Full articles can be found below this list--
1.--NATO dreams of civil war in Syria
by Pepe Escobar, December 2011
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML15Ak03.html
2.--The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, December 24, 2011
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28018
3. --Western Elite Wages Info-war to Justify Syria Invasion?
by Prof. Igor Panarin
Global Research, December 14, 2011 RThttp://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28209
4. --Stratfor and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on Syria
http://rt.com/news/russian-syria-opposition-usa-319/ RT
December 21, 2011
5.--Spoiling for a Fight with Syria and Iran
by Stephen Lendman, December 26, 2011
http://mostlywater.org/spoiling_fight_syria_and_iran
6. --Planned Regime Change in Iran and Syria
by Stephen Lendman, January 15, 2012
http://warisacrime.org/content/planned-regime-change-iran-and-syria
7. --Barack Obama raises pressure for Syria regime change
January 18, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/
9022085/Barack-Obama-raises-pressure-for-Syria-regime-change.html
8. --U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, WikiLeaks reveals
by Daily Mail Reporter, April 18, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377999/U-S-secretly-backed-Syrian-opposition-groups-WikiLeaks-reveals.html
9. --TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 1, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29025
10.-- Syria And UN Security Council: New Provocation Against Russia, China, UN Itself
Mon Feb 6, 2012
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/02/06/syria-and-unsc-new-provocation-against-russia.html
Strategic Culture Foundation
Alexander Mezyaev
11.-- International 'militarisation' in Syria growing closer, warns US official
by Alex Spillius, 08 Feb 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/
9070103/International-militarisation-in-Syria-growing-closer-warns-US-official.html
12.--Targeting Iran on a Syrian Battlefield
by Ben Schreiner Feb 9,2012mrzine.monthly review.org/2012/schreiner090212.html
13.--Syria: Preventing War by Prof. Igor Panarin
http://rt.com/politics/syria-russia-un-panarin-879/
RT February 10, 2012
Syria: War prevented
Edited by Rick Rozoff
14.-- SYRIA: NATO's Next "Humanitarian" War?
Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234
February 2011
-----------------------
1.--NATO dreams of civil war in Syria
By Pepe Escobarhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML15Ak03.html
Every grain of sand in the Syrian desert now knows there won't be a "responsibility to protect"-enabled North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) “humanitarian” intervention to provoke regime change in Damascus. A protracted war like in Libya is not feasible - even though those faultless democratic practitioners, the House of Saud, have offered to pay for it, lavishly.
Yet the fog of near war remains impenetrable. What is NATO really up to in Syria?
It was already established (see The shadow war in Syria Asia Times Online, December 2, 2011) that NATO had set up a command and control center in Turkey's southern Hatay province - where British commandos and French intelligence are training
the dodgy Free Syria Army (FSA). The target: to foment a civil war engulfing northern Syria.
Now comes the confirmation, via the website of former United States Federal Bureau of Investigation whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, that a pincer movement may be in effect, involving Jordan. [1]
Edmonds quotes local sources according to whom "hundreds of soldiers who speak languages other than Arabic" have been "moving back and forth ... between the King Hussein air base in al-Mafraq" and "Jordanian villages adjacent to the Syrian border".
Edmonds sustains none of this is being reported by US media because of a gag order from above that in theory expired this Tuesday. And don't try asking King Abdullah of Jordan about it.
The base at al-Mafraq is virtually across the border from Dar'a. A lot of action has been going on in Dar'a recently - an epicenter of the anti-President Bashar al-Assad movement. As far as the Syrian news agency Sana is concerned, security forces have been routinely killed by "terrorist gangs". As far as the "rebels" are concerned, these are patriotic army defectors attacking military supply lines.
Let's hit plan B
By adopting this pincer movement, NATO in Syria is now actively diversifying into an Iraq-in-the-1990s strategy; to submit Syria to a prolonged state of siege before eventually going for the kill.
Yet as much as NATO would pray to Allah for the contrary, Syria is not Libya. It's much smaller and compact, but more populated and with a real, battle-tested army. On top of being immensely estranged from each other by the current eurodrama, the Brits and former colonial power France have calculated they have everything to lose economically if they engage in the folly of a conventional war.
As for the Syrian opposition stalwarts - the Syrian National Council (SNC) - they are a joke. Most are Muslim Brotherhood, with a sprinkling of Kurds. The leader, Burhan Ghalioun, is an opportunist Paris exile with zero credibility (for the average Syrian) although in a recent Wall Street Journal interview he made all the right noises to appease the Israel lobby (no more ties with Iran, no more support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza).
The FSA claims 15,000 army defectors. But it's infected with mercenaries and what scores of Syrian civilians describe as armed gangs. The SNC, in thesis, is anti-guerrilla. But that's exactly what the FSA is actively practicing, attacking Syrian soldiers and Ba'ath party offices.
The SNC key tactic for now is to sell Western public opinion the Libya-style "potential" nightmare of an imminent massacre in Homs. Not many are buying it - apart from the usual, strident, corporate media suspects. Although both are based in Istanbul, the SNC and the FSA can't seem to get their act together; they look like a lethal version of The Three Stooges.
Then there is the Arab League, which is now controlled by The Eight Stooges; the six GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, aka Gulf Counter-revolution Club) monarchies plus "invited" GCC members Morocco and Jordan. The stooges are subcontractors of NATO's Greater Middle East on (humanitarian) steroids. Nobody, though, is asking where were the stooges were when Beirut and southern Lebanon were destroyed in 2006, and when Gaza was destroyed in 2008 - in both instances by Israel. The stooges don't dare question the divine rights of the US/Israel axis.
NATO's tactics in Syria have been crystal clear for a while now. France, under neo-Napoleonic liberator of Libya President Nicolas Sarkozy, concentrates on turbo-charging escalation. A the same time, Paris is trying to position the rise and rise of the Muslim Brotherhood all across the Arab world as a strategic Western interest - as in curbing Iranian influence.
Then there's the ongoing economic blockade - impossible without cooperation from Iraq (it won't happen), Lebanon (it won't happen) and Jordan (it could, but to Jordan's detriment).
But NATO's wet dream is really to push Turkey to do the dirty work. Irretrievably broke as they are, NATO countries - including the US - simply cannot launch yet another Middle East war that would send oil prices through the roof.
What NATO cannot fathom is the possibility of a sectarian Sunni-Shi'ite war re-exploding in Iraq. In this case, the only safe haven would be Iraqi Kurdistan. And that would strengthen Kurdish unity - from Iraq to Syria, from Turkey to Iran. Turkey in this case would have more pertinent fish to fry than to get embroiled in a war in Syria.
Turkey's double game
Still, the great imponderable in this complex chessboard is Turkey - as in what precisely happened to their much-lauded foreign policy of "zero problems with our neighbors", devised by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
Faced with Riyadh's impotence, and Cairo in turmoil, Ankara seems to have monopolized the mantle of Sunni leadership - or guardian of Sunni orthodoxy facing those Shi'ite heretics, mostly from Iran (but also Iraq, Alawis in Syria and Hezbollah).
