Covert Ops & Washington’s Contingency Plans for North Korea

Nile Bowie
June 1, 2012

As the long-standing tensions between Washington and Pyongyang remain enflamed, a media report accusing South Korean and US Special Forces of parachuting into North Korea to spy on underground military facilities has sparked further controversy. Journalist David Axe attended the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in Florida, and claims to have heard Army Brigade General Neil Tolley discussing the difficulties of conducting human surveillance operations in North Korea, while speaking in the present tense, referring to current operations. Axe’s story “U.S. Commandos Spy on North Korea” was pulled from The Diplomat, which later posted a clarification suggesting that Tolley was referring to future plans, rather than current operations. Washington has vehemently denied these allegations and has accused Axe of fabricating the quotes. Brigade General Neil Tolley has since reviewed his presentation at the Special Forces Industry Conference and claims that he was “accurately quoted” by David Axe of The Diplomat.
While the details of future US-led reconnaissance operations on North Korean soil remain questionable, Washington’s legal doctrine and policy initiatives toward Pyongyang offer further insight into future US-led directives aimed at ultimately extinguishing the North Korean threat by force. A 2009 policy-paper authored by The Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea” advocates the deployment of up to 460,000 foreign soldiers into a post-regime North Korea to maintain security and capture Pyongyang’s WMDs. The March 2005 “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff envisages “contingency plans” for an offensive first strike use of nuclear weapons against both Iran and North Korea, providing the legal framework to carry out pre-emptive nuclear war, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production; the document cites:

“The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.”

Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; he regularly contributes to Professor Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research and has provided analysis on Russia Today. Twitter: @NileBowie

"Might Makes Right" Says Conspirator of Syrian-Iranian Conquest

2005 interview profiles psychology of those behind the Houla Massacre.

Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer
May 31, 2012

"Both the Syrian and Lebanese regimes will be changed- whether they like it or not- whether it’s going to be a military coup or something else… and we are working on it. We know already exactly who’s going to be the replacements. We’re working on it with the Bush administration."

"These guys who came to power, who rule by power, can only be removed by power. This is Machiavelli’s power game. That’s how it is. This is how geopolitics — the war games, power games — work. I know inside out how it works, because I come from a family of politicians for the last 60 years. Look, I have access to the top classified information from the CIA from all over the world. They call me, I advise them. I know exactly what’s going on. And this will happen."

"This Bashar Al Assad-Emil Lahoud regime is going to go whether it’s true or not. When we went to Iraq whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not, the key is — we won. And Saddam is out! Whatever we want, will happen. Iran? We will not let Iran become a nuclear power. We’ll find a way, we’ll find an excuse- to get rid of Iran. And I don’t care what the excuse is. There is no room for rogue states in the world. Whether we lie about it, or invent something, or we don’t… I don’t care. The end justifies the means. What’s right? Might is right, might is right. That’s it. Might is right."

"So Saddam wanted to prove to the whole world he was strong? Well, we’re stronger- he’s out! He’s finished. And Iran’s going to be finished and every single Arab regime that’s like this will be finished. Because there is no room for us capitalists and multinationalists in the world to operate with regimes like this. Its all about money. And power. And wealth… and democracy has to be spread around the world. Those who want to espouse globalization are going to make a lot of money, be happy, their families will be happy. And those who aren’t going to play this game are going to be crushed, whether they like it or not!"

- Ziad Abdel Nour, 2005 excerpts from "Faking the Case Against Syria" by Trish Schuh

Whatever we want will happen. We'll find a way, we'll find an excuse - including lying, using pictures from Iraq for Syria media coverage, mass murdering 30 children by slitting their throats, executing them at close range, and blaming it on the Syrian government, then expelling Syria's diplomats even as the West's contrived narrative crumbles. Truly, with Trish Schuh's Abdel Nour interview, we have just profiled a criminal mind not only psychologically and operationally capable of engineering the Houla Syria massacre, but a mind who possessed the intent and motive to do so.

Ziad Abdel Nour, a corporate-financier and founder of "Blackhawk Parnters" as well as chairman of the Neo-Conservative run "United States Committee for a Free Lebanon" has consorted with fellow committee members including Morris Amitay of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, and PNAC signatories Paula Dobriansky, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, and Daniel Pipes, for years to foment the very bloodshed, instability and atrocities now unfolding in Syria.

Video: General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the
drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan.

This "Neo-Conservative" bloc had in 2002 already listed Syria as a member of the growing "Axis of Evil," and it was later revealed by US General Wesley Clark that even as far back as America's first war with Iraq, "Desert Storm" in the early 1990's, Paul Wolfowitz had declared that all "old Soviet client regimes" would be overrun by Western hegemony. After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, General Clark would state that Pentagon plans were drawn for the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran.

Abdel Nour's disturbing 2005 display of Hitlerian megalomania dovetails with the New Yorker's article, "The Redirection" by Seymour Hersh, which while attempts to mislead readers to believe overthrowing Syria and Iran were a direct consequence of America's faltering war in Iraq, confirms that in 2007, the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, along with Abdel Nour's Hariri faction in Lebanon, were preparing a regional army of sectarian extremists to sow the very bloodbath now taking place in Syria today, falsely predicated on the US-engineered "Arab Spring" and "democratic aspirations." 

Hersh's report included an interview with former-CIA agent Robert Baer in Lebanon who warned of the need to protect Christians from a predictable onslaught by US-Israeli-Saudi-backed sectarian extremists - an onslaught now playing out against Syria's 10% Christian population, according to the LA Times' "Church fears 'ethnic cleansing' of Christians in Homs, Syria," and more recently in USA Today's distorted, but still telling, "Christians in Syria live in uneasy alliance with Assad, Alawites." Not only did US, Israeli, and Saudi conspirators purposefully unleash sectarian extremists inside of Syria, but they did so with full knowledge that atrocities like the one in Houla, Syria would result.

And despite all of this self-admitted, documented machinating, the United Nations with the exception of Russia and China, have instead worked in tandem with this unfolding crime against world peace, forever undermining its legitimacy, forever scarring the concept of "international law." Observing the demonstrative mania in Abdel Nour's comments in 2005 in tandem with the US and Gulf States now openly arming militants in the middle of a UN ceasefire, militants documented by Human Rights Watch and the UN itself of carrying out systematic atrocities, of having ties to Al Qaeda, and admittedly carrying out a terrorist bombing campaign, we see that Syria and Iran are both fighting for the survival of their nation-states and their people's lives, not unlike Iran's desperate battle against US-backed Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980's.

Abdel Nour correctly characterizes the nature of the despotic forces he represents as "multinationalists" or "globalists." He admits their goal is to crush anyone who opposes this aspiring world order. The forces of fascism have reached critical mass again, not entirely unlike they did in Europe on the eve of World War II, but now on a much larger scale. It must be the corporations and institutions of these "multinationalists" that we recognize as the true threat to both world peace and our collective prosperity - a threat we must expose, undermine, boycott and replace entirely. Because today Abdel Nour's "multinationalist" ideology sees the people of Syria and Iran as an obstacle between them, money and power. Tomorrow, as we see already beginning in Greece, Ireland, and Iceland, it will be everyone else.


