To Stop the Killing in Syria, Fulfill JFK’s Promise to Break Up the CIA [video]
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
PressTV
August 23, 2012
Syrian Army, insurgents clash in Damascus
PressTV
August 24, 2012
The Syrian Army has launched attacks on armed groups in Damascus, Press TV reports.
The battles happened on Friday, several hours after Syrian troops destroyed three command centers of the insurgents on the outskirts of the city of Hama, which is located in the center of the country.
Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Damascus says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving factor behind the unrest and deadly violence, while the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings.
KA/HGL
Obama and Netanyahu Lay Out Strategic Plans to Strike Iran and Cause WW III
By Susanne Posel
theintelhub.com
August 23, 2012
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come out publicly stating that he will authorize a military strike on Iran before US elections in November.
With the Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, this is viewed as a preparatory strategy as the operation to destabilize and takeover Syria and Iran is prime on Israel’s colonization agenda to control the Middle East.
In New York, at the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu and Obama discussed their plans to use military and propaganda to justify and cover their agenda against Iran.
Tom Donlion, National Security Advisor to Obama and Ron Demer, senior advisor to Netanyahu are devising a “four-point plan” to implement Israeli strategies into US foreign policy concerning Iran.
In their scenario , Obama will inform Congress in writing that he will use military force against Iran in response to their alleged nuclear weapons program. In asking for their approval, Obama could be enabled to circumvent their decision.
It is decided that Obama will speak in Israel just weeks before the US elections wherein he will devote the US military to Israel’s plan to attack sovereign Islamic nations.
Paralleling this strategy, the federal intelligence and surveillance agencies in the US will be “upgraded” so that regardless of who is elected this November, the US government will be equipped with the necessary resources to attack Iran.
This is slated for the spring of 2013.
Israeli propaganda is reporting that Iran is “upgrading” their short-range missile defense systems in response to the US military threat.
Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, says that she guesses that Iran is responding to the US threat in the Gulf.
Landau said: “The fact that Iran indicated that it can hit both land targets and a target at sea [with the Fateh-110 missile] seems to hint at least that this kind of message is directed at the US.”
Landau maintains that Iran’s constant announcements of their growing military might must be indicative that they “have special messages” that veil a threat to Israel.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) believes that Syria and Iran will collaborate their military forces to battle the US together.
As the US continues to infiltrate Syria with state-sponsored fake revolution with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the CFR happily favors the use of al-Qaeda in conjunction with CIA training bases in Turkey that support the FSA in destabilizing Syria.
This week, Obama warned Syria and intimated that he was not opposed to using military might against Assad. Obama used the false claim of Syria’s alleged chemical or biological weapons to justify his threat of attack.
Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.
“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us.”
Obama also stated that his threat is not for Syria alone, but also alluded to Iran as they are also planning on framing other nations that are “considering chemical warfare.”
A strike on Syria would lead to an involvement with Russia. Russian naval ships have positioned themselves with troops off the coast of Tartus.
When Israel moves to attack Syria, Russia will be strategically placed to respond.
This would lead to another world war.
Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporate-funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Aleppo Residents Celebrating Cleansing Their Neighbourhoods From Turkey’s FSA Terrorists [video]
Friends of Syria
August 23, 2012
After suffering for few weeks of horror imposed by Turkey’s FSA terrorists in their city, Aleppo residents went out in packed rallies celebrating the cleansing by the Syrian Arab Army of a number of neighborhoods from those terrorists.
Chants: God Bless The Army roared all over the areas.
Israel’s War Plans to Attack Iran “Before the US Elections”
Pakalert Press
August 22, 2012
by Michel Chossudovsky
Israel’s Channel 10 suggests, in no uncertain terms, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “determined to attack Iran before the US elections” and that the “time for action is getting closer.”
“Israel is now closer than ever to a strike designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive”.