At the same time, to please NATO and the US, Ankara allows the deployment of missile defense in its territory - which is directed not only against Iran but most of all against Russia. Not to mention Ankara harbors the secret - forbidden - desire to "solve" the Kurdish question for good by establishing an autonomous zone in Syrian territory.
And Ankara also wants to make money; winners in Libya were British and French oil interests, while losers were the Italians and the Turks. But so far Turkey is also losing, especially in Hatay province near the Syrian border, as a free-trade agreement between both countries has been canceled.
To the West's despair, the Assad regime is far from being strangled. To counteract the hefty package of Arab League/Turkish sanctions, the regime has accelerated trade with China - by bartering and bypassing the international financial system.
No wonder Washington is taking the long-haul approach. It has deployed back to Damascus its ambassador Robert Ford - a former assistant to the sinister former destabilizer of Nicaragua John Negroponte when he was ambassador in Baghdad, and a current enthusiast of the House of Saud counter-revolution.
Ford will have plenty of time to exchange e-mails with a Syrian opposition totally in bed with former colonial power France. Talk about a stooge festival; this one is bound to carve its own niche in the annals of Middle East infamy.
Note
1. The report is here. An interview with Syrian journalist Nizar Nayouf is here.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
-------------------------
2.--The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28018
Global Research, December 24, 2011
The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.
As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power.
The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.
Al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Amman is sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad.
According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency.
The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration.
While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason that these companies have stayed has been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria.
Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League. Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle East
Turkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkey has demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments.
For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE, has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will be fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.
In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria.
Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus. From Damascus to Tehran
It is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq.
Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows.
The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran.
Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.
On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hulusi Akar. The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran.
London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shockwaves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members.
The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone. In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war.
For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author based in Ottawa. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal.
-----------------
3-- Western Elite Wages Info-war to Justify Syria Invasion?
by Prof. Igor Panarin
Global Research, December 14, 2011
RT
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28209
Escalating tensions surrounding Syria are preparation for aggression. Writer and political scientist Igor Panarin believes that part of the British-American and Israeli elite is waging an information war to justify a military invasion of Syria. In the article below, Panarin explains his view.
The mass protests that broke out in a number of Arab countries in 2011 were orchestrated from London, which essentially became their coordination center. The BBC and Qatar’s supposedly-independent Al-Jazeera channel (which in reality is ideologically controlled by a part of the British-American elite) led the way in providing media support.
For instance, the BBC reports that an independent commission of UN human rights experts accused Syrian authorities of committing crimes against humanity as they dispersed anti-government protests. But French journalist Thierry Meyssan found out that the commission clearly fabricated the evidence they used in their investigation. For instance, according to the UN commission, Syrian security forces killed over 3,500 peaceful protesters.
But the figure is hardly credible, as it comes from a mysterious London-based human rights organization called Observatoire Syrien des Droits de l’Homme (OSDH) [Syrian Observatory of Human Rights – RT]. According to Meyssan, many of the 3,500 protesters supposedly killed by Syrian security forces are in fact alive and well. Their names, distributed by the OSDH, were in fact taken from the phonebook. Meyssan says an information war is being waged against Syria and that at least some of the footage distributed by Al-Jazeera is produced in special studios that reproduce the main squares of Syria’s major cities. The same trick was used with Libya, when the footage of street fighting in Tripoli on August 23, 2011, was actually shot in Qatari studios, which opened a new chapter in information warfare.
The Syrian government recently banned iPhones to stop the propagation of lies among protesters. Some of the protesters still use banned smartphones to disseminate false reports, announce protest rallies and distribute anti-government materials using the “Syria Alone” application. The application, launched on November 18, was developed by British and US experts specifically to help the opposition coordinate their protests. Information warfare specialists use Syria Alone to publish anti-government materials and criticize the work of law enforcers. The Syrian authorities believe that by banning the iPhone they can stop misinformation from spreading. In addition to the US and the EU, the anti-Syrian coalition now includes the Arab League, which recently expelled Damascus and then introduced tough sanctions against Syria.
A part of the British-American elite is playing the leading role in media campaign against Syria, which is no surprise after their success in Libya, where their media attacks preceded NATO’s direct military intervention. A similar strategy is now used against Syria.
For instance, the decision to suspend Syria’s membership in the Arab League leads to further international isolation, which is clearly what the West wants to achieve. The Arab League first took a similar decision regarding Libya in late February, and then it recognized the NATO-backed Transitional National Council as the only legitimate body representing the people of Libya, in August. In other words, what we see today is the same scenario being reproduced in Syria, with the Western multinational elite launching a media attack against that country.
The Syrian army and police are facing a strong opponent, including foreign mercenaries. According to some sources, there are around 10,000 of them, mainly from Arab countries and Pakistan and Pashtuns from Afghanistan.
Russia's approach to the conflict in Syria radically differs from that of the United States and its allies. The Kremlin vetoed the UN Security Council resolution, which would have made it possible to repeat the Libyan scenario in Syria. Moscow is doing its best to avoid the escalation of the conflict, to prevent military intervention (among other things, by sending an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean) and to establish a constructive peaceful dialogue.
-------------------------
4. --Stratfor and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on Syria
http://rt.com/news/russian-syria-opposition-usa-319/
RT
December 21, 2011
Russian navy in Syria: Thorn in US side
Video at URL above
The US-based intelligence-gathering firm Stratfor says most of the claims by the Syrian opposition about the seriousness of the country's crisis are untrue. The company insists protesters are exaggerating, to win support from powers like the US.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan administration official, told RT he believes Washington is doing more than simply backing the rebels diplomatically.
“The United States is bold in stirring up the opposition and in arming it. They used the cover of the Arab Spring and Arab protests as they did in Libya,” he said. “These are not spontaneous protests, and certainly in an authoritarian state like Syria you wouldn’t find people in opposition able to readily supply themselves with arms, with military weapons.”
Besides, Roberts continued, it makes no sense for ordinary Syrians to create an opportunity for the country to be destroyed like Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
“What’s involved here is that the Russians have a naval base in Syria, and the Americans don’t want a Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean. And, just as in Libya, the problem was the Chinese oil investments. If Syria goes, Iran is in the target sites, and Lebanon,” he concluded.
-------------------
5. -- Spoiling for a Fight with Syria and Iran
by Stephen Lendman on Mon, 2011/12/26
http://mostlywater.org/spoiling_fight_syria_and_iran
Syria remains the region's only independent secular state. Washington aims to replace its regime with a client one.
Libya's model was replicated. Months of externally generated violence followed. So far it's short of war. For how long is uncertain. Obama can't wait to wage another one to keep ravaging the world one country at a time.
Months of violence, sanctions and isolation have taken a toll. Deaths mount. No one knows how many. Western media reported numbers come from opposition forces, not independent observers. Nothing they say is reliable.
Assad's government says 2,000 security forces have been killed. "Terrorist gangs" are blamed. Whatever the actual number, they've been many. Heavily armed insurgents are responsible. Conflict resolution isn't imminent.
