in Syria and Iran.
The West’s meddling in Syria does not end there. Recently, clashes have broken out in Lebanon, revealing a large base of operations supporting the destabilization in neighboring Syria, located along the Lebanese-Syrian border. The significance of this discovery, and extremist groups in Lebanon being directly involved, highlights the veracity of a 2007 New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh titled, “The Redirection,” which exposed a joint US-Israeli-Saudi operation to create a violent extremist front and direct it at Hezbollah in Lebanon, President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and at the Iranian government.
In the article, the fact that these extremist forces had direct ties to Al Qaeda was noted, including the fact that many of these militants either participated in fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or were affiliated with groups that did:
“In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”
According to the Crisis Group report, Saad Hariri later used his parliamentary majority to obtain amnesty for twenty-two of the Dinniyeh Islamists, as well as for seven militants suspected of plotting to bomb the Italian and Ukrainian embassies in Beirut, the previous year. (He also arranged a pardon for Samir Geagea, a Maronite Christian militia leader, who had been convicted of four political murders, including the assassination, in 1987, of Prime Minister Rashid Karami.) Hariri described his actions to reporters as humanitarian.
In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”” -“The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker 2007
The report also made mention of extensive US funding behind Hariri’s faction, led then by Fouad Siniora, augmenting the creation of this militant force:
“The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”
American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.” -“The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker 2007
It becomes clear then that Lebanon’s recent unrest is a result of a greater gambit targeting not just Syria, but the Hezbollah-Syrian-Iranian sphere of power, following the US-engineered “Arab Spring” installing proxy leaders across the Arab World to specifically support this last leg of geopolitical reordering. Such support has manifested itself as political support from US-proxy president Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, and similar support from US-installed Libyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib, who’s nation has also committed not only arms and cash to Syrian terrorists, but fighters as well.
Image: Saad Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, is admittedly a co-conspirator in US-Israeli-Saudi designs to destabilize with militant extremists and violently overthrow the Syrian government. While Hariri feigns anti-Israeli sentiment and makes public calls for Lebanese to refrain from sectarian violence, he is the primary facilitator of both extremists crossing over into Syria, and their creating of chaos in the streets of Lebanon. A 2010 Fortune 500-funded International Crisis Group report describes in detail Hariri’s deep ties, and indeed dependence, on the West.
Now, it is reported that “anti-Assad clerics” have been shot by Lebanese soldiers – and just as was seen during the assassination of Rafic Hariri, demagogues are attempting to draw Sunni Muslims into a conflict with Shi’ias. A strategy of tension is being used to divide the Lebanese people into a deadly conflict mirroring the sectarian, not “democracy,” driven unrest ravaging Syria. With Saad Hariri, the US, and Saudi Arabia overtly working to undermine Syrian stability, it appears that all of the characters described by Hersh in 2007 are now openly implementing their plans.
The purposefully nebulous coverage by the Western media over violence in Lebanon so far, and a disingenuous depiction of it being “spill over” from Syria is meant to portray a general sense of chaos consuming the region. In reality, it is a premeditated destabilization dependent on fostering violence between Sunni and Shi’ia Muslims, just as was purposefully done in Iraq to balk an effective Sunni-Shi’ia alliance that achieved initial success fighting a foreign occupation led by the US starting in 2003.
While exposing the premeditated nature of the destabilization consuming Lebanon and Syria is essential, as well as calling for international condemnation of the US for openly attempting to escalate violence in the middle of a mediated ceasefire, calling on people across the Islamic World to refrain from falling into this sectarian trap, and being used as tools of their own division and subjugation by the West is equally important.
Saad Hariri portends that his alliance with the US, Israel, and the Saudis is simply an attempt to protect “Sunnis” from a “Shi’ia threat.” In reality, as empires have done all throughout history, Hariri’s invitation to the West to meddle in his own nation’s affairs will open the door to the destruction and dismemberment of not only his enemies, but inevitably his own movement as well. A faction too weak to fight its rivals is certainly too weak to fight an invited foreign imperial power that decides to overstay its welcome. A strategy of tension is at play in the Islamic World, the trap set, hatred for Israel and rival ideologies the bait. Time will answer the question, “have the people of the world learned enough collectively to avoid it?”