This timely report suggests that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak firmly believe that President Obama “would have no choice but to give backing for an Israeli attack” were it to be waged before the November presidential elections:
The TV station’s military reporter Alon Ben-David, who earlier this year was given extensive access to the Israel Air Force as it trained for a possible attack, reported that, since upgraded sanctions against Iran have failed to force a suspension of the Iranian nuclear program in the past two months, “from the prime minister’s point of view, the time for action is getting ever closer.”
Asked by the news anchor in the Hebrew-language TV report how close Israel now was to “a decision and perhaps an attack,” Ben-David said: “It appears that we are closer than ever.”
He said it seemed that Netanyahu was not waiting for a much-discussed possible meeting with US President Barack Obama, after the UN General Assembly gathering in New York late next month — indeed, “it’s not clear that there’ll be a meeting.” In any case, said Ben-David, “I doubt Obama could say anything that would convince Netanyahu to delay a possible attack.”
There is considerable opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the report noted — with President Shimon Peres, the army’s chief of the General Staff and top generals, the intelligence community, opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, “and of course the Americans” all lined up against Israeli action at this stage.
But, noted Ben-David, it is the Israeli government that would have to take the decision, and there Netanyahu is “almost guaranteed” a majority. Other Hebrew media reports on Tuesday also said Netanyahu had dispatched a senior official, National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, to update the elderly spiritual leader of the Shas ultra-Orthodox coalition party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, on the status of the Iranian nuclear program, in order to try to win over Shas government ministers’ support for an attack. (Times of Israel, emphasis added)
In an earlier report, Richard Silverstein provides details of a leaked military document (translated from the Hebrew) which outlines the nature of Netanyahu’s proposed “shock and awe attack” on Iran:
The Israeli attack will open with a coordinated strike, including an unprecedented cyber-attack which will totally paralyze the Iranian regime and its ability to know what is happening within its borders. The internet, telephones, radio and television, communications satellites, and fiber optic cables leading to and from critical installations—including underground missile bases at Khorramabad and Isfahan—will be taken out of action. The electrical grid throughout Iran will be paralyzed and transformer stations will absorb severe damage from carbon fiber munitions which are finer than a human hair, causing electrical short circuits whose repair requires their complete removal. This would be a Sisyphean task in light of cluster munitions which would be dropped, some time-delayed and some remote-activated through the use of a satellite signal.
A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran. 300km ballistic missiles would be launched from Israeli submarines in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would not be armed with unconventional warheads [WMD], but rather with high-explosive ordnance equipped with reinforced tips designed specially to penetrate hardened targets.
The missiles will strike their targets—some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak–which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium—and the nearby heavy water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexaflouride. Others would explode under-ground, as at the Fordo facility.
A barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles will pound command and control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus. Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks in these fields.
After the first wave of attacks, which will be timed to the second, the “Blue and White” radar satellite, whose systems enable us to perform an evaluation of the level of damage done to the various targets, will pass over Iran. Only after rapidly decrypting the satellite’s data, will the information be transferred directly to war planes making their way covertly toward Iran. These IAF planes will be armed with electronic warfare gear previously unknown to the wider public, not even revealed to our U.S. ally. This equipment will render Israeli aircraft invisible. Those Israeli war planes which participate in the attack will damage a short-list of targets which require further assault.
Among the targets approved for attack—Shihab 3 and Sejil ballistic missile silos, storage tanks for chemical components of rocket fuel, industrial facilities for producing missile control systems, centrifuge production plants and more.
Richard Silverstein underscores the fact that there is considerable opposition eithin Israel to the Netanyahu-Barak plan to bomb Iran, which is being waged with a view to allegedly ensuring the “safety of Israel” against Iran.
Will this Israeli opposition prevail were a decision to be taken by Netanyahu and his Defense Minister to carry out an attack plan?
Is Netanyahu a US Political Proxy?
Who is backing Netanyahu? There are powerful economic interests in the US who are in favor of an attack on Iran.
Is this an Israeli war project or is Israel’s prime minister a US political proxy, acting on behalf of the Pentagon?