Syria's economy deteriorates steadily. In 2011, its GDP collapsed 30% - from around $55 billion to $37 billion. Its currency also plunged from 47 to 62 to the dollar. Basic goods and services are in short supply. Heating and cooking oil are scarce. Electricity is on and off.
Assad's regime is weakening. National institutions are eroding. Opposition forces are locally organized. Neighborhood committees and armed groups were formed. At issue is usurping state power despite divisions of strategy, especially over peaceful or violent conflict resolution and pro or con advocacy for outside intervention.
After months of turmoil, heightened fear prevails. On December 23, Syrian state television reported two suicide car bombings, the first ones in Damascus since conflict began. Kfar Sousa district was targeted. It's where state security and intelligence facilities are located. Heavy gunfire followed. Syria reported 40 or more killed and 100 wounded.
The attacks came a day after 60 Arab League observers arrived. They're an advance monitoring team with hundreds more to come. Whether they'll help or hurt is uncertain. More on that below.
Their mission will last a month unless renewed. It wants all security forces withdrawn from urban areas and detainees released. Nothing is said about heavily armed insurgent terrorists doing much of the killing. Conflict resolution depends on stopping all of it equitably.
Of concern is that monitors are a step short of occupation. It's reminiscent of events preceding NATO's 1999 Serbia/Kosovo war. In March 1999, Slobodon Milosovic got an unacceptable ultimatum, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement. It was a take-it-or-leave it deal no responsible leader would accept.
It involved surrendering Serbia's sovereignty to NATO occupation with unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), including its airspace and territorial waters. Moreover, NATO demanded use of areas and facilities therein for its mission, irrespective of FRY laws.
It also required Milosevic's full cooperation. It was an offer designed to reject. War, mass destruction and slaughter followed. Serbia's sovereign Kosovo territory was lost. It's now Washington/NATO occupied territory, run by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, an unindicted drug trafficker with known organized crime ties.
Washington, Israel, and key NATO partners have similar designs on Syria. War's perhaps planned. Pro-Western Arab League despots supported NATO's Libya war, mass slaughter and destruction. At the same time, they ignore ongoing atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, elsewhere in the region, and internally.
Calls for military intervention are increasing. In late November on CNN's State of the Union, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice accused Assad of "driving his country to the brink of civil war. (He's) no friend of the United States."
"Syria is the handmaiden of the Iranians throughout the region and so the fall of (Assad) would be a great thing not just for the Syrian people....but also for the policies of the United States and those who want a more peaceful Middle East."
She also called for tough sanctions, isolation and intervention, adding that if Russia and China won't agree, "then we (and allies) have to do it on our own." Stopping short of suggesting war, the implication is striking.
A Syrian National Council (SNC) was established. It's similar to Libya's puppet Transitional National Council (TNC). Originally formed in 2005, it was revived on August 23, 2011 in Istanbul, Turkey. It represents Western-backed internal opposition elements against the rights and interests of most Syrians.
It called for a Libyan-style no-fly zone and foreign intervention. It supplies intelligence to Washington and other Western nations. If unconventional tactics fail, stepped up violence and war remain options.
Since early 2011, NATO countries used regional bases to provide anti-regime support. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon's March 14 alliance, Turkey, Jordan and Israel are financing and arming insurgents.
So far, Russia and China blocked a Libyan-style "humanitarian intervention." Washington, however, wants regime change. Huge challenges remain to stop it.
SNC members want the Security Council to establish "protected zone" cover in violent prone areas. Free Syrian Army (FSA) security force defectors and insurgents also want no-fly zone protection and foreign military involvement. Deferring so far from direct NATO action, Washington backs Turkey and Arab League partners intervening.
America's Media War on Syria
A New York Times attack piece is typical. On December 22, its editorial headlined, "Get Tougher on Assad," saying:
After months of conflict, Assad's "still killing his people. And leaders in Russia, China and Arab states still haven't done enough to pressure him to stop." Claiming 5,000 unsubstantiated deaths, The Times blames "the brutal government crackdown in nine months of protests."
Fact check
Unmentioned was Washington's long planned regime change, replicating the Libya model, replacing an independent regime with a client one, and using heavily armed insurgents to destabilize Syria violently.
Assad's willingness to dialogue with opposition elements "seems like another ploy to buy time as he tries to beat Syrians into submission."
Fact check
Throughout the conflict, Assad made conciliatory offers. Opposition forces dismissed them out of hand, much like Libya's TNC rejected Gaddafi's overtures earlier.
On state television several times since last spring, Assad promised reforms. In June, he announced a 100-member panel to draft parliamentary election law changes, press freedoms, and a new constitution. He also said he'd prosecute those responsible for violence.
"There is little reason to believe Mr. Assad will allow (Arab League) observer(s) unrestricted access to all conflict areas (and be free to) make all of its findings public."
"Meanwhile, Russia is still tying the....Security Council in knots and preventing it from doing what it should have done months ago (through) tough economic and trade sanctions," condemnation, and more. Assad "left no doubt that he is willing to destroy his country to maintain his hold on power, which would be a disaster for the region."
The Times stopped short of endorsing war. Expect it if NATO intervenes directly or indirectly. When Washington's involved militarily, America's media march supportively in lockstep without debate, who benefits and loses, rule of law issues, and other right and wrong considerations.
Throughout the AfPak, Iraq and Libyan conflicts, disputing their legitimacy was verboten.
Instead, Times and other major media opinion pieces suppress truths and manipulate public opinion to support Washington/NATO attacking nonbelligerent countries lawlessly. Perhaps Syria and Iran are next.
Target Iran
Matthew Kroenig titled his Foreign Affairs January/February 2012 article, "Time to Attack Iran." Doing so let his advocacy pose as analysis.
Harvard International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt called his article "a textbook example of war-wongering disguised as analysis. It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy....This is not fair-minded 'analysis;' it is simply a brief for war designed to reach a predetermined conclusion."
In his article, Kroenig said waging war is "the least bad option. (For years), American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities."
"Proponents (say) the only thing worse than military action (is) Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics" warn doing so won't work and "would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis.
Fact check
Iran's not aggressive or imperial. It poses no regional threat. It hasn't attacked another nation in over 200 years. It maintains a strong military for self-defense. It’s vital given repeated Washington and Israeli threats.
No evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. US intelligence assessments through March 2011 found none.
During his December 1, 1997 - November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. Current head, Yukiya Amano, politicized IAEA policy for Western interests, mainly America's.
Washington manipulated his appointment. He was enlisted to lie. He hasn't disappointed. Ahead of his report suggesting an Iranian nuclear weapons program, he visited Washington for instructions.
"....(S)keptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to US interests in the Middle East and beyond....The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran's nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States."
Kroenig's a former Secretary of Defense Office strategist. He's also a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. CFR is an influential US organization. From its 1921 beginnings, it's advocated one-world government run by dominant financial interests.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a "front organization (for) the heart of the American establishment." It meets privately and publishes only what it wishes the public to know. Since 1922, Foreign Affairs has been its flagship publication.
Its members represent imperial Washington's interests, including its longstanding objective for unchallenged global dominance. Achieving it depends on replacing independent regimes with client ones and eliminating all military and economic rivals.