[hat tip: Activist Post]
Mark Dice talks with Abby Martin, host of Breaking the Set on RT about Elite Think Tanks [video]
Mark Dice
[Russia Today]
October 16, 2012
Subscribe to Breaking The Set’s YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset
Mark Dice talks with Abby Martin, host of Breaking the Set on RT about Elite Think Tanks and how they manupulate American foreign policy.
http://www.Facebook.com/MarkDice
http://www.Twitter.com/MarkDice
http://youtu.be/hXgMcXvu3Ec
Check out The Illuminati: Facts & Fiction in paperback on Amazon.com, or e-book on Kindle, Nook, or Google Play. http://www.amazon.com/Illuminati-Facts-Fiction-Mark-Dice/dp/0967346657/ref=sr…
Mark Dice is a media analyst, political activist, and author who, in an entertaining and educational way, gets people to question our celebrity obsessed culture, and the role the mainstream media and elite secret societies play in shaping our lives. Check out Mark’s books in paperback on Amazon.com or e-book on Kindle, Nook, or Google Play.
Mark frequently stirs up controversy from his commentaries, protests, and boycotts, and has repeatedly been featured in major media outlets around the world.
Several of Mark’s YouTube videos have gone viral, earning him a mention on ABC’s The View, Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor, TMZ.com, and other mainstream media outlets. Mark has also been featured in (or attacked in) the New York Post’s Page Six, Rolling Stone Magazine, USA Today, The New York Daily News, and in major papers in Pakistan and Iran.
Mark Dice appears in several documentary films including Invisible Empire, The 9/11 Chronicles, and has been featured on the History Channel’s Decoded and the Sundance Channel’s Love/Lust: Secret Societies and more. He enjoys enlightening zombies, as he calls them, (ignorant people) about the mass media’s effect on our culture, pointing out Big Brother’s prying eyes, and exposing elite secret societies along with scumbag politicians and their corrupt political agendas. You can support Mark’s work by sending a PayPal donation to Donate@MarkDice.com or by using the Donate link on MarkDice.com.
He has called into several top-rated talk shows dozens of times, including the Sean Hannity Show, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage, and verbally battles with the hosts on various issues since he has never been asked to be a guest on them as of yet. Audio of some of these calls are then posted online.
The term “fighting the New World Order” is used by Mark to describe some of his activities, and refers to his and others’ resistance and opposition (The Resistance) to the overall system of political corruption, illegal wars, elite secret societies, mainstream media, Big Brother and privacy issues; as well as various economic and social issues.
Dice and his supporters sometimes refer to being “awake” or “enlightened” and see their knowledge of these topics as part of their own personal Resistance to the corrupt New World Order. This Resistance involves self-improvement, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and spiritual growth.
Mark Dice is the author of several books on current events, secret societies and conspiracies, including his newest book, Big Brother: The Orwellian Nightmare Come True which is available on Amazon.com, Kindle and Nook. While much of Mark’s work confirms the existence and continued operation of the Illuminati today, he is also dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories and hoaxes and separating the facts from the fiction; hence the “Facts & Fiction” subtitle for several of his books. He has a bachelor’s degree in communication.
