America Admittedly Behind ISIS "Surge"

May 25, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Taking advantage of a Syrian military stretched thin to protect everywhere at the same time, high concentrations of well-coordinated Al Qaeda forces, based in NATO-member Turkey as well as in US-allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have attacked across several fronts. The tactical and strategic gains are minimal compared to the initial stages of the West's proxy war against Syria beginning in 2011, but the Western media is intentionally fanning the flames of hysteria specifically to break both support for Syria from abroad, and fracture resistance from within.

This latest attempt to overwhelm the Syrian people, its government, and its armed forces comes with several shocking revelations. Previously, veteran award-winning journalists foretold the coming conflict in Syria, warning how the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were openly planning to use Al Qaeda as a proxy force to overthrow Syria first, then Iran and how it would unfold into a cataclysmic sectarian war. There were also signed and dated policy papers advocating the use of terrorism and the provocation of war to directly target Iran after Syria and Hezbollah had been sufficiently weakened.

However, now, there is a US Department of Defense (DoD) document confirming without doubt that the so-called "Syrian opposition" is Al Qaeda, including the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), and that the opposition's supporters - the West, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar - specifically sought to establish safe havens in Iraq and eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS is now based.

America is Behind ISIS 

Looking at maps recently produced by the Western media and Western policy think tanks, it can be seen clearly that Al Qaeda/ISIS is streaming out of NATO and US ally territory, forming up in these two safe havens, and aimed both at the Syrian government and Iran.

Despite the Western narrative of "moderate rebels," the West itself has been increasingly admitting that such "rebels" do not exist. They also admit that to establish "stability," they must begin openly working with "questionable actors."

Michael O'Hanlon, a signatory of the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" policy paper calling for terrorism and intentional provocations to overthrow the government of Iran, stated in a USA Today op-ed titled, "Michael O'Hanlon: American boots needed in Syria," that:

In the short term, this strategy requires an acceleration of our train and equip program for Syrian opposition fighters — including perhaps a bit less puritanical approach in who we are willing to work with. Most Syrian moderates are tired of waiting for us, or already dead given our delays in helping them. So we may have to tolerate working with some questionable actors to get things started.

Russia's Missile Wall in Iran

April 19, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The popular narrative surrounding the conflict between the West and Iran has always been one of a dangerous rogue state bent on obtaining nuclear weapons before triggering a nuclear-fueled Armageddon aimed at Israel. Underneath this elementary propaganda, lies a more complex truth underpinning a proxy conflict between East and West.

Just as had been the case during World War I and II, the strategic position, resources, and population of Iran constitute a necessary prerequisite to first overcome before containing and eventually overrunning the political order in Moscow. This time around, in addition to Moscow, the Western axis also seeks to eventually encircle and overrun Beijing as well.

Unlike during the World Wars, vast wars of attrition and mechanized invasions are not a possibility today. Instead, a concerted campaign of proxy wars, covert political subversion, sanctions, and other non-military instruments of power are being employed in what is for all intents and purposes a global conflict.

Increasingly defining the fronts of this conflict, in addition to political and economic alliances, is the presence of "missile walls," or national missile defense programs being erected by both East and West.

Where these missile walls end, is generally where the West's overt military aggression begins. In Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, where such missiles systems are absent, the West has or is bombing these nations with absolute impunity. The United Nations, in theory, should have prevented armed aggression against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, but has categorically failed to do so. In nations possessing formidable missile defenses, direct Western aggression has become more or less unthinkable, leaving less efficient proxy wars and political subversion to do the job.

The presence of missile defense systems capable of checking Western military aggression may be what is needed to establish both a balance of power globally, and the global stability the UN has promised but has so far failed to deliver.

Iran, the Last Watchtower 

In places like Iran where proxy wars cannot easily be waged, and foreign-backed political subversion has been checked, the West has for years planned military options to achieve regime change in Tehran. Encapsulated in the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report, these options include the use of diplomatic negotiations, particularly in regards to Iran's civil nuclear program, as a means to justify military strikes on Iran's nuclear research facilities. The strikes will surely not lead to regime change in and of themselves, but Western policymakers hope the attacks will provoke an Iranian retaliation the West could then use to expand military operations to include regime change.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad S-300s?

April 16, 2015 (Eric Draitser-NEO) - The executive order issued by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which lifts the ban on the export of weapons systems to Iran, has been met with sharp condemnation by Israel, and admonishment from the United States. While Moscow has yet to make a final decision on if/when it will begin supplying the S-300 air defense missiles to Iran – Tehran purchased the system under a 2007 contract left unfulfilled by Russia as a result of the UN-imposed arms embargo – it is clear that the possibility alone signals a significant shift in the geopolitics of the region.