War's a frequently used option. Waging it against Iran could embroil the entire region and threaten general war, possibly with nuclear weapons.
In his rage to attack nonbelligerent Iran lawlessly, Kroenig omitted the possibility and said nothing about Israel being nuclear armed and dangerous.
He represents imperial America's quest for world dominance, even if destroying it happens in the process.
Stephen Lendman has a blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and offers discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-...
------------------------------
6. --Planned Regime Change in Iran and Syria
by Stephen Lendman, January 15, 2012
http://warisacrime.org/content/planned-regime-change-iran-and-syria
... recent comments by US officials also reveal plans for regime change in Syria. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon said that toppling Bashar al-Assad "would constitute Iran's greatest setback in the region yet - a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran."
According to Under Secretary of State for the Near East Jeffrey Feltman, Washington will "relentlessly pursue our two-track strategy of supporting the opposition and diplomatically and financially strangling the (Syrian) regime until that outcome is achieved."
He added that replacing it with one "more compatible" with Washington's regional interests is prioritized. Strategy includes falsified or exaggerated reports, including alleged massacres, torture, rape, and other claims to enlist public support.
Al Jazeera notoriously acts as Qatar's official mouthpiece. Long ago it lost legitimacy as a credible news service. It waged war on Gaddafi. It features biased reports on Syria's insurgency, and offers mostly pro-Western reports. What began as a noble experiment deteriorated visibly to a voice for imperial interests.
In December, Stratfor global intelligence cautioned:
"Most of the (Syrian) opposition's more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue....revealing more about the opposition's weakness (and credibility) than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime."
It also warned against falsified media reports "that make the case for foreign backing."
On January 5, Asia Times writer Aisling Byrne headlined, "A mistaken case for Syrian regime change," saying:
A calculated plan against Assad's government is ongoing. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained:
"It is clear that the purpose is to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe to get a pretext to demand external interference into this conflict."
In mid-December, the American Conservative reported:
"CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad's soldiers (now 5,000 allegedly or more), is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims."
"Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently."
In fact, Washington, Israel, key NATO partners, and regional allies shaped externally generated insurgent attacks. Funds and heavy weapons are supplied. Operations are coordinated out of America's Incirlik air base. Turkey's actively involved. So are unmarked NATO warplanes. Planned regime change will precede belligerently targeting Iran.
Expect Washington's grand scheme to continue until total control over the entire Mediterranean Basin through Central Asia is achieved to Russia and China's borders. As a result, imagine the potential horrors ahead, including at home....
------------------------------------------
7. --Barack Obama raises pressure for Syria regime change
US President Barack Obama vowed to redouble efforts to force a change of regime in Syria as the UN Security Council struggled to agree on a resolution on Damascus's crackdown on dissent. January 18, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/
9022085/Barack-Obama-raises-pressure-for-Syria-regime-change.html
Obama said concerns about the crackdown on demonstrators by President Bashar al-Assad's forces had been "uppermost" in talks with visiting Jordanian King Abdullah II on Tuesday.
"We continue to see unacceptable levels of violence inside that country," Obama said.
"We will continue to consult very closely with Jordan to create the kind of international pressure and environment that encourage the current Syrian regime to step aside so that a more democratic process and transition can take place inside of Syria."
The US president thanked King Abdullah for being the first Arab leader to call publicly for Assad to go and for taking part in Arab League efforts to mitigate the crisis.
His comments came after Assad's government rejected a proposal to deploy Arab forces to halt unrest in Syria.
-----------------------
8. --U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, WikiLeaks reveals
by Daily Mail Reporter, April 18, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377999/U-S-secretly-backed-Syrian-opposition-groups-WikiLeaks-reveals.html
$6million for Syrian exiles to help fund TV channel
The U.S. Government has secretly dished out $6million to help Syrian opposition groups WikiLeaks has revealed.
Documents show the State Department has been funnelling cash to London-based satellite TV channel Barada TV, made up of a group of Syrian exiles, since 2006 to cover mass protests in the country and finance activities inside Syria as part of a campaign to overthrow President Bashir Assad.
Violence has been sweeping the nation for the past month as President Assad faces his deepest crisis in 11 years in power amid growing demands for greater freedom from Syrians who are still ruled under ‘emergency’ laws imposed in 1963.
Flashpoint: TV channel Barada TV has been in receipt of cash from the U.S. since 2006 to cover mass protests
Human rights groups estimate the death toll to be in the region of 200 which Syrian authorities blame on armed gangs.
Barada TV, named after the Barada River which flows through the Syrian capital Damascus, has links to the London-based Syrian exile network Movement for Justice.
Doctor turned dictator: Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and his wife Asma
Cash from the U.S. for Syrian opposition figures first arrived under President George W. Bush after political ties with Damascus were frozen in 2005, the Washington Post reported.
This has continued under President Barack Obama despite his efforts to rebuild relations with the leader.
In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
--------------------
9-- SYRIA. TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 1, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29025
Global Research Editor's Note
We bring to the attention of our readers the Observers' Mission Report of the League of Arab States to Syria.
The report acknowledges the existence of "an armed entity" involved in the killings of civilians and police as well as the conduct of terrorist acts, which in turn have contributed to triggering actions by government forces.
The Report refers to "armed opposition groups" as well as to the "Free Syrian Army", both of which, according to the AL Mission, are involved in the deliberate killing of innocent civilians:
"In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.
"In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. "
"Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups."
The Mission also underscored to role of media distortion in the coverage of events in Syria as well as the campaign to discredit ithe Mission's findings:
"The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.
The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."
The Report also underscored attempts to discredit the Mission and dismiss its findings:
Arab and foreign audiences of certain media organizations have questioned the Mission’s credibility because those organizations use the media to distort the facts. It will be difficult to overcome this problem unless there is political and media support for the Mission and its mandate. It is only natural that some negative incidents should occur as it conducts its activities because such incidents occur as a matter of course in similar missions.
Also of significace were attempts by officials of AL governments to pressure several of the observers into providing "exaggerated accounts of events".
Some observers reneged on their duties and broke the oath they had taken. They made contact with officials from their countries and gave them exaggerated accounts of events. Those officials consequently developed a bleak and unfounded picture of the situation.
Also of significance is the fact that the Mission acknowledged that peaceful protests by unarmed civilians against the government were not the object of government crackdowns:
group team leaders [of the Observation mission] witnessed peaceful demonstrations by both Government supporters and the opposition in several places. None of those demonstrations were disrupted, except for some minor clashes with the Mission and between loyalists and opposition. These have not resulted in fatalities since the last presentation before the Arab Ministerial Committee on the Situation in Syria at its meeting of 8 January 2012.