If you have an iPad or Android tablet, then you can download the Kindle app and then download any of Mark’s books from the Kindle store for only $6.99 or $7.99. Some of them are also available in e-book on Google Play. Or you can get paperback copies from Amazon.com too if you prefer a physical book. They are not available in stores. A lot of work and research went into them and they’ll save you countless hours of web surfing or YouTube watching in your search for pieces of the puzzle. Your support also funds more of Mark’s videos and other operations. Equipment, software, travel, and the props all cost money, so by purchasing his paperback books and e-books, you are helping The Resistance continue and your help is greatly appreciated. Be sure to subscribe to Mark’s YouTube channel, and look him up on Facebook, and Twitter. http://www.YouTube.com/MarkDice http://www.Facebook.com/MarkDice http://www.Twitter.com/MarkDice http://www.MarkDice.com
Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” Report
Land Destroyer
October 3, 2012
US corporate-funded Brookings 2009 report conspires against the nation of Iran. Plot includes using terrorists, provoked war, economic warfare, and covert military and political subversion against the Iranian people.
Update: October 4, 2012 Brookings has moved around their documents, leaving dead links for anyone who cited them over the years. All documents cited by Land Destroyer will now be hosted online using Scribd, and linked to that way.
Editor’s Note: October 3, 2012 – Brookings has taken down their .pdf reports, leaving dead links. The “Which Path to Persia?” report has been so frequently referenced it would be impractical in the short term to fix all the dead links. Instead, the report is being presented in full below, via Scribd.
For a full analysis of the document please see “Which Path to Persia?” Part I and Part II.
“Which Path To Persia?” Report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/108902116/Brookings-Institution-s-Which-Path-to-Persia-Report
Provoke an Attack on Iran? “Lets Bring it On… At the End of the Day… We Ought to Take ‘Em Out” [video included]
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research
October 3, 2012
Is the Obama administration seeking to trigger a war pretext incident, a justification to wage an all out war on Iran?
Provoking a war and then blaming the enemy for carrying out an act of aggression is no longer part of a hidden agenda, a safely guarded secret as in the case of Pearl Harbor (1941) which was used by the FDR administration as a justification for America’s entry into the Second World War.
Similarly, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964) was part of a covert operation which served to trigger the adoption by the US Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The latter granted President Lyndon B. Johnson with the “legal justification” for deploying U.S. troops against North Vietnam.
See the statements of Hillary Clinton and former Secretary of State James Baker III in video above
(video: courtesy of Information Clearing House and Live Leak)
Is the Obama administration seeking to trigger a war pretext incident, a justification to wage an all out war on Iran?
Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, the sinking of the Lusitania, the USS Maine have become talking points in Washington think tanks.
Covert procedures to trigger a war pretext incident are now part of the public domain. Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Studies points to the lessons of history, namely to various incidents in US military history used to justify a declaration of war:
“If the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
Recent developments, including US-NATO war games and the deployment of a powerful naval armada in the Persian Gulf, `”create conditions” which favor a Gulf of Tonkin type incident.
The Obama administration does not hide the underlying intent. Washington is calling for the implementation of acts of provocation directed against Iran, so that Iran would so to speak “fire the first shot”.
Former Secretary of State James Baker III states quite categorically: “we ought to take ‘em out [Iran]“. Hillary Clinton retorts: “Well, we’re working hard [on that]. We’re working hard.”
Baker concludes: “I say if anybody’s going to do it [take ’em out], we ought to do it because we have the capability of doing it”.
Conversations on Diplomacy Moderated by Charlie Rose
June 21, 2012
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III
Benjamin Franklin Room, Washington, DC
Excerpt, See Transcript below
MR. ROSE: This question about Iran: My understanding of the Administration’s position on containment is that dog will not hunt. Right?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. ROSE: Do you agree with that?
SECRETARY BAKER: I agree with that.
But at the end of the day, if we don’t get it done the way the Administration’s working on it now — which I totally agree with — then we ought to take them out.
MR. ROSE: Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re working hard. We’re working hard.
SECRETARY BAKER: And that’s a Republican. I said at the end of the day. The end of the day may be next year. (Laughter.) It will be next year.