The Ziad Abdel Nour interview by Trish Schuh was rediscovered and sent in by Color Revolutions & Geopolitics.

Pakistan - America's Other War

Balochistan: Crossroads of Proxy War

Eric Draitser
May 30, 2012

The current unrest in Balochistan centers around forced disappearances, kidnappings, targeted killings, assassinations and terrorism. However, these are merely the tactics of a much broader, more geopolitically complex war in which the United States and its Western allies are engaged.  Though seemingly insignificant against the backdrop of all the regional and international crises affecting our world, Balochistan is, in fact, a nexus: the point at which diametrically opposing strategic interests converge.


The United States views Balochistan, an area that encompasses western Pakistan, eastern Iran, and a piece of southern Afghanistan, as critical to the maintenance of US hegemony in the Middle East and Central and South Asia. Conversely, China regards the region as necessary for its own economic and political evolution into a world superpower.  Seen in this way, Balochistan becomes central to the development of geopolitical power in the 21st Century.

Location, Location, Location

Balochistan is located in one of the most geographically and politically significant places anywhere in the world.  Not only does the region sit astride three countries which have become central to Western political and military power projection, it is also central to the development and export of energy from Central Asia, access to the Indian Ocean, and a host of other geopolitical imperatives for both the West and the SCO/BRICS countries.  Because of this, the region has grown exponentially in importance to all the major powers of the world.

Though the land seems, on the surface, to be inhospitable, it also holds great wealth just beneath the soil.  Aside from what is believed to be a large quantity of natural gas and/or oil, the earth under the feet of the Baloch people holds vast quantities of minerals necessary for economic development.  Because of this, the conflict raging in the region takes on the added dimension of being a resource war, on top of a geographical and political one.

Balochistan’s location has another crucial element that makes it geopolitically necessary: it sits at the crossroads of the most important trade routes between West and East.  Although, in the public mind, trade crossroads seem to be a thing of the past (one might imagine the Silk Road being traveled by camel), in fact, they are essential to development.  Land-based trade, something the Chinese understand to be a linchpin of their economic and political evolution into a superpower, is impossible without a stable and dependable Balochistan, and this is precisely what the United States and the West seeks to prevent.

This focus on land-based access to trade should always be seen in the context of energy. China’s insatiable thirst for oil and gas makes the development of pipelines from Central Asia, Iran, and elsewhere invaluable to them.  The Iran-Pakistan pipeline, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, and other projects all serve to increase the importance of Balochistan in the eyes of the Chinese.  Additionally, the Chinese-funded, Pakistani Gwadar Port is the access point for Chinese commercial shipping to the Indian Ocean and on to Africa.  With all of this as a backdrop, one can begin to see just why Balochistan is so significant to the Chinese and, conversely, why the United States and its Western puppets seek to destabilize it.

Western Subversion and Destabilization

The Western imperialist powers have an obvious interest in preventing a stable Balochistan from emerging.  Not only is the region essential to the Chinese, it is also a major part of the covert war being waged against both Iran and Pakistan.  Terrorist groups with direct and indirect links to Western intelligence agencies operate with impunity in Balochistan, a vast area that is nearly impossible to police.  The Pakistani government is not oblivious to the fact that foreign intelligence agencies are behind much of the violence in Balochistan, a fact that was even stated publicly by former President Musharraf.  In fact, Islamabad, though they cannot state it publicly, is aware that its survival rests on the ability to quell the unrest in Balochistan, which in turn means they must effectively combat the foreign-controlled separatism.

In an article published by the Qatari English-language newspaper The Peninsula, the author cited credible sources as saying that “the CIA is indulging in heavy recruitment of local people as agents (each being paid $500 a month)”.  Additionally we know that the CIA, under the leadership of Gen. Petraeus, has been using Afghan refugees to destabilize Balochistan.  The significance of these revelations should not be understated.  The fact that the CIA is recruiting agents and informants throughout Balochistan indicates that the US strategy of subversion is multi-faceted.  On the one hand, a network of agents allows for intelligence and information manipulation while, on the other hand, the United States engages in terrorism through a variety of terrorist groups it controls or manipulates either directly or indirectly. As was reported in Foreign Policy magazine, the CIA and Mossad compete to control Jundallah, an important fact because it shows the way in which the Western imperialists use Balochistan, the base of Jundallah, to wage covert war on Iran, including the assassination of scientists, terrorist bombings aimed at critical infrastructure, and targeted killings of ethnic minorities.

Aside from Jundallah, the CIA and its counterparts (MI6, Mossad, and India’s RAW) are actively engaged in the handling and manipulation of a variety of other terror groups operating in Balochistan.  The Baloch Liberation Army, headed by Brahamdagh Bugti and others, has long-standing ties with British MI6 going all the way back to the early days of Pakistan’s independence.  This group is responsible for countless terrorist actions in the region, all of which have been aimed at innocent civilians.  This, and other groups like it, illustrates the way in which the United States and its allies use the weapon of terrorism to create chaos for the purpose of destabilizing Balochistan, thereby preventing economic development both for the Balochi people and, by extension, China.

Photo: In the 1980's US Congressman Rohrbacher (right) would actually travel to Afghanistan and "fight" alongside the Mujaheddin. It is also reported that he met Bin Laden and his foreign fighters - making him, like many others leading the fraudulent "War on Terror," quite the hypocrite. The US use of proxy forces to ravage parts of the world is confirmed, and Rohrbacher's direct role in such ploys is now in Pakistan is also confirmed. US State Department-funded propaganda front Radio Free Europe in their article titled, "U.S. Lawmaker Questions Approaches To Pakistan, Afghanistan," memorializes Rohrbacher's role in the US-Soviet proxy war.

Political Sabotage

The tactics of subversion are not limited to terrorism and espionage in Balochistan.  One of the most critical dimensions of this issue is the use of political destabilization through the US Congress.  Lawmakers such as Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), who himself has led the anti-Pakistan charge, have argued vigorously for the “right of self-determination of the people of Balochistan”.  Of course, what he means by this is that he, and others who have a vested interest in the issue, support separatism and the destruction of modern Pakistan.  In so doing, Rohrbacher and other members of the Congress act, as they always do, as apologists and facilitators of the US imperial strategy of dividing nations in order to control them.  Rohrbacher, who himself has long-standing ties to Al-Qaeda (former mujahideen) fighters, is a vociferous proponent of a fiercely anti-Pakistan agenda, one which treats that nation as a threat to the United States.  Naturally, the only threat Pakistan truly poses is that, in the course of the development of China, Pakistan has chosen to be on the side of economic development, rather than allow itself to be perpetually subjugated to the will of the United States.