On the one hand, Iranian air defenses would be significantly upgraded with an advanced weapons system such as S-300 which, though not exactly new, is still very much capable of defending the country’s airspace from any potential attack, be it Israeli or US. On the other hand, the possible delivery of the S-300s is a symbolic step towards integrating Iran into a broader non-NATO security architecture taking shape under the leadership of Russia and China.

While BRICS has come to be the watchword of multi-polarity, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a military-security-intelligence alliance, on top of being an economic and political forum for Sino-Russian relations. The possibility of Iran joining this alliance both through participation in SCO summits, and in practice through military and non-military contracts as well as other forms of cooperation, signals a watershed both for Iran, and the non-western world. Where, just a few years ago, the US and its allies could dictate the terms of relations between Iran and other states, today it simply cannot, nuclear deal or no nuclear deal. The S-300s are only the tip of the iceberg.

What This Means for Iran and the Region

First and foremost, Iran is going to have the opportunity to exist, at least to some extent, on an equal footing on the international stage. Though it is still unclear the specifics of the finalized agreement, including the odious sanctions regime and the extent to which it will actually be lifted, what is certain is that Iran will have much more leeway to pursue economic cooperation with potential partners internationally.

US-Israel Wage War on Iran in Syria

April 4, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The ongoing conflict in Syria has always been a proxy conflict aimed at  Iran, as well as nearby Russia, and more distant China. As far back as 2007, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh warned in his 9-page New Yorker report "The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," that a region-wide sectarian war was being engineered by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel - all of whom were working in concert even in 2007, to build the foundation of a sectarian militant army.

The report would cite various serving and former US officials who warned that the extremists the West was backing were "preparing for cataclysmic conflict."

In retrospect, considering the emergence of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), Hersh's warning has turned out to be prophetic. The destabilization of Syria and Lebanon were noted in particular as prerequisites for a coming war with Iran. Confirming this would be the lengthy policy treatise published by the Brookings Institution in 2009 titled, "Which Path to Persia?"

In it, it is openly discussed that regime change for the purpose of establishing regional hegemony is the only goal of the United States and its regional partners, with attempts to frame the conflict with Iran as an issue of "national security" and "global stability" serving as mere canards.

Throughout the document, US policymakers admit that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are merely one of several pretexts being used to foster political subversion from within and justify war from beyond Iran's borders.

More importantly, Brookings details explicitly how the US will wage war on Iran, through Israel, in order to maintain plausible deniability. It states specifically under a chapter titled, "Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike," that:

...the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives). 

Various diplomatic postures are discussed in consideration of the best formula to mitigate complicity amid a "unilateral" Israeli strike on Iran. Of course, and as the report notes, US-Israeli foreign policy is unified with Israel's defenses a product of vast and continuous US support. Anything Israel does, therefore, no matter the political or diplomatic facade constructed, it does with America's full backing - hence the inclusion of "encouraging" in the title of the chapter.

Today, an alleged "fallout" between the US and Israel has been grabbing headlines. Beyond the most superficial of political commentary, there have been no real manifestations of this "fallout." Israel is still receiving immense aid both military and political from the United States, and Israeli foreign policy is still one with Washington.

The purpose of the feigned "fallout" is to produce room between the US and Israel, so that possible upcoming "unilateral" actions taken by Israel can be disavowed by a "cold" US.

Pentagon Admits that Israel is a Nuclear Power

March 31, 2015 (Vladimir Platov - NEO) - In early February, the Pentagon declassified reports on Israel’s nuclear weapons program which was carried out until 1987. According to these documents, Israeli scientists were capable of producing a hydrogen bomb by that time. Although these facts were largely ignored by the Western media, some analysts have noticed that the declassification of these secret reports suspiciously coincided with the recent, rapidly deteriorating relationship between the US and Israel. As Tel Aviv started a massive campaign of criticism aimed at the Obama administration, both in the US media and worldwide, the Pentagon’s revelations were quick to follow. It is also noteworthy that only the facts on the Israeli nuclear weapons program were declassified, while information regarding similar activities of NATO allies (in particular Italy, France, and West Germany) remained locked up.