MR. ROSE: I’m waiting.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Look, I think the President has been very clear on this. He has always said all options are on the table. And he means it. He addressed this when he spoke to it earlier in the year.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TRANSCRIPT
M2 PressWIRE
Conversations on Diplomacy Moderated by Charlie Rose
June 21, 2012
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III
Benjamin Franklin Room, Washington, DC
[included below is the relevant excerpt pertaining to Iran (emphasis added)
MR. ROSE: I’m Charlie Rose. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. This is, as many of you know, a second in a series of conversations with Secretary Clinton and previous secretaries of State. We hope that we will have a chance to do as many secretaries as we can here. And the point of this series is to look at foreign policy in the context of present challenges and options, but also historical lessons and experiences.
. . .
MR. ROSE: This question about Iran: My understanding of the Administration’s position on containment is that dog will not hunt. Right?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. ROSE: Do you agree with that?
SECRETARY BAKER: I agree with that.
MR. ROSE: Containment will not work.
SECRETARY BAKER: I agree with that. My personal position on that is this: We ought to try every possible avenue we can to see if we can get them to correct their desire and goal of acquiring a nuclear weapon, but we cannot let them acquire that weapon. We are the only country in the world that can stop that. The Israelis, in my opinion, do not have the capability of stopping it. They can delay it. There will also be many, many … … Israeli strike.
But at the end of the day, if we don’t get it done the way the Administration’s working on it now — which I totally agree with — then we ought to take them out.
MR. ROSE: Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re working hard. We’re working hard.
SECRETARY BAKER: And that’s a Republican. I said at the end of the day. The end of the day may be next year. (Laughter.) It will be next year.
MR. ROSE: I’m waiting.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Look, I think the President has been very clear on this. He has always said all options are on the table. And he means it. He addressed this when he spoke to it earlier in the year.
MR. ROSE: Meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. And also in public speeches that he’s given. Look, I mean, I think Jim and I both would agree that everybody needs to know — most particularly the Iranians — that we are serious that they cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It’s not only about Iran and about Iran’s intentions, however once tries to discern them. It’s about the arms race that would take place in the region with such unforeseen consequences. Because you name any country with the means, anywhere near Iran that is an Arab country, if Iran has a nuclear weapon — I can absolutely bet on it and know I will win — they will be in the market within hours. And that is going to create a cascade of difficult challenges for us and for Israel and …… friends and partners.
So this has such broad consequences. And that’s why we’ve invested an enormous amount in trying to persuade Iran that if — as the Supreme Leader says and issued a fatwa about — it is un-Islamic to have a nuclear weapon, then act upon that edict and demonstrate clearly that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon. And we are pushing them in these negotiations to do just that.
MR. ROSE: But as you know, the question is not whether they will have a nuclear weapon, but whether they will have the capacity to quickly have a nuclear weapon.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is obviously the question, and that is why Jim said at the end of the day, maybe a year. I mean, these kinds of calculations are –
SECRETARY BAKER: It may be more than that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It may be more than that. They are difficult to make. A lot of countries around the world have what’s called breakout capacity.
MR. ROSE: Right.
SECRETARY CLINTON: They have stopped short of it. They have not pursued it. They have found it not to be in their interests or in the interests of regional stability.
MR. ROSE: But do you think that’s what they mean and that’s what they intend?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s what we’re testing. That’s what every meeting with them is about, to try to really probe and see what kinds of commitments we can get out of them. Now, at this point we don’t have them, so I can’t speak to what they might be if they are ever to be presented. But that’s why we have to take this meeting by meeting and pursue it as hard as we can.
SECRETARY BAKER: And the problem is not so much the threat they would represent to us or to Israel or to our allies somewhere in the region. It’s the proliferation problem, because it would really then be out of control. And that’s the real thing you have to guard, and that’s why I would say at the end of the …
… at some point you have to say that’s simply not going to happen.
MR. ROSE: I think I heard that loud and clear. But you’ve also suggested that the United States should do it rather than Israel.