While the Mission does not identify the foreign powers behind "the armed entity", the report dispels the mainstream media lies and fabrications. It largely confirms independent media reports including Global Research's coverage of the armed insurrection since April 2011. See Global Research's Syria Dossier
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 1, 2012
SELECTED EXCERPTS OF OBSERVERS' MISSION REPORT
Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria. December 24, 2011 to January 18, 2012
Relevant Excerpts of the Rep
1.--NATO dreams of civil war in Syria
by Pepe Escobar, December 2011
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML15Ak03.html
2.--The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, December 24, 2011
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28018
3. --Western Elite Wages Info-war to Justify Syria Invasion?
by Prof. Igor Panarin
Global Research, December 14, 2011 RThttp://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28209
4. --Stratfor and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on Syria
http://rt.com/news/russian-syria-opposition-usa-319/ RT
December 21, 2011
5.--Spoiling for a Fight with Syria and Iran
by Stephen Lendman, December 26, 2011
http://mostlywater.org/spoiling_fight_syria_and_iran
6. --Planned Regime Change in Iran and Syria
by Stephen Lendman, January 15, 2012
http://warisacrime.org/content/planned-regime-change-iran-and-syria
7. --Barack Obama raises pressure for Syria regime change
January 18, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/
9022085/Barack-Obama-raises-pressure-for-Syria-regime-change.html
8. --U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, WikiLeaks reveals
by Daily Mail Reporter, April 18, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377999/U-S-secretly-backed-Syrian-opposition-groups-WikiLeaks-reveals.html
9. --TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 1, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29025
10.-- Syria And UN Security Council: New Provocation Against Russia, China, UN Itself
Mon Feb 6, 2012
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/02/06/syria-and-unsc-new-provocation-against-russia.html
Strategic Culture Foundation
Alexander Mezyaev
11.-- International 'militarisation' in Syria growing closer, warns US official
by Alex Spillius, 08 Feb 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/
9070103/International-militarisation-in-Syria-growing-closer-warns-US-official.html
12.--Targeting Iran on a Syrian Battlefield
by Ben Schreiner Feb 9,2012mrzine.monthly review.org/2012/schreiner090212.html
13.--Syria: Preventing War by Prof. Igor Panarin
http://rt.com/politics/syria-russia-un-panarin-879/
RT February 10, 2012
Syria: War prevented
Edited by Rick Rozoff
14.-- SYRIA: NATO's Next "Humanitarian" War?
Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234
February 2011
-----------------------
1.--NATO dreams of civil war in Syria
By Pepe Escobarhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML15Ak03.html
Every grain of sand in the Syrian desert now knows there won't be a "responsibility to protect"-enabled North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) “humanitarian” intervention to provoke regime change in Damascus. A protracted war like in Libya is not feasible - even though those faultless democratic practitioners, the House of Saud, have offered to pay for it, lavishly.
Yet the fog of near war remains impenetrable. What is NATO really up to in Syria?
It was already established (see The shadow war in Syria Asia Times Online, December 2, 2011) that NATO had set up a command and control center in Turkey's southern Hatay province - where British commandos and French intelligence are training
the dodgy Free Syria Army (FSA). The target: to foment a civil war engulfing northern Syria.
Now comes the confirmation, via the website of former United States Federal Bureau of Investigation whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, that a pincer movement may be in effect, involving Jordan. [1]
Edmonds quotes local sources according to whom "hundreds of soldiers who speak languages other than Arabic" have been "moving back and forth ... between the King Hussein air base in al-Mafraq" and "Jordanian villages adjacent to the Syrian border".
Edmonds sustains none of this is being reported by US media because of a gag order from above that in theory expired this Tuesday. And don't try asking King Abdullah of Jordan about it.
The base at al-Mafraq is virtually across the border from Dar'a. A lot of action has been going on in Dar'a recently - an epicenter of the anti-President Bashar al-Assad movement. As far as the Syrian news agency Sana is concerned, security forces have been routinely killed by "terrorist gangs". As far as the "rebels" are concerned, these are patriotic army defectors attacking military supply lines.
Let's hit plan B
By adopting this pincer movement, NATO in Syria is now actively diversifying into an Iraq-in-the-1990s strategy; to submit Syria to a prolonged state of siege before eventually going for the kill.
Yet as much as NATO would pray to Allah for the contrary, Syria is not Libya. It's much smaller and compact, but more populated and with a real, battle-tested army. On top of being immensely estranged from each other by the current eurodrama, the Brits and former colonial power France have calculated they have everything to lose economically if they engage in the folly of a conventional war.
As for the Syrian opposition stalwarts - the Syrian National Council (SNC) - they are a joke. Most are Muslim Brotherhood, with a sprinkling of Kurds. The leader, Burhan Ghalioun, is an opportunist Paris exile with zero credibility (for the average Syrian) although in a recent Wall Street Journal interview he made all the right noises to appease the Israel lobby (no more ties with Iran, no more support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza).
The FSA claims 15,000 army defectors. But it's infected with mercenaries and what scores of Syrian civilians describe as armed gangs. The SNC, in thesis, is anti-guerrilla. But that's exactly what the FSA is actively practicing, attacking Syrian soldiers and Ba'ath party offices.
The SNC key tactic for now is to sell Western public opinion the Libya-style "potential" nightmare of an imminent massacre in Homs. Not many are buying it - apart from the usual, strident, corporate media suspects. Although both are based in Istanbul, the SNC and the FSA can't seem to get their act together; they look like a lethal version of The Three Stooges.
Then there is the Arab League, which is now controlled by The Eight Stooges; the six GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, aka Gulf Counter-revolution Club) monarchies plus "invited" GCC members Morocco and Jordan. The stooges are subcontractors of NATO's Greater Middle East on (humanitarian) steroids. Nobody, though, is asking where were the stooges were when Beirut and southern Lebanon were destroyed in 2006, and when Gaza was destroyed in 2008 - in both instances by Israel. The stooges don't dare question the divine rights of the US/Israel axis.
NATO's tactics in Syria have been crystal clear for a while now. France, under neo-Napoleonic liberator of Libya President Nicolas Sarkozy, concentrates on turbo-charging escalation. A the same time, Paris is trying to position the rise and rise of the Muslim Brotherhood all across the Arab world as a strategic Western interest - as in curbing Iranian influence.
Then there's the ongoing economic blockade - impossible without cooperation from Iraq (it won't happen), Lebanon (it won't happen) and Jordan (it could, but to Jordan's detriment).
But NATO's wet dream is really to push Turkey to do the dirty work. Irretrievably broke as they are, NATO countries - including the US - simply cannot launch yet another Middle East war that would send oil prices through the roof.
What NATO cannot fathom is the possibility of a sectarian Sunni-Shi'ite war re-exploding in Iraq. In this case, the only safe haven would be Iraqi Kurdistan. And that would strengthen Kurdish unity - from Iraq to Syria, from Turkey to Iran. Turkey in this case would have more pertinent fish to fry than to get embroiled in a war in Syria.
Turkey's double game
Still, the great imponderable in this complex chessboard is Turkey - as in what precisely happened to their much-lauded foreign policy of "zero problems with our neighbors", devised by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
Faced with Riyadh's impotence, and Cairo in turmoil, Ankara seems to have monopolized the mantle of Sunni leadership - or guardian of Sunni orthodoxy facing those Shi'ite heretics, mostly from Iran (but also Iraq, Alawis in Syria and Hezbollah).