The resolution introduced by Rohrbacher, who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, called for the US to support Baloch separatism and end relations with the democratically elected government in Islamabad.  He has repeatedly issued threats and other provocations which have been correctly interpreted by the Pakistani government as meddling in their internal affairs.  The goal of these resolutions and provocations has been to make the case, both politically and in the court of public opinion, that Pakistan is a terrorist state which, because of the twisted logic of the American people, means that the US should be able to do whatever it wants to them.

The goals of the Western imperialists vis-à-vis Balochistan have been, and remain, very simple: destabilize the region in order to block the Chinese from using it to assert their regional dominance and continue on the path to economic development. Using the same, tired tactics of terrorism and political subversion, they hope to achieve these aims.  However, unlike the case of the British imperialist ruling class of a century ago, the United States must contend with a Pakistan that maintains a strong current of nationalism, one that rejects the hegemony of the United States in the region, and one that has friends internationally.  Unfortunately for the Baloch people, the US ruling class has learned nothing from history and continues to use them as pawns against their perceived enemy in Beijing.  Without a strong, nationalist government in Islamabad, one that is willing to do more than just protest US actions, there will be no peace in Balochistan.  Instead, the situation will only deteriorate as the US elites continue their drive for dominance in the 21st Century, whatever the human and financial cost may be.


Eric Draister is an independent geopolitical analyst that maintains which hosts his weekly podcast. He has been a guest on Dr. Webster Tarpley's World Crisis Radio and has provided analysis on Russia Today.

Wall Street Proxy "Mother Suu" Begins World Tour

Aung San Suu Kyi: Poster Child of US-British Recolonization.
by Tony Cartalucci

May 31, 2012 - In perhaps the most misleading headline of the day, the Guardian's "Aung San Suu Kyi offers hope to Burmese migrants in Thailand" continues a narrative meant solely to build up the Wall Street-London contrived personality cult of "Nobel laureate" global "democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi, or as she is known to millions of horrifically exploited Burmese, "Mother Suu." Suu Kyi (pronounced "Sue Chi") began a global tour starting in Bangkok in neighboring Thailand after winning a parliamentary seat during a recent by-election.

During Suu Kyi's visit to Bangkok, she addressed thousands of migrant workers from Myanmar who have fled Myanmar's underdeveloped infrastructure and struggling economy after years of crippling Western sanctions, Western-backed insurrections, and political destabilizations. Suu Kyi addressed the weeping crowds holding signs saying "we want to go home," promising them, "I will try my best for you," while Andy Hall of the Institute for Population and Social Research claimed, "they have no voice, they can never speak up or stand up. So for Aung San Suu Kyi to visit is like a dream come true, someone who finally may be able to bring attention to their suffering."

Image: Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (Burma) shamelessly addresses migrant workers in Thailand who fled economic stagnation brought about by sanctions and "activism" supported by Suu Kyi herself. Designed to undermine and overthrow Suu Kyi's political opponents, the only change coming to Myanmar is a foreign-proxy working her way toward the levers of power.

In reality,Suu Kyi has been the primary facilitator of that suffering, playing a leading role in Wall Street and London's decades-long undermining and attempted overthrow of the Myanmar government. This in hope of installing Suu Kyi as head of a newly recolonized Southeast Asian client-regime.

Suu Kyi has been a vocal supporter of the very crippling sanctions, which she maintains were "a tool for change," that have scattered fleeing migrant workers across Southeast Asia where they have faced unsafe working conditions, exploitation by their employers, and low salaries. In a statement of servile fealty to her Western backers, Suu Kyi recently said of the suspension of those sanctions upon her election into parliament, "I'm not against the suspension of sanctions as long as the people of the United States feel that this is the right thing to do at the moment."

And fealty Suu Kyi must show, as her public image, her entire opposition movement, and the vast propaganda network that supports it both within Myanmar and beyond, has been entirely funded by the US State Department and the British government for years.

In "Myanmar (Burma) "Pro-Democracy" Movement a Creation of Wall Street & London," it was documented that Suu Kyi and organizations supporting her, including local propaganda fronts like the New Era Journal, the Irrawaddy, and the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) radio, have received millions of dollars a year from the Neo-Conservative chaired National Endowment for Democracy, convicted criminal and Wall Street speculator George Soros' Open Society Institute, and the US State Department itself, citing Britain's own "Burma Campaign UK (.pdf)."

Image: The Myitsone Dam, on its way to being the 15th largest in the world until construction was halted in September by a campaign led by Wall Street-puppet Aung San Suu Kyi, a stable of US-funded NGOs, and a terrorist campaign executed by armed groups operating in Kachin State, Myanmar.

And not only does the US State Department in tandem with Western corporate media provide Aung San Suu Kyi extensive political, financial, and rhetorical backing, they provide operational capabilities as well, allowing her opposition movement to achieve Western objectives throughout Myanmar. The latest achievement of this operational capability successfully blocked the development of Myanmar's infrastructure by halting a joint China-Mynamar dam project that would have provided thousands of jobs, electricity, state-revenue, flood control, and enhanced river navigation for millions. Suu Kyi and her supporting network of NGOs, as well as armed militants in Myanmar's northern provinces conducted a coordinated campaign exploiting both "environmental" and "human rights" concerns that in reality resulted in Myanmar's continual economic and social stagnation.

So while throngs of people, expelled from their home nation of Myanmar due to dismal prospects seek refuge and hope in Wall Street and London's created character, "Aung San Suu Kyi," it is her, and everything she represents in reality that have caused, and will continue to perpetuate their plight indefinitely. Her world tour, unwarranted for a mere member of parliament, including a speech before the British Parliament in London, is another attempt to build up yet another fictional character to mislead and exploit world opinion worldwide.

Like fellow "Nobel laureate" US President Barack Obama who has managed to lead America's left from progressive hope and into an orgy of warmongering and global blood-lust dwarfing in scope and ambition that of previous proxy-in-chief George W. Bush, Suu Kyi attempts to pull at the strings of well-intentioned humanitarians everywhere. This is not for realizing the democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar, but to use such aspirations as cover for the recolonization of Britain's lost colony of Burma, and the perpetuation of global disparity and inequities the very same well-intentioned people pulled into this ploy believe they are fighting against.

Understanding the Propaganda War Against Syria

Rape and Torture: Weapons in the Propaganda War.

Eric Draitser
May 29, 2012

Rape and torture have become standard issue in the propaganda arsenal of Western media.  Reports from organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Council that claim to document the systematic use of rape and torture by the “enemies” of the West have become usual fair in the soft war against whomever the imperialists have chosen to attack.  We have seen these claims used to legitimize aggression against Libya, Iraq, and now Syria.