The 386 page report “Сritical technology assessment in Israel and Nato nations,” was prepared in 1987 by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) and examined the capabilities Israel had already had at that time to produce nuclear weapons. In particular, the study underlines the fact that Israel’s secret laboratories, engaged in the development of an atomic bomb, were on par with the key research nuclear arsenals of the US: Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

According to this report, by the mid-80s Israeli experts were at the same stage of research and development of various nuclear weapons the hydrogen bomb in particular, reached by American scientists between 1955-1960. IDA experts were courageous enough to recognize that in certain areas the Israelis have even surpassed their American colleagues of the time, in particular those working in the “Raphael” Israeli secret lab, who had managed to propose unconventional ways of achieving nuclear fission that would have allowed them to create their own version of the hydrogen bomb.

US-Saudi Blitz in Yemen: Naked Aggression, Absolute Desperation

March 27, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The "proxy war" model the US has been employing throughout the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and even in parts of Asia appears to have failed yet again, this time in the Persian Gulf state of Yemen.

Overcoming the US-Saudi backed regime in Yemen, and a coalition of sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda and its rebrand, the "Islamic State," pro-Iranian Yemeni Houthi militias have turned the tide against American "soft power" and has necessitated a more direct military intervention. While US military forces themselves are not involved allegedly, Saudi warplanes and a possible ground force are.

Though Saudi Arabia claims "10 countries" have joined its coalition to intervene in Yemen, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq hid behind a "coalition," it is overwhelmingly a Saudi operation with "coalition partners" added in a vain attempt to generate diplomatic legitimacy.

The New York Times, even in the title of its report, "Saudi Arabia Begins Air Assault in Yemen," seems not to notice these "10" other countries. It reports:

Saudi Arabia announced on Wednesday night that it had launched a military campaign in Yemen, the beginning of what a Saudi official said was an offensive to restore a Yemeni government that had collapsed after rebel forces took control of large swaths of the country.  

The air campaign began as the internal conflict in Yemen showed signs of degenerating into a proxy war between regional powers. The Saudi announcement came during a rare news conference in Washington by Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

Proxy War Against Iran 

Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in.

Global Threat? US Policymakers Admit Iran is Defending Itself

March 16, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US policymakers admit that Iran's strategy is "largely defensive," and both aggressive and defensive tendencies are largely in response to US policy in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The US-based RAND Corporation, which describes itself as "a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis," produced a report in 2009 for the US Air Force titled, "Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East," examining the structure and posture of Iran's military, including its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and weapons both present, and possible future, it seeks to secure its borders and interests with against external aggression.

The report admits that:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

Such a narrative stands in direct contradiction of daily propaganda emanating from Western media monopolies portraying Iran as a global threat to peace and stability, and in particular, "bent on" attacking the US and its allies, particularly Israel, for no other reason but fulfilling fanatical, ideological hatred.

The recent political theater centered around the US and Israel, portrays a US attempting to accommodate Iran versus an Israel fighting an existential battle against a determined aggressor. Behind the rhetoric, however, the RAND Corporation lays out the specific facts, revealing a reality quite to the contrary.

It reveals an embattled, besieged Iran seeking to stave off foreign encirclement, destabilization, and literal invasion. RAND openly notes that the conflict is not about "defending" Israel or preserving US national security, but instead, centered on America's attempts to project power into the Middle East - half a world away from its own shores, and Iran's attempts to resist foreign hegemony.

Obama-Netanyahu "Fallout" is Theater - Planned in 2009

US and Israel attempting to establish feigned "diplomatic row" to justify "unilateral" Israeli attack on Iran.

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost - up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution's policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retropspect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength - which according to Brookings - is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest - considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel - is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a "unilateral" Israeli first strike on Iran - an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves 

The Brookings Institution's 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible "peaceful" options before resorting to violent regime change.  The report states specifically that:

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Of course, Iran - as admitted to by Brookings themselves - is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely "superb offer." The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy - one for public consumption (making "superb offers") and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

The "Shape-Shifting Sheik" and the "Sydney Siege"

Suspect had multiple aliases, granted political asylum by Australian government, interviewed by Australian media, spent years as fake pro-Western "Shia'a cleric" condemning Iran and Syria before recently "converting" to Sunni and supporting ISIS. 

December 16, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Another embarrassing chapter has unfolded for Western intelligence and security communities in the wake of the so-called "Sydney Siege." The suspect named by the media as "Man Haron Monis" also has gone by the names "Manteghi Boroujerdi" and "Mohammad Hassan Manteghi" and was an individual now confirmed to have long been on the radar of the Australian government, media, law enforcement, and court system since his arrival on Australian shores almost two decades ago.