At the same time, to please NATO and the US, Ankara allows the deployment of missile defense in its territory - which is directed not only against Iran but most of all against Russia. Not to mention Ankara harbors the secret - forbidden - desire to "solve" the Kurdish question for good by establishing an autonomous zone in Syrian territory.
And Ankara also wants to make money; winners in Libya were British and French oil interests, while losers were the Italians and the Turks. But so far Turkey is also losing, especially in Hatay province near the Syrian border, as a free-trade agreement between both countries has been canceled.
To the West's despair, the Assad regime is far from being strangled. To counteract the hefty package of Arab League/Turkish sanctions, the regime has accelerated trade with China - by bartering and bypassing the international financial system.
No wonder Washington is taking the long-haul approach. It has deployed back to Damascus its ambassador Robert Ford - a former assistant to the sinister former destabilizer of Nicaragua John Negroponte when he was ambassador in Baghdad, and a current enthusiast of the House of Saud counter-revolution.
Ford will have plenty of time to exchange e-mails with a Syrian opposition totally in bed with former colonial power France. Talk about a stooge festival; this one is bound to carve its own niche in the annals of Middle East infamy.
Note
1. The report is here. An interview with Syrian journalist Nizar Nayouf is here.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
-------------------------
2.--The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28018
Global Research, December 24, 2011
The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.
As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power.
The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.
Al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Amman is sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad.
According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency.
The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration.
While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason that these companies have stayed has been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria.
Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League. Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle East
Turkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkey has demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments.
For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE, has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will be fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.
In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria.
Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus. From Damascus to Tehran
It is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq.
Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows.
The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran.
Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.
On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hulusi Akar. The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran.
London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shockwaves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members.
The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone. In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war.
For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author based in Ottawa. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal.
-----------------
3-- Western Elite Wages Info-war to Justify Syria Invasion?
by Prof. Igor Panarin
Global Research, December 14, 2011
RT
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28209
Escalating tensions surrounding Syria are preparation for aggression. Writer and political scientist Igor Panarin believes that part of the British-American and Israeli elite is waging an information war to justify a military invasion of Syria. In the article below, Panarin explains his view.
The mass protests that broke out in a number of Arab countries in 2011 were orchestrated from London, which essentially became their coordination center. The BBC and Qatar’s supposedly-independent Al-Jazeera channel (which in reality is ideologically controlled by a part of the British-American elite) led the way in providing media support.
For instance, the BBC reports that an independent commission of UN human rights experts accused Syrian authorities of committing crimes against humanity as they dispersed anti-government protests. But French journalist Thierry Meyssan found out that the commission clearly fabricated the evidence they used in their investigation. For instance, according to the UN commission, Syrian security forces killed over 3,500 peaceful protesters.
But the figure is hardly credible, as it comes from a mysterious London-based human rights organization called Observatoire Syrien des Droits de l’Homme (OSDH) [Syrian Observatory of Human Rights – RT]. According to Meyssan, many of the 3,500 protesters supposedly killed by Syrian security forces are in fact alive and well. Their names, distributed by the OSDH, were in fact taken from the phonebook. Meyssan says an information war is being waged against Syria and that at least some of the footage distributed by Al-Jazeera is produced in special studios that reproduce the main squares of Syria’s major cities. The same trick was used with Libya, when the footage of street fighting in Tripoli on August 23, 2011, was actually shot in Qatari studios, which opened a new chapter in information warfare.
The Syrian government recently banned iPhones to stop the propagation of lies among protesters. Some of the protesters still use banned smartphones to disseminate false reports, announce protest rallies and distribute anti-government materials using the “Syria Alone” application. The application, launched on November 18, was developed by British and US experts specifically to help the opposition coordinate their protests. Information warfare specialists use Syria Alone to publish anti-government materials and criticize the work of law enforcers. The Syrian authorities believe that by banning the iPhone they can stop misinformation from spreading. In addition to the US and the EU, the anti-Syrian coalition now includes the Arab League, which recently expelled Damascus and then introduced tough sanctions against Syria.
A part of the British-American elite is playing the leading role in media campaign against Syria, which is no surprise after their success in Libya, where their media attacks preceded NATO’s direct military intervention. A similar strategy is now used against Syria.
For instance, the decision to suspend Syria’s membership in the Arab League leads to further international isolation, which is clearly what the West wants to achieve. The Arab League first took a similar decision regarding Libya in late February, and then it recognized the NATO-backed Transitional National Council as the only legitimate body representing the people of Libya, in August. In other words, what we see today is the same scenario being reproduced in Syria, with the Western multinational elite launching a media attack against that country.
The Syrian army and police are facing a strong opponent, including foreign mercenaries. According to some sources, there are around 10,000 of them, mainly from Arab countries and Pakistan and Pashtuns from Afghanistan.
Russia's approach to the conflict in Syria radically differs from that of the United States and its allies. The Kremlin vetoed the UN Security Council resolution, which would have made it possible to repeat the Libyan scenario in Syria. Moscow is doing its best to avoid the escalation of the conflict, to prevent military intervention (among other things, by sending an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean) and to establish a constructive peaceful dialogue.
-------------------------
4. --Stratfor and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on Syria
http://rt.com/news/russian-syria-opposition-usa-319/
RT
December 21, 2011
Russian navy in Syria: Thorn in US side
Video at URL above
The US-based intelligence-gathering firm Stratfor says most of the claims by the Syrian opposition about the seriousness of the country's crisis are untrue. The company insists protesters are exaggerating, to win support from powers like the US.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan administration official, told RT he believes Washington is doing more than simply backing the rebels diplomatically.
“The United States is bold in stirring up the opposition and in arming it. They used the cover of the Arab Spring and Arab protests as they did in Libya,” he said. “These are not spontaneous protests, and certainly in an authoritarian state like Syria you wouldn’t find people in opposition able to readily supply themselves with arms, with military weapons.”
Besides, Roberts continued, it makes no sense for ordinary Syrians to create an opportunity for the country to be destroyed like Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
“What’s involved here is that the Russians have a naval base in Syria, and the Americans don’t want a Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean. And, just as in Libya, the problem was the Chinese oil investments. If Syria goes, Iran is in the target sites, and Lebanon,” he concluded.
-------------------
5. -- Spoiling for a Fight with Syria and Iran
by Stephen Lendman on Mon, 2011/12/26
http://mostlywater.org/spoiling_fight_syria_and_iran
Syria remains the region's only independent secular state. Washington aims to replace its regime with a client one.
Libya's model was replicated. Months of externally generated violence followed. So far it's short of war. For how long is uncertain. Obama can't wait to wage another one to keep ravaging the world one country at a time.
Months of violence, sanctions and isolation have taken a toll. Deaths mount. No one knows how many. Western media reported numbers come from opposition forces, not independent observers. Nothing they say is reliable.
Assad's government says 2,000 security forces have been killed. "Terrorist gangs" are blamed. Whatever the actual number, they've been many. Heavily armed insurgents are responsible. Conflict resolution isn't imminent.