In an article published in The Telegraph, the author cleverly uses a quote from a Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch making a general statement about the use of rape in detention facilities in order to humiliate, degrade and instill fear.  However, he makes no direct reference to Syria, though the article clearly attempts to draw that abstract connection.  In fact, as one reads further, the claims of rape and torture at the hands of Syrian security forces come from “activists” (the usual anonymous term applied to any quotable voice parroting the Western talking points regarding Assad and the regime) who have fled Syria.  In fact, the so-called activists are, in many cases, wanted terrorists who have fled Syria not in fear of persecution but for fear of being brought to justice for their crimes.

It is significant to note that, even with the obvious bias from the “eyewitnesses” and the authors of the article, there is still no mention of actual Syrian forces engaging in these actions. Instead, it is all chalked up to “militias loyal to the Assad regime”, an important distinction which goes conveniently understated.  In fact, the only mention of “security forces” involved in this sort of behavior is added in brackets by the authors of the article themselves.  This shows how the Western media constantly manipulate quotes and facts in order to shape them to fit the narrative that the Western propagandists want.

The Precedent of Libya

In the run-up to the imperialist aggression against Libya last year, the lie that Gaddafi forces were using rape as a weapon was planted in the public mind, so as to legitimize the obvious warmongering of the West, providing NATO the human rights cover they so desperately needed for their “intervention”.  Of course, as is so often the case, the fact that these claims were later proven untrue went conveniently missing from the standard narrative.  But, by the time the myth was debunked, the PR damage was done: Gaddafi was a monster, the Benghazi “rebels” and NTC were heroic freedom fighters, and Libya was in dire need of the benevolent bombs of NATO.

Almost as important as the content of the claims, was the nature of who made them.  The UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and countless other organizations which are dependent on funding from the US and its allies lent credence to such charges, providing an air of legitimacy to claims which, otherwise, would have been dismissed as little more than NATO propaganda.  In this way, these organizations are complicit in the instigation of war and the devastation wrought on Libya.

The charges of rape and the systematic distribution of Viagra to Gaddafi forces served another crucial function: they framed the conflict in the public mind to be one between good and evil, rather than between government and rebel terrorists.  This is a very significant manipulation because, in order to shape public opinion in favor of war, the forces of Western imperialism needed more than simply a justification, they required an emotional appeal: one that relied not on violence and warfare aimed at fighters, but one that was aimed at the most defenseless, women and children.

Iraq: Torture Prisons and Incubator Babies

Libya was not the first example of this sort manipulation for the purposes of legitimizing US aggression.  One of the most well-documented instances of this blatantly false propaganda was the lead-up to the first and second Iraq Wars.  George H.W. Bush utilized the completely fictional story of Iraqi soldiers barbarically killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators in order to justify the US aggression against Saddam Hussein in 1991.  This claim, now totally debunked, painted Saddam as a vicious barbarian who craved death and torture for their own sake.  This dehumanization of the enemy and the subsequent emotional and visceral response from the public, allowed Bush to launch his aggressive war.  Moreover, this episode illustrated plainly the complicity of Amnesty International and similar “watchdogs” in selling war.

Like his father before him, George W. Bush employed the very same tactics to unleash the death and destruction of the second Iraq War.  His administration claimed that Saddam ran a series of torture prisons, a fact that, though possibly true, was simply used to justify the aggression against Iraq for the sake of corporate profits and asserting US hegemony in the Middle East.

The hypocrisy of these claims should not be lost on any political observer.  Within a short time of deposing Saddam Hussein, the United States had established its own series of “black site” torture prisons, of which Abu Ghraib was only the tip of the iceberg.  Reports of US military, CIA, and Blackwater using torture on Iraqis began becoming more and more common until it had become quite clear that the United States was systematically torturing prisoners, precisely the claim that was leveled against the “barbaric” Saddam.

Syria: The Next Casualty of Propaganda War

The use of rape and torture lies for propaganda purposes serve a very specific function: they create a climate conducive to war-making when a government has successfully resisted all other attempts at subversion and destabilization.  Like the Gaddafi government last year, Assad’s government has managed to stay in power in the face of a multi-faceted, international war being waged against it from all sides.  Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Washington imperialist warmongers are incensed that Assad has not yet fallen and that their terrorist proxies have been unequivocal failures.  So, they turn to their most effective weapon: lies.  As we’ve seen in recent days with the Houla massacre, the Western media, as a mouthpiece for US-NATO propaganda, has launched an all-out media campaign of lies to convince the public that Assad is a heartless, inhuman butcher.  The claims that Syrian military forces were responsible for the horrendous massacre have been refuted and debunked countless times, so much so that even the Western media has had to recast the narrative, constantly changing it in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Whatever claims of rape and torture that might be true are likely being committed at the hands of the armed terrorist “opposition” in Syria.  If we are to believe that there actually are eyewitnesses to these acts, as claimed in the above mentioned London Telegraph article, then it is clear these acts are being carried out by these militias who have no connection to the Syrian government or to the Syrian people and are part of the international subversion campaign.  These death squads, like their antecedents in Central America and Iraq, are trained by the West and its proxies in the Middle East because the imperialists know that they cannot otherwise execute their agenda.

It is necessary and, in fact, essential for the United States and its allies to wage this propaganda war.  Without it, rationality and sound political thinking might sway public opinion away from war and back to the idea that Syria belongs to Syrians.  This basic conception completely derails the entire drive for war, preventing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States from imposing their will on the people of Syria and continuing their imperialist domination of the region.


Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst that maintains which hosts his weekly podcast. He has been a guest on Dr. Webster Tarpley's World Crisis Radio and has provided analysis on Russia Today.

West's Houla Syria Narrative Crumbles, Expels Syrian Diplomats Anyway

UN admits almost all of the 108 killed in Houla were killed at close range by militants, not Syrian soldiers firing artillery. 
by Tony Cartalucci

May 29, 2012 - The UN according to Associated Press, has stated that, "most of the 108 victims of a massacre in [Houla] Syria last week were shot at close range, some of them women, children and entire families gunned down in their own homes." The UN has also stated that militants, not Syrian soldiers, were responsible for the massacre. The report cites "witness accounts" claiming the militants were "pro-government thugs known as shabiha," while the Syrian government has claimed the militants were foreign-backed armed terrorists. 

This stands in stark contrast to the original narrative the US, UK, France and other NATO members have used to accuse the Syrian government for the atrocities, and even as the basis to expel Syrian diplomats. As stated by UK Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, (emphasis added) "We are appalled at what appears to be credible reports that the Syrian regime has been responsible for the deaths of 92 civilians in Houla, including 32 children. The UN Head of Mission has been able to confirm the numbers and also that artillery tank shells have been used. If this is the case then it's an act of pure, naked savagery and we condemn it in the most strongest possible terms."

Video: UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt peddling what is now a confirmed fabrication, told for days to the public as the West maneuvered to leverage it against the Syrian government. The UN has now confirmed that artillery fired by government troops were not responsible for the massacre, and instead carried out by unidentified militants. Despite this, the UK has failed to retract earlier accusations and has instead expelled Syrian diplomats in an increasingly dangerous, irrational, aggressive posture.