SECRETARY BAKER: Absolutely. And the reason I say that is if you look at what Martin Dempsey said not long ago, he said if Israel –
MR. ROSE: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of –
SECRETARY BAKER: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said if Israel hits the Iranian nuclear facilities, we’re going to lose a lot of American lives in the region. Many people in the Israeli national security … … don’t want to do that. They’re having troubles now. The sanctions are not complete yet. We want to squeeze them down more. But they’re having an effect. And the government is having some problems, and you don’t want to lose all that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: In fact, I mean, what Jim is saying is a really important point, because we know that there is a vigorous debate going on within the leadership decision-making group in Iran. There are those who say look, these sanctions are really biting, we’re not making the kind of economic progress we should be making, we don’t give up that much by saying we’re not going to do a nuclear weapon and having a verifiable regime to demonstrate that.
And then frankly, there are those who are saying the best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody, just bring it on, because that would unify us, it would legitimize the regime. You feel sometimes when you … … side of the Iranian Government that we’re not going to give anything up, and in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.
SECRETARY BAKER: And Charlie, let me just explain why I said I don’t think the Israelis can do it but we can. The reason I say that is the Israeli Government came to the prior administration, the Bush 43 Administration, and then they … … made the same request of this Administration. I don’t know the answer to that for sure. The Secretary would. But whether they did or not, that’s the reason I say if anybody’s going to do it, we ought to do it because we have the capability of doing it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And hopefully we won’t get to that. (Laughter.) I mean, that would be, I think –
MR. ROSE: Because you believe there’ll be a change of behavior or a change of regime?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, there’s — I’m not going to talk about a change of regime. I see no evidence of that. I think the Iranian people deserve better, but that’s for them to try to determine.
MR. ROSE: …
… Iran, and I want to move to some other issues. Looking back at the time of the protest over the election, do you wish you’d done more? Do you wish you’d been more public, more supportive?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, at the time there was a very strong, consistent message coming from within Iran that anything we said would undermine the legitimacy of their opposition. Now –
MR. ROSE: This is from the opposition?
SECRETARY CLINTON: This is from the opposition coming out to us. And one can argue, were they right, were they not right, but at the time it seemed like they had some momentum, they did not want to look like they were acting on behalf of the …
… line that the opposition didn’t want us to cross. That was our assessment.
US military plan against China outlined in think-tank report
NSNBC
August 29, 2012
(RT) – As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.
The paper, entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.
The report was written by the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. CSIS is a non-government body, but its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department.
The assessment provides extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command.
The report was released on June 27, but only gained media coverage after its main authors – David Berteau and Michael Green – testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.
The report says the “geostrategic uncertainty the United States and its allies and partners face in the Asia Pacific region is how China’s growing power and influence will impact order and stability in the years ahead.”
The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are strategically located in the Western Pacific. It also supports the stationing of combat ships in Singapore, which will be capable of intelligence gathering, special operations, and landing troops with armored vehicles.
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
But it doesn’t stop there. Recommendations to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power go on and on.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The report also suggests permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam as well as boosting both manned and unmanned surveillance in the region. Moreover, it promotes boosting US army ground presence, including stationing 2,500 more marines in Australia.
The recommendations coincide with the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot.” It’s a plan to boost US military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific Region, and to back almost all of China’s rivals whilst doing so.
And the government has most certainly accomplished its goal. Just last week, the Pentagon announced it would conduct surveillance drone missiles over a Pacific island chain which have become a point of tension between China and Japan – who the US has deep military ties to.
Washington has also been a firm supporter of the Philippines during its ongoing dispute with China in the South China Sea since April, when a standoff began over ownership of the Scarborough Reef.
Since the disagreement kicked off, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the region. The move angered Beijing, which claims the presence of US naval ships hinders vital shipping lanes which China relies on for energy and raw materials.
If America makes the report’s suggestions a reality, the decision could have far-reaching implications for Washington’s allies, making them vulnerable to attacks in the future.
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.
Related Article with in depth geo-political analysis and analysis of the deterioration of international law:
South East China Sea; A Perfect Crisis for the International Crisis Group.