Image: Anti-Western ISIS Wahabi terrorist, pro-Western "liberal" Shia'a cleric, and secular common man. As with any long-time actor, the "Sydney Siege" suspect has been cast for many diverse roles, with many different names, and an extensive wardrobe. He had played both the hero and the villain. It is beyond bizarre that he has remained in the spotlight across Australia's political stage for nearly two-decades with a growing criminal record, increasingly disturbing and disruptive behavior, and yet somehow "eluded" Australia's indiscriminate and all-invasive  surveillance network and multiple terror sweeps made just in the past several months. It appears that this "shape-shifting sheik" played a central role in manipulating the Australian public at integral junctures of the West's "War on Terror." 

Claiming he was a "lone wolf" attacker whose violence and extremism could not have been foreseen is betrayed by an extensive criminal record including murder, preceded by the suspicious circumstances that brought him to Australia to begin with.

Two-Decades in the Spotlight 

He fled Iran in 1996 for unknown reasons, claiming in a 2001 Australian ABC interview that he was formerly of Iran's "Ministry of Intelligence and Security." He claimed in the same interview to have been in contact with the UN about "secret information" he had regarding the Iranian government.

US Destroying Syria’s Oil Infrastructure Under Guise of Fighting ISIS

November 1, 2014 (Maram Susli - NEO) - The US is considering bombing pipelines in Syria, which it claims is in an attempt to cut off the huge profits being made by ISIS from captured oilfields.

The Independent quotes Julieta Valls Noyes, the deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs during a visit to London, that ISIS was making $2 million a day off oil sales and that the US would consider airstrikes as well as “kinetic strikes against some pipelines" and "actual physical action to stop the flow”.

The trouble with this justification for destroying Syria’s oil pipelines, is that ISIS does not have the capability to use the pipelines to transfer oil. ISIS transports the stolen oil on the back of trucks, and sells it on the black market in Turkey. 

This is admitted in the same Independent article that quoted Ms. Noyes. 

The Independent claims:

Isis has sold some of the fuel from seized facilities back to the Damascus regime through local deals, while shipments had been sent into Turkey for the black market, with the Erdogan government accused of turning a blind eye to the illicit transactions. 

If the US truly intended to stop ISIS oil profits, they would bomb these oil convoys, which are easily spotted via conventional surveillance flights already allegedly taking place as part of ongoing Western operations. The US agenda behind destroying Syria’s pipelines has very little to do with ISIS oil profits, and far more to do with destroying Syria’s oil infrastructure.

In fact, the statistic that ISIS is making 2 million dollars a day from the sale of crude oil is an estimate from a single consulting company (IHS) based in Colorado in the United States. The US administration is choosing to quote this as if it were without a shred of doubt. It’s far more likely that the scale of the profits has been overblown to deflect from the fact that ISIS is receiving funding from state actors such as Turkey, Qatar and other Persian Gulf states, while at the same time providing an excuse to target Syrian infrastructure. 

US War on Iran Takes Bizarre Turn

Image: Logo of the terrorist MEK, backed for years by the
US as part of a covert war against Iran. Though greatly
diminished by joint Iraqi-Iranian security operations, the
terrorist organization still enjoys support from the highest
levels of Western government. 

October 19, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It is not merely hyperbole when it is said the US created terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the so-called "Islamic State." It is documented fact. The current conflict in the Middle East may appear to be a chaotic conflagration beyond the control of the United States and its many eager allies, but in reality it is the intentional, engineered creation of regional fronts in a war against Iran and its powerful arc of influence.

It is not Western policy that indirectly spurs the creation and perpetuation of terrorist organizations, but in fact, direct, intentional, unmistakable support.

This support would manifest itself in perhaps the most overt and bizarre declaration of allegiance to terrorism to date, US Army General Hugh Shelton on stage before terrorists of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and their Wahabist counterparts fighting in Syria, hysterically pledging American material, political, and strategic backing. MEK was listed for years by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, but has received funding, arms, and safe haven by the United States for almost as long.

General Hugh's speech titled, "Making Iranian mullahs fear, the MEK, come true," was most likely never meant to be seen or fully understood by Americans. In titled alone, it is clear that US foreign policy intends to use the tool of terrorism to exact concessions from Tehran. If the true nature of America's support for terrorist organizations like MEK were more widely known, the current narrative driving US intervention in Iraq and Syria would crumble.

Image: MEK is just one of many terrorist organizations, that despite being listed by the US State Department as such, still receives weapons, training, cash, and political support from the US government. This is a pattern seen repeated in Libya and most recently in Syria - each case spun and excused with a myriad of lies wrapped in false, constantly shifting narratives.