Clearly Burt was not reading credible reports, nor has he or his government made any credible attempts to retract their earlier accusations now confirmed to be fabrications. Instead, what the West has done, is distort each new piece of actual evidence that emerges, as the Syrian government and their Russian counterparts struggle to objectively ascertain what happened in Houla, Syria. An example of this comes from the Guardian, who contradicting its own earlier reports, began citing "witness" accounts admittedly provided by Syrian opposition leaders and seemingly custom-tailored to refute the latest evidence presented by Russia before the UN Security Council.

At the moment, only Russia has observed that not enough evidence exists to blame either side, and insists that "the blame must be determined objectively." Paradoxically, the West, who justifies its global interventions and institutions via "international rule of law," seems intent on trying, convicting, and executing the Syrian government as quickly as possible, seemingly desperate to do so exactly before "blame can be determined objectively."

To understand why the West is attempting to rush past an objective investigation, and the most likely explanation as to what really happened in Houla, Syria, please read, "Atrocities Made to Order." It covers a historical example of another well-documented Western-backed, staged atrocity designed to undermine and topple a targeted government.

Atrocities Made to Order

How Wall Street & London Manufacture Tragedy to Sell War & Regime Change.
by Tony Cartalucci

May 29, 2012 - In the wake of the Houla massacre in Syria, and evidence exposing the West's initial narrative of Syrian troops "shelling to death" around 100 people to be categorically false, people are struggling to understand just what happened. The Guardian has chosen to post unverified witness accounts produced by the Free Syrian Army, seemingly custom tailored to refute evidence brought by Russia to the UN Security Council. The BBC has admitted that only "most" of the accounts they've received implicated what they "believe" were Syrian troops, or pro-government militias - and by doing so, imply that some did not and have told a different account.

As the window of opportunity closes for the West to exploit the bloodshed at Houla, the Western media is increasingly backpedaling, retracting, and being caught in a crossfire of their own lies and propagandizing. BBC was caught initially using years' old photos from Iraq for their Houla coverage, while papers and networks across the board have had to adjust their narratives entirely as each new piece of verified evidence emerges.

What is known is that Syrian troops were engaged with armed militants of the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) in and around Houla. Syrian troops, as they have been doing throughout the conflict, were using artillery and tanks to target heavily fortified rebel positions from a distance. During or shortly after this exchange, militants began entering homes and killing families with knives and small arms fire. The FSA and Syrian opposition claim the militants were pro-government militias while the government claims they were foreign-backed Al Qaeda terrorists, known to be operating throughout the country. What they weren't, by all accounts, were Syrian troops.

A recent "editorial" out of the Globe and Mail claims that Russia's position that opposition forces were involved in the massacre is "laughable." However, this is divorced from not only reality, but also from a complete understanding of modern 4th generation warfare. From Venezuela to Thailand, Western backed opposition groups have triggered unrest and used it as cover to pick off members of their own movement, to then blame on the targeted government and compound any given conflict until a critical mass is reached, and a targeted government is toppled..

A Historical Example: Bangkok, Thailand 2010 

Wall Street-backed former-Thai Prime Minsiter Thaksin Shinawatra, a close associate of the Bush family with connections ranging from before, during, and after his term in office, was ousted from power in 2006 by nationalist forces for abuses of power. Thaksin had worked as a Carlyle Group adviser, sent Thai troops to aid in Bush's invasion of Iraq, attempted to implement a free trade agreement with Wall Street's Fortune 500 without parliamentary approval, hosted CIA torture facilities, and prosecuted a "war on drugs" that saw some 2,500 Thais extra-legally executed in the streets, most of whom were later determined to have nothing to do with the drug trade.

Since his ousting in 2006, he has received support from a myriad of prominent US lobbying firms including fellow Carlyle member James Baker and Baker Botts, Bush administration warmonger Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and Neo-Conservative PNAC signatory Kenneth Adelman of Edelman. 

With this backing, Thaksin has led an increasingly violent bid to return to power through a "red" color revolution constituting of a large political machine operating in Thailand's northeast provinces and a personality cult called the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD)

In April of 2010, Thaksin mobilized thousands of UDD members to paralyze Thailand's capital of Bangkok in retaliation to a court seizure of billions of his ill-gotten assets. On the night of April 10, 2010, when riot troops moved in to disperse the protesters, militants clad in black opened fire on Thai troops.

Page 62 of Human Rights Watch's "Descent into Chaos (.pdf)" report stated:
"As the army attempted to move on the camp, they were confronted by well-armed men who fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at them, particularly at the Khok Wua intersection on Rajdamnoen Road. They also fired grenades from M79s and threw M67 hand grenades at the soldiers. News footage and videos taken by protesters and tourists show several soldiers lying unconscious and bleeding on the ground, as well as armed men operating with a high degree of coordination and military skills."
HRW, an otherwise dubious organization, only conceded to this a full year after the events unfolded and only in the face of irrefutable photographic and video evidence captured and broadcasted by both professional and amateurs local and foreign journalists. This included videos and photos of militants armed with both AK-47's and M-16's. Previously, Thaksin's Western backers and his opposition leaders had tried to blame all deaths resulting from the M-16's 5.56mm rounds squarely on the Thai military, including the high-profile death of Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto. With proof that opposition militants were also firing 5.56mm rounds, this political leverage was negated. 

How to Gun-Down Your Own Supporters

However, the most chilling aspect of the April 10, 2010 violence was an incident involving the premeditated murder of a pro-Thaksin protester by Thaksin's own mercenaries - recorded on tape and extensively photographed, then shamelessly and relentlessly used as propaganda to this very day. The incident took place on April 10, 2010, the same night Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto was killed, and gives us immense insight into how Western-backed unrest will take advantage of chaos it itself creates to then purposefully kill both protesters and government troops to escalate tensions and violence while undermining the legitimacy of a targeted government.

In a YouTube video (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC) recorded by Thaksin propagandists, protesters can be seen facing off against troops to the left of the screen with other protesters seeking cover as fire is exchanged between militants and troops. In the center of the frame, a very conspicuous man is seen carrying a tall red flag with his attention fixated on men directing him into position. He moves in steps, almost as if posing for a picture with his attention focused on the men directing him. Behind him, with his hat turned backwards, appears to be a spotter shadowing the flagman's moves and flashing a series of hand signals to the men on the left directing the flagman.

Images: Frames taken from the video with annotations describe the events that unfolded shortly before and directly after Thaksin mercenaries intentionally killed one of their own protesters. The final image eventually made it onto the cover of Thaksin propaganda magazine, "Voice of Taksin." (click images to enlarge)

Men in the upper left of the screen can be seen waving the flagman into position as they tell other protesters to "get down" before a shot is fired taking off the top of the man's skull. As protesters panic and run off camera, the spotter moving with the flagman calmly stands above the dead man and waves in a photographer who takes the infamous pictures that would soon be featured on the cover of Thaksin's propaganda publication, the "Voice of Taksin." It must be remembered that the video camera was fixated on this otherwise insignificant flagman the entire time leading up to the gruesome event, to specifically capture the entire, premeditated murder.