Syria's economy deteriorates steadily. In 2011, its GDP collapsed 30% - from around $55 billion to $37 billion. Its currency also plunged from 47 to 62 to the dollar. Basic goods and services are in short supply. Heating and cooking oil are scarce. Electricity is on and off.
Assad's regime is weakening. National institutions are eroding. Opposition forces are locally organized. Neighborhood committees and armed groups were formed. At issue is usurping state power despite divisions of strategy, especially over peaceful or violent conflict resolution and pro or con advocacy for outside intervention.
After months of turmoil, heightened fear prevails. On December 23, Syrian state television reported two suicide car bombings, the first ones in Damascus since conflict began. Kfar Sousa district was targeted. It's where state security and intelligence facilities are located. Heavy gunfire followed. Syria reported 40 or more killed and 100 wounded.
The attacks came a day after 60 Arab League observers arrived. They're an advance monitoring team with hundreds more to come. Whether they'll help or hurt is uncertain. More on that below.
Their mission will last a month unless renewed. It wants all security forces withdrawn from urban areas and detainees released. Nothing is said about heavily armed insurgent terrorists doing much of the killing. Conflict resolution depends on stopping all of it equitably.
Of concern is that monitors are a step short of occupation. It's reminiscent of events preceding NATO's 1999 Serbia/Kosovo war. In March 1999, Slobodon Milosovic got an unacceptable ultimatum, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement. It was a take-it-or-leave it deal no responsible leader would accept.
It involved surrendering Serbia's sovereignty to NATO occupation with unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), including its airspace and territorial waters. Moreover, NATO demanded use of areas and facilities therein for its mission, irrespective of FRY laws.
It also required Milosevic's full cooperation. It was an offer designed to reject. War, mass destruction and slaughter followed. Serbia's sovereign Kosovo territory was lost. It's now Washington/NATO occupied territory, run by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, an unindicted drug trafficker with known organized crime ties.
Washington, Israel, and key NATO partners have similar designs on Syria. War's perhaps planned. Pro-Western Arab League despots supported NATO's Libya war, mass slaughter and destruction. At the same time, they ignore ongoing atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, elsewhere in the region, and internally.
Calls for military intervention are increasing. In late November on CNN's State of the Union, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice accused Assad of "driving his country to the brink of civil war. (He's) no friend of the United States."
"Syria is the handmaiden of the Iranians throughout the region and so the fall of (Assad) would be a great thing not just for the Syrian people....but also for the policies of the United States and those who want a more peaceful Middle East."
She also called for tough sanctions, isolation and intervention, adding that if Russia and China won't agree, "then we (and allies) have to do it on our own." Stopping short of suggesting war, the implication is striking.
A Syrian National Council (SNC) was established. It's similar to Libya's puppet Transitional National Council (TNC). Originally formed in 2005, it was revived on August 23, 2011 in Istanbul, Turkey. It represents Western-backed internal opposition elements against the rights and interests of most Syrians.
It called for a Libyan-style no-fly zone and foreign intervention. It supplies intelligence to Washington and other Western nations. If unconventional tactics fail, stepped up violence and war remain options.
Since early 2011, NATO countries used regional bases to provide anti-regime support. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon's March 14 alliance, Turkey, Jordan and Israel are financing and arming insurgents.
So far, Russia and China blocked a Libyan-style "humanitarian intervention." Washington, however, wants regime change. Huge challenges remain to stop it.
SNC members want the Security Council to establish "protected zone" cover in violent prone areas. Free Syrian Army (FSA) security force defectors and insurgents also want no-fly zone protection and foreign military involvement. Deferring so far from direct NATO action, Washington backs Turkey and Arab League partners intervening.
America's Media War on Syria
A New York Times attack piece is typical. On December 22, its editorial headlined, "Get Tougher on Assad," saying:
After months of conflict, Assad's "still killing his people. And leaders in Russia, China and Arab states still haven't done enough to pressure him to stop." Claiming 5,000 unsubstantiated deaths, The Times blames "the brutal government crackdown in nine months of protests."
Fact check
Unmentioned was Washington's long planned regime change, replicating the Libya model, replacing an independent regime with a client one, and using heavily armed insurgents to destabilize Syria violently.
Assad's willingness to dialogue with opposition elements "seems like another ploy to buy time as he tries to beat Syrians into submission."
Fact check
Throughout the conflict, Assad made conciliatory offers. Opposition forces dismissed them out of hand, much like Libya's TNC rejected Gaddafi's overtures earlier.
On state television several times since last spring, Assad promised reforms. In June, he announced a 100-member panel to draft parliamentary election law changes, press freedoms, and a new constitution. He also said he'd prosecute those responsible for violence.
"There is little reason to believe Mr. Assad will allow (Arab League) observer(s) unrestricted access to all conflict areas (and be free to) make all of its findings public."
"Meanwhile, Russia is still tying the....Security Council in knots and preventing it from doing what it should have done months ago (through) tough economic and trade sanctions," condemnation, and more. Assad "left no doubt that he is willing to destroy his country to maintain his hold on power, which would be a disaster for the region."
The Times stopped short of endorsing war. Expect it if NATO intervenes directly or indirectly. When Washington's involved militarily, America's media march supportively in lockstep without debate, who benefits and loses, rule of law issues, and other right and wrong considerations.
Throughout the AfPak, Iraq and Libyan conflicts, disputing their legitimacy was verboten.
Instead, Times and other major media opinion pieces suppress truths and manipulate public opinion to support Washington/NATO attacking nonbelligerent countries lawlessly. Perhaps Syria and Iran are next.
Target Iran
Matthew Kroenig titled his Foreign Affairs January/February 2012 article, "Time to Attack Iran." Doing so let his advocacy pose as analysis.
Harvard International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt called his article "a textbook example of war-wongering disguised as analysis. It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy....This is not fair-minded 'analysis;' it is simply a brief for war designed to reach a predetermined conclusion."
In his article, Kroenig said waging war is "the least bad option. (For years), American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities."
"Proponents (say) the only thing worse than military action (is) Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics" warn doing so won't work and "would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis.
Fact check
Iran's not aggressive or imperial. It poses no regional threat. It hasn't attacked another nation in over 200 years. It maintains a strong military for self-defense. It’s vital given repeated Washington and Israeli threats.
No evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. US intelligence assessments through March 2011 found none.
During his December 1, 1997 - November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. Current head, Yukiya Amano, politicized IAEA policy for Western interests, mainly America's.
Washington manipulated his appointment. He was enlisted to lie. He hasn't disappointed. Ahead of his report suggesting an Iranian nuclear weapons program, he visited Washington for instructions.
"....(S)keptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to US interests in the Middle East and beyond....The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran's nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States."
Kroenig's a former Secretary of Defense Office strategist. He's also a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. CFR is an influential US organization. From its 1921 beginnings, it's advocated one-world government run by dominant financial interests.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a "front organization (for) the heart of the American establishment." It meets privately and publishes only what it wishes the public to know. Since 1922, Foreign Affairs has been its flagship publication.
Its members represent imperial Washington's interests, including its longstanding objective for unchallenged global dominance. Achieving it depends on replacing independent regimes with client ones and eliminating all military and economic rivals.
