Reports Say Russian Ships in Syrian Waters Delivered Advanced Anti-Aircraft Missile System and Technicians
The Intel Hub
By Madison Ruppert – Editor of End the Lie
November 25, 2011
The Russian warships that arrived in Syrian territorial waters in recent days were reportedly carrying technical advisors who will assist the Syrian government in setting up an array of the super-advanced S-300 missiles.
This is according to Syrian and Russian sources cited by the London-based Arabic Al Quds-Al Arabi which said that Moscow is seeing a Western attack on Syria as a “red line” which it will not tolerate in any way.
This comes as the United States is moving the USS George H. W. Bush aircraft carrier off the coast of Syria and the Arab League has reportedly drawn up a plan for a no-fly zone over Syria which would utilize American logistical support.
The report said that Russia is maintaining their support for the Assad government in Syria, despite constantly growing Western pressure and amongst the puppet leaders that make up the Arab League.
In addition to the S-300 missiles, the report states that Russia is also installing advanced radar systems in all of the critical Syrian industrial and military installations.
Arutz Sheva reports that the S-300 system is regarded as one of the most powerful anti-aircraft missiles systems available.
They also point out that the radar system is capable of tracking 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 separate targets.
Deployment of the S-300 takes a mere five minutes and have a long life span with no maintenance required.
The system will provide coverage of areas both north and south of Syria which would be able to detect troop or aircraft movements towards Syrian borders.
The long-rage surface-to-air missiles were developed by Russia in 1960s-1970s in order to protect industrial and military bases from aircraft attacks and cruise missiles.
This S-300 system will reportedly be used to “deflect a possible attack by NATO or the U.S. and EU,” although the possibility of an Arab League-sponsored attack is considerable if recent reports are to be believed.
This system can reportedly target much of Israel and the Turkish Incirlik military base which is utilized by NATO, which would likely be leveraged if a no-fly zone operation was conducted.
The report claims that Russia was planning to sell the S-300 system to Iran but backed down after American and Israeli pressure.
However, the report also claims that Iran paid for the system for Syria and Arutz Sheva alleges, “It is not known if some of the missiles have reached Iran as well,” although that statement should obviously be taken with a large grain of salt.
The stakes have been raised considerably as of late with the U.S. Embassy in Damascus urging all American citizens to “immediately” leave Syria and the Turkish ministry telling Turkish pilgrims to avoid traveling through Syria altogether.
Furthermore, the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that “humanitarian corridors or humanitarian zones” could be established in order to protect those supposedly under attack, according to the Financial Times.
Juppe said that the issue would be further discussed by Foreign Ministers of European Union member nations when they meet next month, although it appears that preparations for such an operation are already being made.
Juppe claimed that full scale military intervention was not on the table although his other statements indicate otherwise.
“In response to a demand from the Syrian national council, we will examine, notably with our EU partners, the possibility of launching humanitarian initiatives to alleviate the considerable suffering of the (Syrian) population,” Juppe said.
Of course, as we have seen in Libya, any “humanitarian initiatives” that establish “humanitarian corridors or humanitarian zones” indeed require a full scale military intervention that will undoubtedly leave countless civilians dead.
Even more importantly, any intervention whatsoever will spark the ire of the Russians and Iranians, likely causing a much larger conflict.
One might argue that this has been the plan all along, to first enter Syria under humanitarian pretenses which would, as I have previously covered, cause the Iranians to strike back and thus give justification to the Western nations that have been pushing for an attack on Iran.
If Iran attempts to help Assad defend himself against a foreign invasion, Israel would no longer need the smoking gun justification to launch an all-out assault on Iran and the United States would likely follow.
This is truly a hellish scenario, given that Russia would come to the side of Syria and Iran, likely drawing in China, which has been goaded recently by the United States in the South China Sea dispute.
I truly hope that all of this is a bunch of hype and that nothing will happen, as if this does unfold in the manner in which it is currently, the world will enter a new age of horrific war that will make previous world wars pale in comparison.