Image: A censored version of the very explicit "special" cover of Thaksin propaganda magazine, "Voice of Taksin," featuring a man killed not even a minute ago. The flag he was conspicuously waving just moments before lays across his chest and was most likely handed to him to aid mercenary snipers in targeting him. The original cover with translations can be found here. (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC.) The editor of "Voice of Taksin" has since been arrested and imprisoned for his role in the 2010 violence - however Western "human rights" fronts including US-funded Prachatai maintain that he is a "political prisoner" and a "human rights activist." Note: on the bottom of the magazine cover a "free" CD is offered featuring video of the gruesome staged murder of this unfortunate man.


This horrific, cold-blooded demonstration of the callous, murderous nature of these so-called "pro-democracy" movements sowing chaos from Tunisia to Thailand, and certainly including Syria, illustrates the full depths of depravity from which the global elite and their proxies operate. Behind the thin veneer of revolutionary "singing tomorrows" is a heartless, craven killing machine as eager to dispose of its most adamant supporters as it is inclined to eliminate its most reviled opponents. What was just described has played out not only repeatedly in Thailand, but all across North Africa and the Middle East as well as during previous attempts by the West to oust Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. 

Back to Syria

The Free Syrian Army has been regularly engaging in armed combat with government troops and now more than ever, are better equipped with communication equipment, weapons, cash and logistical support from the West and the Gulf States. Just as Thaksin's gunmen were able to draw Thai troops into a conflict used as cover to commit manufactured atrocities to be used as propaganda against the Thai government, militants in Syria have already demonstrably employed similar tactics. In 2011, "mystery gunmen" would regularly start firefights during protest rallies identical to the one in Bangkok, firing on both Syrian troops and protesters, with both sides describing elusive "rooftop snipers."

Houla appears to simply be on a much larger scale, involving militants most likely not affiliated with local FSA fighters or the Syrian government, but foreign elements just as the Syrian government has claimed. Just as in Bangkok where protesters were taken as much by surprise as Thai troops at the arrival of Thaksin's militants, FSA fighters, Houla residents, and Syrian troops all seem baffled as to who exactly committed the atrocities.

And amongst all the finger pointing, it is the politically-motivated haste by the US, UK, France, Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood to condemn the massacre, baselessly blame the Syrian government, and cry in unison for military intervention that is by far the most incriminating evidence yet as to who was really behind the bloodbath. Cui Bono? To whose benefit? NATO and its Middle Eastern proxies have made it abundantly clear it was to their benefit.

Clearly there is the distinct possibility that a third party took advantage of a prolonged engagement between the FSA and government troops in Houla, to manufacture a very real atrocity. With so few facts in hand, it would be the height of irresponsibility to lay blame on anyone so squarely that punitive actions are leveled.  So while the Globe and Mail berates Russia for suggesting that "the blame must be determined objectively," it is by far, without debate, the most sensible course of action to take. If the West laments the distrust it now suffers, it has only itself, and its long history of running death squads in exactly this manner, to blame.

'Mainstream Media Are Failing in Syria'

Patrick Henningsen
May 29, 2012

Video: Journalist Patrick Henningsen reports on mass media manipulation by the West regarding the Syrian conflict. Also read Patrick Henningsen's article, "Phony ‘Houla Massacre’: How Media Manipulates Public Opinion For Regime Change in Syria." 


Protester Calls Tony Blair a War Criminal, Exposes JP Morgan-Iraq Ties

Accusations that former-British PM was paid-off by JP Morgan for Iraq War should be investigated.
by Tony Cartalucci

May 29, 2012 - A protester who interrupted the Leveson inquiry in England, called former-British Prime Minister Tony Blair a war criminal before accusing Blair of receiving a large yearly payment from JP Morgan for his role in initiating the 2003 Iraq War - a war that gave control over the oil-rich Iraqi banking system to JP Morgan. Blair presided over the UK's participation in the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, now exposed as being based on willful lies told using fabricated intelligence. The war has cost over a million Iraq lives, as well as those of thousands of Western troops.

In 2011, applying the Nuremberg Principles established in the wake of WWII to prosecute Nazi war criminals, a tribunal held by legal and human rights professionals from around the world found Blair, as well as former-US President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for waging a war of aggression against Iraq. 

While many may be quick to write this off as yet another public confrontation between a notoriously corrupt politician and the angry citizenry, the accusations made against Blair regarding being paid-off for the Iraq War by JP Morgan warrants investigation.

In 2008, while British troops were still occupying Iraq, Blair secured an "advisory" position at JP Morgan. According to the Daily Telegraph he would, "earn around £2 million a year in his part-time role as adviser to the Wall Street bank JP Morgan without ever having to go into the office." The inexplicable amount of money confounded members of the British Parliament, including MP Ian Gibson who stated, "What does he know about banking anyway? What use is he to JP Morgan other than a face and a mouth?" The Telegraph also notes that JP Morgan did indeed play a key role in the despoiling of conquered Iraq, "appointed to operate a US-created bank in Iraq to manage billions of dollars in imports and exports from the oil-rich nation."

With this in mind, we must consider again the accusations leveled against Blair this week, to which Blair responded, "can I just say, actually, on the record, what he said about Iraq and JP Morgan is completely and totally untrue. I've never had a discussion with them about that, or any relationship between them..."  

JP Morgan, as one of the largest banks on earth, has played a key role in every major US and British War since World War I, not only financing them, but arranging the procurement of supplies and armament contracts, and as stated by the Telegraph in regards to the Iraq War, managing the pillaging of national resources after a targeted nation's institutions have been destroyed. And since WWI the bankers at JP Morgan have had direct lines to senior government representatives on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Blair's denial of receiving funds from JP Morgan for the Iraq War is one matter, but for Blair to deny any consorting at all with JP Morgan as Prime Minister of England before launching a major war, a war JP Morgan played an active, participatory role in, contradicts 100 years of documented history, not to mention common sense.

While an inquiry official demanded an investigation into how a protester gained access to a secured courtroom, an investigation should instead be launched to determine to what degree Tony Blair has just lied in regards to his involvement with JP Morgan, the inexplicably large sums of cash he received for an "advisory" position, and how they may relate to the Iraq War.

Guardian's Houla Massacre Propaganda Stunt Uses "Little Kid"

Another case of reckless journalism aimed at selling war. 
by Tony Cartalucci

March 28, 2012 - The Guardian in their piece titled, "Houla massacre survivor tells how his family were slaughtered," admits that the heart-wrenching emotionally manipulative narrative it published comes straight from a nameless boy allegedly produced by "a town elder who is a member of the Syrian Revolutionary Council and is now caring for him." This fact, however, is buried paragraphs below, hopefully read long after the Guardian's intended message takes hold in the minds of readers.