A geo-political analysis of the background for the developments in the South-China Sea, the region, and suggested developments towards regional security and stability.
Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann.
U.S. Writing New Syrian Constitution [video included]
by Tony Cartalucci, Contributor
Activist Post
July 21, 2012
The US State Department, via the “US Institute of Peace” is working directly with Syrian “opposition” groups to formulate a “government” to put into place, if and when NATO covert military operations succeed in collapsing the Syrian state.
The report written by Foreign Policy magazine titled, “Inside the quiet effort to plan for a post-Assad Syria,” indicates that the US State Department-funded USIP plans on releasing a report soon, detailing the US-crafted government being planned. The USIP, which already publishes details of how it has crafted, created, and is continuing to manage and facilitate the NATO-installed client regime now running Libya, constitutes nothing less than implementation of modern-day imperialism.
The USIP claims that it is involved in not only “advising” the Western-backed Libyan government, but that it is also involved in, “constitution making, transitional justice, women rights” and “education.” The USIP, US government-funded, will also be writing Syria’s “constitution” as well – which they are now calling a “transition strategy document.”
Foreign Policy magazine, in an attempt to water down the implications of the US government literally crafting the client regime they plan on placing into the vacuum their US-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari mercenaries (FSA) are attempting to create, by claiming:
The absence of Obama administration officials at these meetings, even as observers, was deliberate.
‘This is a situation where too visible a U.S. role would have been deeply counterproductive. It would have given the Assad regime and elements of the opposition an excuse to delegitimize the process,’ [Steven] Heydemann said.Steven Heydemann is heading the USIP Syrian project.
Unfortunately for this line of thinking, the USIP is in fact a direct functionary of the US government, and more specifically the US State Department, with acting members of the US State Department, including Michael Posner and members of the US Department of Defense, including James Miller, serving on the USIP board of directors. Other compromising BoD members include Amnesty International chairmen and policy makers drawn from Fortune 500-funded think tanks like the Hoover Institution and big-oil’s Belfer Center.
To complicate matters further for the so-called “Syrian opposition,” prominent members of the movement, including Radwan Ziadeh, is actually a “senior fellow” of the US-funded institution – meaning the opposition leaders were drawn from US institutions, not Syria. The Guardian’s article, “The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?” has covered this in depth, illustrating that Ziadeh’s background is the rule, not the exception.
Readers should recall that US State Department’s Michael Posner, also serving on the USIP BoD, conceded in an AFP report in 2011 that the US had been funding, equipping, and training “activists” from across the Arab World 2 years in advance for the allegedly “spontaneous” “Arab Spring.” These included activists from Syria who created the rhetorical predication for the violence now unfolding across Syria.
This admission by the US State Department and the head of USIP’s Syrian project indicates the absolute illegitimacy of the so-called “Syrian opposition,” – a complete contrivance of the US government, a manifestation of its foreign policy toward Syria – and in no way representative of the Syrian people. The opposition is literally directed by the US government who is forming for them a government to replace the one they are purposefully destroying through a series of mutually supported economic sanctions, military attacks, and diplomatic undermining.
UPDATE: Thierry Meyssan of VoltaireNet updates us on the latest, from Damascus, Syria.
Video: Thierry Meyssan in Damascus, Syria. Please choose from “choose language” to see English subtitles.
Thierry Meyssan describes Syria’s latest unrest as the result of a coordinated NATO-backed terrorist operation aimed at creating confusion and panic, coupled with Western propaganda – and warns that more operations are likely on the way. NATO hopes to break the will of Syrians as well as its military which is still clearly intact despite assassinations and widespread violence. By falsely portraying Syria as “collapsing,” the so-called “Free Syrian Army’s” foreign sponsors may be able to justify more overt intervention on behalf of their so-far ineffectual proxies.
More from VoltaireNet can be found here.
For the latest updates, follow LD on Twitter @LandDestroyer
You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE
Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report. Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.
PN 