Nuke carrier leads US strike force into Syria waters (video)
RT
November 25, 2011
It’s thought the U.S. has redeployed its newest aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf to the Syrian coast. Washington is also urging American citizens to leave Syria immediately. Patrick Henningsen, a political analyst from America’s ‘Infowar.com’ online magazine, says we are seeing initial steps of a repeat of what we saw in Libya.
‘Attack Syria – get Iran & Hezbollah for free!’ (video)
RT
November 25, 2011
France is pushing for humanitarian corridors to be opened in Syria, to transport medicine and other vital supplies. But Middle East expert Professor Lawrence Davidson warns that the stakes in Damascus may be much higher.
French Bloodthirst: Sarkozy wants Syria (video)
RT
November 25, 2011
US Warship Moves To Syrian Coast as Tensions Mount
France proposes NATO military intervention
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 24, 2011
The aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush has moved to the Syrian coast amidst reports that a no fly zone is about to be imposed over the country as the U.S. Embassy in Damascus orders its citizens to leave “immediately,” while France has proposed a formal NATO military intervention.
“Probably the most damning evidence that the “western world” is about to do the unthinkable and invade Syria, and in the process force Iran to retaliate, is the weekly naval update from Stratfor, which always has some very interesting if always controversial view on geopolitics, where we find that for the first time in many months, CVN 77 George H.W. Bush has left its traditional theater of operations just off the Straits of Hormuz, a critical choke point, where it traditionally accompanies the Stennis, and has parked… right next to Syria,” reports Zero Hedge.
Publicly, officials are claiming that the George H.W. Bush carrier strike group is “on its way home” after being located in the Middle East for the past five months, but a specific date for the warship’s return has not been given.
According to a report in the Virginian-Pilot, the aircraft carrier will “conduct a range of operations and help maintain maritime security,” before it heads home.
As we reported yesterday, European sources quoted in Kuwait’s al Rai daily suggest that Arab states are set to impose a no fly zone over the country with the aid of Turkish jet fighters and U.S. logistical support. In modern parlence the term “no fly zone” is a euphemism for a bombing campaign, as we saw with Libya.
Although France has expressed its opposition to a no fly zone, foreign minister Alain Juppe met with Syrian National Council leader Burhan Ghalioun in Paris yesterday to assure him that NATO powers are looking at using “international troops” to “create a secure zone for civilians” by means of “humanitarian corridors, or humanitarian zones”.
Tensions also escalated yesterday after the U.S. Embassy in Damascus urged its citizens to leave Syria “immediately,” while Turkey’s foreign ministry told its citizens to avoid traveling through the country on their return home from Saudi Arabia.
“The U.S. Embassy continues to urge U.S. citizens in Syria to depart immediately while commercial transportation is available,” said a statement issued to the American community in Syria Wednesday and posted on the Embassy’s website. “The number of airlines serving Syria has decreased significantly since the summer, while many of those airlines remaining have reduced their number of flights.”
The Obama administration quietly pulled Ambassador Robert Ford from the country last month and has indicated he will not return.
Attacking Syria could represent an end run around creating a justification for a military assault on Iran for Israel and the United States because Iran has vowed to defend its ally. However, China and Russia have aggressively opposed any action, with Russia last week moving its warships into Syrian territorial waters – a tactic designed to discourage any NATO-led attack.
Polls have shown that the majority of Americans oppose military intervention in Syria, with just 12 per cent favoring any kind of conflict.
CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
*********************
Similar/Related Articles:
- US Warships Moved To Syrian Coast
- Russian Warships Enter Syrian Waters To Prevent NATO Attack
- U.S. Tells Citizens to Leave Syria “Immediately”
- French Foreign Minister: Fall of Syrian Government “Unavoidable”
- Iran calls Syrian protests a Western plot
- On Those Syrian ‘Protestors’ and Turkey: War Is Coming Soon
- Britain in secret talks with Syrian rebels
- Britain in secret talks with Syrian rebels
- Syrian Baath Party building ‘hit by rockets’
- Report: US & Arab States Set To Impose No Fly Zone Over Syria
- Fake video of Syrian army deserters is spreading online
- Syrian troops, tanks attack town near Turkey
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.