The account raises serious suspicion as it contradicts the West's own original narrative of the Syrian military "shelling" the victims to death in their homes, and instead appears to be a deceitful, quickly prepared response crafted in the wake of verified evidence presented by Russia before the UN Security Council this week.

The Guardian itself previously published an article titled, "Syria shelling 'kills at least 90'" as well as a statement by UK Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt claiming the deaths were the result of artillery. Upon that narrative falling apart, the West is apparently retrenching itself in the face of Russian skepticism and reports coming from the people in Houla itself claiming militants, not soldiers, stabbed and shot the victims at close range, not shelled them with artillery.

The Guardian proclaims proudly in their newly crafted narrative that "the young survivor's chilling account emerged as Russia continued to blame both Syrian troops and opposition militias for the weekend rampage in the town that left at least 116 people dead and prompted fresh outrage against the regime's crackdown." The Guardian's revised account specifically claims the nameless boy supplied by the opposition, saw Syrian troops dismount from their tanks, and kill his entire family in front of him. Paradoxically, the Guardian then claims they weren't troops, but rather "al-Shabiha" irregular forces who dismounted from armored vehicles with "guns and knives."

Throughout the entire length of the Guardian's article, not a single shred of verified evidence was presented. Answering a question as to how the "boy" knew the gunmen were pro-regime militia men, he responded, "why are you asking me who they were? I know who they were. We all know it. They were the regime army and people who fight with them. That is true." Hardly conclusive evidence, hardly fit for print by any reputable journalist, but, however, a textbook example of manipulative war propaganda. 

Hopefully the serial lies told by the Guardian, the BBC who recently included pictures of mass graves in Iraq in their Houla, Syria coverage, and Western leaders who have lied their populations into over 10 years of constant warfare, have finally reached a point where they will no longer be able to advance their agenda with even a fig leaf of credibility. Hopefully, if the West intends to carry forth with its wars of global aggression, they will do so as overt war criminals and invite the measures and penalties demanded when dealing with such war criminals.

US Brookings Wants to "Bleed" Syria to Death

"Middle East memo" calls for ending ceasefire and purposefully perpetuating violence. 
by Tony Cartalucci 

May 28, 2012 -The Brookings Institution is a Fortune 500-chaired and funded (p. 35 .pdf) US policy think tank and represents policy makers responsible for the vast majority of both America's domestic and foreign policy. While some may naively believe President Obama or America's elected representatives sit behind their desks late at night penning America's future, in reality, they merely use their desks to rubber-stamp what think-tanks like Brookings passes to them.

And certainly, that policy reflects not the interests of the American people, but of the corporations that spend millions a year to keep these think-tanks flush in cash and ideas, as well as providing them the means to sell these ideas to an unwitting public. Those acquainted with these think-tanks are aware years in advance of wars, conflicts, and conspiracies that take the rest of the public by surprise as events seemingly, "spontaneously" unfold "live" on CNN. 

The Brookings Institution in particular had as early as 2009, articulated a full strategy with which the US would use to undermine, divide, and destroy Iran and its sphere of influence throughout the Middle East. The report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" mentions everything from arming US State Department-listed terrorist organizations, to withdrawing troops from Iraq to allow for an Israel airstrike, to intentionally provoking a war Iran neither sought nor desired. Each one of these options are still, as of today, either fully being executed or "on the table."

Image: Brookings Institution's Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.


More recently, Brookings has published "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," which at face value betrays the narrative the West has attempted to maintain - that humanitarian concerns, not regime change, drives Western intervention in Syria. Not only does the Brookings memo admit the US would like to avoid a settlement or ceasefire that leaves Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, but continues on by stating the UN mission can be used as cover to establish "safe havens" and "humanitarian corridors" from which further "coercive action" can be dealt:

"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

On pages 8 and 9, the memo states:

"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never  have  sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention."  -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
In other words, the US is seeking to perpetuate endless bloodshed simply to weaken Syria's geopolitical influence throughout the region - most obviously running contra to any concept of "humanitarianism" or "international law," and certainly, purposefully causing more death and carnage, not preventing it. Surely this signed confession seems worthy of airing before the UN Security Council, especially in light of recent revelations that the US and Gulf States are already arming Syria's opposition with this specific perpetuated bloodshed in mind.

The memo continues by articulating various combinations of military intervention and support to be provided to the so-called "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" - this with full knowledge that the FSA has been conducting documented widespread atrocities of their own, having direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and conducting a terrorist bombing campaign targeting civilian populations carried out by militants who admit to having fought as Al Qaeda in Iraq against US troops. Again, it appears that Brookings has conspired to violate a myriad of both national and international laws, in particular, USC § 2339B: Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. 

Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution. America is bled to death literally and financially to fight wars of profit and conquest for these corporate-financier oligarchs on Wall Street and in London. (click image to enlarge)


The depths of depravity from which each of Brookings' "options" are drawn is horrifying on a Hitlerian scale and represents not only a moral crisis amongst American policy, but a Constitutional crisis - as the policy makers crafting and promoting these "options" (many of which have already been demonstrably carried out) are entirely unelected, are subject to no oversight, Congressional or otherwise, and worse yet, remain mostly out of the eye of an unsuspecting public. Furthermore, Brookings' "Middle East Memo #21" is a signed confession of a conspiracy against both the people of Syria and world peace - undermining the "moral imperative" and the "responsibility to protect" those behind Brookings' policy papers seek to justify their pursuit of global corporate-financier and military hegemony.

Muslim Brotherhood are Western Proxies

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Joins US-Euro-Israeli Chorus for War in Syria.
by Tony Cartalucci

May 28, 2012 - One would expect allegedly "outspoken" critics of the US and Israel to represent the antithesis of any joint US-Israeli foreign policy, especially when it involves mass-murdering large numbers of fellow Arabs to expand Western hegemony across the Middle East. Yet the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has done the exact opposite, after a long campaign of feigned anti-American, anti-Israel propaganda during the Egyptian presidential run-up, the Muslim Brotherhood has joined US, European, and Israeli calls for an "international" intervention in Syria.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently called for international intervention in Syria citing the alleged Houla massacre, echoed by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan who stated the same. The Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has been involved heavily, leading in fact, the US, Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari-backed sectarian violence that has been ravaging Syria for over a year. In a May 6, 2012 Reuters article it stated:

"Working quietly, the Brotherhood has been financing Free Syrian Army defectors based in Turkey and channeling money and supplies to Syria, reviving their base among small Sunni farmers and middle class Syrians, opposition sources say."