War's a frequently used option. Waging it against Iran could embroil the entire region and threaten general war, possibly with nuclear weapons.
In his rage to attack nonbelligerent Iran lawlessly, Kroenig omitted the possibility and said nothing about Israel being nuclear armed and dangerous.
He represents imperial America's quest for world dominance, even if destroying it happens in the process.
Stephen Lendman has a blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and offers discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-...
------------------------------
6. --Planned Regime Change in Iran and Syria
by Stephen Lendman, January 15, 2012
http://warisacrime.org/content/planned-regime-change-iran-and-syria
... recent comments by US officials also reveal plans for regime change in Syria. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon said that toppling Bashar al-Assad "would constitute Iran's greatest setback in the region yet - a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran."
According to Under Secretary of State for the Near East Jeffrey Feltman, Washington will "relentlessly pursue our two-track strategy of supporting the opposition and diplomatically and financially strangling the (Syrian) regime until that outcome is achieved."
He added that replacing it with one "more compatible" with Washington's regional interests is prioritized. Strategy includes falsified or exaggerated reports, including alleged massacres, torture, rape, and other claims to enlist public support.
Al Jazeera notoriously acts as Qatar's official mouthpiece. Long ago it lost legitimacy as a credible news service. It waged war on Gaddafi. It features biased reports on Syria's insurgency, and offers mostly pro-Western reports. What began as a noble experiment deteriorated visibly to a voice for imperial interests.
In December, Stratfor global intelligence cautioned:
"Most of the (Syrian) opposition's more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue....revealing more about the opposition's weakness (and credibility) than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime."
It also warned against falsified media reports "that make the case for foreign backing."
On January 5, Asia Times writer Aisling Byrne headlined, "A mistaken case for Syrian regime change," saying:
A calculated plan against Assad's government is ongoing. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained:
"It is clear that the purpose is to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe to get a pretext to demand external interference into this conflict."
In mid-December, the American Conservative reported:
"CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad's soldiers (now 5,000 allegedly or more), is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims."
"Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently."
In fact, Washington, Israel, key NATO partners, and regional allies shaped externally generated insurgent attacks. Funds and heavy weapons are supplied. Operations are coordinated out of America's Incirlik air base. Turkey's actively involved. So are unmarked NATO warplanes. Planned regime change will precede belligerently targeting Iran.
Expect Washington's grand scheme to continue until total control over the entire Mediterranean Basin through Central Asia is achieved to Russia and China's borders. As a result, imagine the potential horrors ahead, including at home....
------------------------------------------
7. --Barack Obama raises pressure for Syria regime change
US President Barack Obama vowed to redouble efforts to force a change of regime in Syria as the UN Security Council struggled to agree on a resolution on Damascus's crackdown on dissent. January 18, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/
9022085/Barack-Obama-raises-pressure-for-Syria-regime-change.html
Obama said concerns about the crackdown on demonstrators by President Bashar al-Assad's forces had been "uppermost" in talks with visiting Jordanian King Abdullah II on Tuesday.
"We continue to see unacceptable levels of violence inside that country," Obama said.
"We will continue to consult very closely with Jordan to create the kind of international pressure and environment that encourage the current Syrian regime to step aside so that a more democratic process and transition can take place inside of Syria."
The US president thanked King Abdullah for being the first Arab leader to call publicly for Assad to go and for taking part in Arab League efforts to mitigate the crisis.
His comments came after Assad's government rejected a proposal to deploy Arab forces to halt unrest in Syria.
-----------------------
8. --U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, WikiLeaks reveals
by Daily Mail Reporter, April 18, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377999/U-S-secretly-backed-Syrian-opposition-groups-WikiLeaks-reveals.html
$6million for Syrian exiles to help fund TV channel
The U.S. Government has secretly dished out $6million to help Syrian opposition groups WikiLeaks has revealed.
Documents show the State Department has been funnelling cash to London-based satellite TV channel Barada TV, made up of a group of Syrian exiles, since 2006 to cover mass protests in the country and finance activities inside Syria as part of a campaign to overthrow President Bashir Assad.
Violence has been sweeping the nation for the past month as President Assad faces his deepest crisis in 11 years in power amid growing demands for greater freedom from Syrians who are still ruled under ‘emergency’ laws imposed in 1963.
Flashpoint: TV channel Barada TV has been in receipt of cash from the U.S. since 2006 to cover mass protests
Human rights groups estimate the death toll to be in the region of 200 which Syrian authorities blame on armed gangs.
Barada TV, named after the Barada River which flows through the Syrian capital Damascus, has links to the London-based Syrian exile network Movement for Justice.
Doctor turned dictator: Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and his wife Asma
Cash from the U.S. for Syrian opposition figures first arrived under President George W. Bush after political ties with Damascus were frozen in 2005, the Washington Post reported.
This has continued under President Barack Obama despite his efforts to rebuild relations with the leader.
In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
--------------------
9-- SYRIA. TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 1, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29025
Global Research Editor's Note
We bring to the attention of our readers the Observers' Mission Report of the League of Arab States to Syria.
The report acknowledges the existence of "an armed entity" involved in the killings of civilians and police as well as the conduct of terrorist acts, which in turn have contributed to triggering actions by government forces.
The Report refers to "armed opposition groups" as well as to the "Free Syrian Army", both of which, according to the AL Mission, are involved in the deliberate killing of innocent civilians:
"In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.
"In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. "
"Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups."
The Mission also underscored to role of media distortion in the coverage of events in Syria as well as the campaign to discredit ithe Mission's findings:
"The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.
The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."
The Report also underscored attempts to discredit the Mission and dismiss its findings:
Arab and foreign audiences of certain media organizations have questioned the Mission’s credibility because those organizations use the media to distort the facts. It will be difficult to overcome this problem unless there is political and media support for the Mission and its mandate. It is only natural that some negative incidents should occur as it conducts its activities because such incidents occur as a matter of course in similar missions.
Also of significace were attempts by officials of AL governments to pressure several of the observers into providing "exaggerated accounts of events".
Some observers reneged on their duties and broke the oath they had taken. They made contact with officials from their countries and gave them exaggerated accounts of events. Those officials consequently developed a bleak and unfounded picture of the situation.
Also of significance is the fact that the Mission acknowledged that peaceful protests by unarmed civilians against the government were not the object of government crackdowns:
group team leaders [of the Observation mission] witnessed peaceful demonstrations by both Government supporters and the opposition in several places. None of those demonstrations were disrupted, except for some minor clashes with the Mission and between loyalists and opposition. These have not resulted in fatalities since the last presentation before the Arab Ministerial Committee on the Situation in Syria at its meeting of 8 January 2012.
While the Mission does not identify the foreign powers behind "the armed entity", the report dispels the mainstream media lies and fabrications. It largely confirms independent media reports including Global Research's coverage of the armed insurrection since April 2011. See Global Research's Syria Dossier
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 1, 2012
SELECTED EXCERPTS OF OBSERVERS' MISSION REPORT
Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria. December 24, 2011 to January 18, 2012
Relevant Excerpts of the Rep