What happens if Netanyahu gives the order to attack? Will this order be carried out by Israel’s high command despite extensive opposition from within Israel’s Armed Forces?
The issue is not whether Washington will grant a green light to Israel before the US elections as conveyed by the the Israeli media.
The fundamental question is twofold.
1. Who at the political level decides on launching this war? Washington or Tel Aviv? Who are the economic powers elites which overshadow the political process in both the US and Israel?
2. Who ultimately decides– in terms of military command and control– in carrying out a large scale theater war in the Middle East: Washington or Tel Aviv?
Israel is a de facto US military outpost in the Middle East. US and Israeli command structures are integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel’s Ministry of Defense. Reported last January, a large number of US troops are to be stationed in Israel. Joint war games between the US and Israel are also envisaged.
US-Israel-NATO war plans directed against Iran have been ongoing since 2003 including the deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems.
The Israeli media reports are misleading. Israel cannot under any circumstances wage a war on Iran without the military backing of the US and NATO.
Advanced weapons systems have been deployed. US and allied Special Forces as well as intelligence operatives are already on the ground inside Iran. US military drones are involved in spying and reconnaissance activities.
Bunker buster B61 tactical nuclear weapons are slated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its alleged nuclear weapons program.
Military actions against Iran are coordinated with those pertaining to Syria.
What we are dealing with is a global military agenda, centralized and coordinated by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) involving complex logistics, liaison with various military and intelligence entities. In 2005, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” This Combatant Command integration also included coordination with America’s allies including NATO, Israel and a number of frontline Arab states, which are members of NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue.
In this broader context of imperial warfare coordinated out of USSTRATCOM in liaison with US Central Command (USCENTCOM), Netanyahu’s attack plan against Iran, conveys the illusion that Tel Aviv rather than Washington calls the shots on waging a war on Iran.
The Israeli media reports mentioned above convey the impression that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are in a position to act independently of Washington as well as force Obama into supporting Israel’s attack on Iran.
The notion that Israel could act alone and against the interests of the US is part of a subtle disinformation campaign. There is a longstanding foreign policy practice for Washington to encourage its close allies to take the first step in the unleashing a war, with the Pentagon pulling the military strings in the background.
Let us be under no illusion, the war plans directed against Iran, which have been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since 2003, are established at the highest levels in Washington in consultation and coordination with Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
While Israel participates in the conduct of war, it does not play an overriding central role in setting the military agenda.
This article was written by Michel Chossudovsky and originally published at Global Research
CIA Provides Stinger Missiles to Syrian “Freedom Fighters”
Syria’s Parallels with Afghanistan
by Deepak Tripathi
Global Research
August 13, 2012
Counterpunch.org
The revelation about President Barack Obama’s decision to provide secret American aid to Syria’s rebel forces is a game changer. The presidential order, known as an “intelligence finding” in the world of espionage, authorizes the CIA to support armed groups fighting to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s government. But it threatens far more than the regime in Damascus.
The disclosure took its first casualty immediately. Kofi Annan, the special envoy to Syria, promptly announced his resignation, bitterly protesting that the UN Security Council had become a forum for “finger-pointing and name-calling.” Annan blamed all sides directly involved in the Syrian conflict, including local combatants and their foreign backers. But the timing of his resignation was striking. For he knew that with the CIA helping Syria’s armed groups, America’s Arab allies joining in and the Security Council deadlocked, he was redundant.
President Obama’s order to supply CIA aid to anti-government forces in Syria has echoes of an earlier secret order signed by President Jimmy Carter, also a Democrat, in July 1979. Carter’s fateful decision was the start of a CIA-led operation to back Mujahideen groups then fighting the Communist government in Afghanistan. As I discuss the episode in my book Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the 
Origins of Islamist Terrorism (chapters 7 & 8), the operation, launched with a modest aid package, became a multi-billion dollar war project against the Communist regime in Kabul and the Soviet Union, whose forces invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. In the following year, Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan, who went for broke, pouring money and weapons into Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation forces to the bitter end.
Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski later claimed that it was done on his recommendation, and that the motive was to lure Soviet forces into Afghanistan to give the Kremlin “its Vietnam.” The Soviets’ humiliating retreat from Afghanistan in 1989, the collapse of Soviet and Afghan communism and the rise of the Taliban triggered a chain reaction with worldwide consequences. President Obama’s decision to intervene in support of Syria’s rebels, who include fundamentalist Islamic fighters, points to history repeating itself. Brzezinski, now in his 85th year, still visits Washington’s corridors of power. And General David Petraeus, a formidable warrior, is director of the CIA.
Three decades on, it seems likely that President Carter’s motive behind signing the secret order to provide aid to the Mujahideen was to entice the Soviets into Afghanistan’s inhospitable terrain, thus keeping their military away from Iran in the midst of the Islamic Revolution which overthrew America’s proxy, Shah Reza Pahlavi, in February 1979. If that was indeed the plan, then the Soviet leadership fell right into the Afghan trap.
China was then part of the U.S.-led alliance against the Soviets. Now Beijing and Moscow stand together against Washington as the conflict in Syria escalates. Otherwise, the U.S.-led alliance has many of the old players––the much enlarged European Union, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others in the Sunni bloc in the Arab world. And Turkey, which is now the base for the anti-Assad forces, channeling help to them. Turkey’s Islamist government plays a crucial role in Syria, like Pakistan in the 1980s during America’s proxy war in Afghanistan.
In Washington, an American official told Reuters that “the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.” And a few days before, the news agency reported that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey had established a “nerve center” in Adana in southern Turkey, near the Syrian border, to coordinate their activities. The place is home to America’s Incirlik air base and military and intelligence services.
According to NBC News a few days ago, the rebel Free Syrian Army has acquired American Stinger missiles via Turkey, clearly to target Syrian government aircraft. It reminds of President Reagan’s decision in the mid-1980s to supply Stingers to Mujahideen groups for use against Soviet aircraft. Their use was first reported in 1987 and it soon emerged that the heat-seeking weapons were so accurate that they were hitting three out of four aircraft in Afghanistan. As I have discussed in my book Breeding Ground, some of the hundreds of Stingers were likely to have been passed on to the Taliban and their allies after the Soviet forces left Afghanistan and the last Communist government in Kabul collapsed in 1992.
In recent months, American and European officials have been busy feeding information to media outlets that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the main sources of weapons to rebels in Syria through Turkey. The pattern is consistent with the long-standing Saudi policy to keep Islamists out of Saudi Arabia itself, lest they challenge the ruling family. Long-term lessons of proxy wars remain unheeded for immediate perilous “gains.”
Reports of the Obama administration sending Stinger missiles to Syrian rebels carry the first indication that non-state players now have advanced U.S. weaponry in the Middle East. That Washington is in such a cozy alliance with forces including Islamists soon after the killing of Osama bin Laden (on Obama’s personal order) is as incredible as it is consistent with follies of the past. The present will define the future again.
The situation in Egypt is becoming explosive. The killing of 16 Egyptian border guards in the Sinai Peninsula by “suspected Islamists,” and violence thereafter, represent challenges on several fronts for the new president Mohamed Morsi. Israel has been quick to blame Islamic militants in Gaza, ruled by Hamas, which has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the party of the Egyptian president. For its part, the Brotherhood has pointed the finger at Israel’s secret service Mossad, claiming it is a plot to thwart Morsi’s presidency. These developments cast a shadow over Morsi’s relations with Hamas and, at the same time, increase his dependence on the Egyptian armed forces to quell the unrest, thereby undermining his authority. Murderous optimism of powerful and suicidal pessimism of victims in an oppressive environment blight the lives of many.
Deepak Tripathi is a British historian, journalist and researcher with a particular reference to South and West Asia, terrorism and United States policy. http://deepaktripathi.wordpress.com
Global Research Articles by Deepak Tripathi
[hat tip: NWO Truth]
PN 