While Reuters categorically fails to explain the "how" behind the Brotherhood's resurrection, it was revealed in a 2007 New Yorker article titled, "The Redirection" by Seymour Hersh, as being directly backed by the US and Israel who were funneling support through the Saudis so as to not compromise the "credibility" of the so-called "Islamic" movement. Hersh revealed that members of the Lebanese Saad Hariri clique, then led by Fouad Siniora, had been the go-between for US planners and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

Hersh reports the Lebanese Hariri faction had met Dick Cheney in Washington and relayed personally the importance of using the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in any move against the ruling government: 

"[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh
The article would continue by explaining how already in 2007, US and Saudi backing had begun benefiting the Brotherhood: 
"There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh

It was warned that such backing would benefit the Brotherhood as a whole, not just in Syria, and could effect public opinion even as far as in Egypt where a long battle against the hardliners was fought in order to keep Egyptian governance secular. Clearly the Brotherhood did not spontaneously rise back to power in Syria, it was resurrected by US, Israeli, and Saudi cash, weapons and directives.

PR Roll-out of Orchestrated  Regional War

To the general public, the violence in Lebanon seems to have "spilled over" from Syria, with characters like Saad Hariri, a leading figure in an effort at fueling regional bifurcation between Sunni and Shi'ia Muslims, being suddenly "involved" in the ongoing violence. To the general public, because of a willfully deceitful mass media, the Muslim Brotherhood's sudden backing of US-Euro-Israeli and Gulf State calls for foreign intervention seems like a spontaneous reaction to the so-called Houla massacre.

In reality, for those who are informed regarding the true back story of the geopolitical reordering of the Arab World, it is nothing more than the public roll-out of an orchestrated conspiracy years in the making, with each actor having long practiced their roles backstage together before coming out on stage and being introduced to the audience. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood and Saad Hariri have been working together with the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia for years. The Muslim Brotherhood's political resurrection was solely owed to the US-engineered "Arab Spring" and torrents of cash and backroom diplomatic support. The US State Department on record had been preparing since at least as early as 2008, with Egyptian protest leaders flown to New York, trained, equipped, and funded courtesy of US taxpayers before being sent back to destabilize Egypt beginning in 2010 and culminating in the 2011 "Arab Spring." 

And while the Muslim Brotherhood is busy feigning hatred and belligerence toward the US and Israel, they in turn have feigned fear and displeasure at the Brotherhood's rise amidst political destabilization the West itself created and perpetuated solely to place the Brotherhood back in power. This gambit is perhaps best exposed with the rise and fall of another Western-backed proxy, Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei.

Those who "hate" most... 

In fact, the more unreasonable and frothing one's anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric becomes, the more likely they are in fact working directly with the West and using such rhetoric as a smoke screen. Mohamed ElBaradei, for example, attempted to ride the wave of anti-Western sentiment by regularly pointing out the odds he was at with America over Iraq and Iran. Israel and the US in turn accused him of being an "Iranian" agent, and ElBaradei would regularly threaten to make war with Israel, should he be elected president of Egypt. We will see just how absurd this entire charade really is.

Photo: From left to right, ICG members Shlomo Ben-Ami, Stanley Fischer, Shimon Peres, and Mohamed ElBaradei. Despite claims that Mohomed ElBaradei is "anti-Israeli" or "anti-West," it is a documented fact that he is indeed an agent of the Wall Street-London corporate-fascist global oligarchy, and a member of the International Crisis Group which includes several current and former senior Israeli officials.


In reality, ElBaradei sits as a trustee of a US corporate-financier funded think-tank, the International Crisis Group (ICG) along side convicted criminal and billionaire Wall Street speculator, George Soros, geopolitical adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, suspected financial criminal Lawrence "Larry" Summers, and Neo-Conservative Richard Armitage. Additionally, sitting around the same table with ElBaradei is the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, Stanley Fischer who serves as governor of the Bank of Israel, and former-Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami.

Beyond even this evidence, and before the "Arab Spring" even unfolded, another US corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, pointed out the necessity of manipulating public perception to maneuver client regimes into power. In a March 2010 article titled, "Is ElBaradei Egypt's Hero?" published in CFR's "Foreign Affairs," it stated:

"Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly." 

Clearly, both Western and Israeli press not only refrained from "acting strongly," they feigned immense displeasure at ElBaradei's rise in Egyptian politics, while simultaneously showering his enemies and opponents with support to taint them in the eyes of an emotional, and apparently easily manipulated global public.

In this light it is hard to take ElBaradei's feigned anti-Western sentiments as anything more than an absolute coordinated deception, to mask the fact that he indeed is a direct representative of these very insidious manipulators. Likewise the Muslim Brotherhood is playing a double game, capitalizing on carefully cultivated hatred versus America and Israel, while in reality leading sectarian extremists toward fulfilling rather than balking Western machinations. Not only is this apparent in the propaganda game played by both the Brotherhood and their counterparts in Washington, London, Doha, and Tel Aviv, but demonstrably as the Brotherhood's agenda now overtly converges with that of the US and Israel versus Syria, as stated would happen in 2007 by Seymour Hersh. 

It seems almost unimaginable that any Arab, regardless of their opinion of Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah in Lebanon, could believe that eliminating this countervailing force vis-a-vis the West and Israel will be to their advantage, especially as it becomes clear their "new" "Arab Spring-installed" leaders are in fact working with, not against Western hegemonic expansion across the Arab World.

Arab Spring Brings Western Client Regimes. 

In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Egypt and Syria, in Tunisia serving Western interests is the recently installed Moncef Marzouki, formally of the Tunisian League for Human Rights, a US National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros Open Society-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) member organization. Marzouki, who spent two decades in exile in Paris, France, was also founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a "Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile" and a participant in the WMD "third assembly" alongside Marzouki's Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros' Open Society, and USAID.

In neighboring Libya, Marzouki's counterpart, NATO-installed Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib is listed as a "Professor and Chairman" of the Petroleum Institute, based in Abu Dhabi, UAE and sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. Both Marzouki of Tunsia and el-Keib of Libya have vocally supported Western efforts at regime change in Syria, with Libya additionally supplying cash, weapons, and fighters drawn from the US State Department-listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

Clearly with regime change on the table since the first Gulf War during the 1990's, specific calls for regime change as early as 2002, and an articulated conspiracy to use sectarian militants to overthrow Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and in turn, undermine and destabilize Iran, on record since 2007, all hinged on the creation of a front of Western client-regimes across the Arab World. The US-engineered  "Arab Spring" has demonstrably created such a front, which in turn has demonstrably contributed to the goal of isolating, undermining, and violently overthrowing Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

For the Arab World, it should be clear that the "enemy of my enemy" is most certainly not "my friend," especially when that "enemy" is the result of an artificial strategy of tension created by those posing as "allies." Sunni Muslims share a common enemy not only with their Shi'ia neighbors, but with all peoples, races, and religions from Africa to Asia. That enemy is Anglo-American imperialism which has perpetuated itself for centuries by nothing else other than its ability to divide, destroy, and conquer nations pitted against nations, north versus south, one religion versus another, one tribe against another. This is how they subjugated huge swaths of Africa, Central and Southeast Asia, and this is exactly how they are now conquering the Arab World.