Iran and the Proxy War in Kurdistan

October 17, 2014 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - In the midst of the war against ISIS (Islamic State) now taking place in both Iraq and Syria, a possible shifting of alliances that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region is taking place, and no one seems to have noticed. Specifically, the burgeoning relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Northern Iraq has the potential to remake the political landscape of the Middle East. Naturally, such a development is part of a broader geopolitical gambit by Iran, and it will have significant ramifications for all regional actors. However, it is Turkey, the gulf monarchies, and Israel that potentially have the most to lose from such a development.

While Iran has long-standing disputes with elements of its own Kurdish minority, it has demonstrably taken the lead in aiding Iraqi Kurds in their war against extremist fighters loyal to ISIS. As Kurdish President Massud Barzani explained in late August, “The Islamic Republic of Iran was the first state to help us…and it provided us with weapons and equipment.” This fact alone, coupled with the plausible, though unconfirmed, allegations of Iranian military involvement on the ground in Kurdish Iraq, demonstrates clearly the high priority Tehran has placed on cooperation with Barzani’s government and the Kurdish people in the fight against the Saudi and Qatari-backed militants of ISIS. The question is, why? What is it that Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in this fight? Who stands to lose? And how could this change the region?

The Iran Equation

While many eyebrows have been raised at Iranian involvement on the side of the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, perhaps it should not come as a much of a surprise. Tehran has steadily been shoring up its relations with Erbil, both out of a genuine desire to form an alliance, and as a counter-measure against the ouster of their close ally and partner, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Since the US war on Iraq began in 2003, and especially after US troops left in 2011, Iran had positioned itself as a key, and in some ways dominant, actor in Iraq. Not only did it have significant influence with Maliki and his government, it also saw in Iraq an opportunity to break out of the isolation imposed upon it by the US, EU and Israel over its disputed nuclear program. For Iran, Iraq under Maliki was a bridge both physically (linking Iran with its allies in Syria and Southern Lebanon) and politically (serving as an intermediary with the West in negotiations). In addition, Maliki’s Iraq was to be the linchpin of a new economic strategy which included the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, a project which would have provided Iran overland access to the European energy market, thereby allowing the Islamic Republic to overtake Qatar as the region’s dominant gas exporter to Europe.

America's Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq

Image: ISIS clearly did not materialize spontaneously within Iraq, it has
clearly redeployed from its NATO-sponsored destruction of Syria to
northern Iraq, perhaps in an attempt to justify a NATO incursion and the
creation of a buffer zone straddling Syrian, Iraqi, and even possibly
Iranian territory with the goal of targeting Iran directly with ISIS.  

June 13, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Heavily armed, well funded, and organized as a professional, standing army, the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) swept southward into Iraq from Turkey and northeastern Syria, taking the cities of Mosul and Tikrit, and now threaten the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad itself. The United States was sure to prop up two unfounded narratives - the first being that US intelligence agencies, despite assets in Iraq and above it in the form of surveillance drones, failed to give warning of the invasion, and that ISIS is some sort of self-sustaining terror organization carving out a "state" by "robbing banks" and collecting "donations" on Twitter.

The Wall Street Journal in its report, "Iraqi Drama Catches U.S. Off Guard," stated:

The quickly unfolding drama prompted a White House meeting Wednesday of top policy makers and military leaders who were caught off guard by the swift collapse of Iraqi security forces, officials acknowledged.

In another WSJ post, "U.S. Secretly Flying Drones Over Iraq," it claimed:

A senior U.S. official said the intelligence collected under the small [secret US drone] program was shared with Iraqi forces, but added: "It's not like it did any good." The rapid territorial gains by the Islamist forces loyal to Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, caught the U.S. by surprise, the officials said.

Image: ISIS has convoys of brand new matching Toyota's the same
vehicles seen among admittedly NATO-armed terrorists operating
everywhere from Libya to Syria, and now Iraq. It is a synthetic, state-
sponsored regional mercenary expeditionary force.

Despite drone flights collecting intelligence, and a 3-year ongoing CIA program (here, here, and here) all along the Turkish-Syrian border to "monitor" and "arm" "moderate" militants fighting the Syrian government, the US claims it was caught "by surprise." If drones and CIA operatives operating in ISIS territory weren't enough to detect the impending invasion, perhaps the CIA should have just picked up a newspaper.

Indeed, the Lebanon Daily Start in March 2014 reported that ISIS openly withdrew its forces from Latakia and Idlib provinces in western Syria, and redeployed them in Syria's east - along the Syrian-Iraqi border. The article titled, "Al-Qaeda splinter group in Syria leaves two provinces: activists," stated explicitly that:

On Friday, ISIS – which alienated many rebels by seizing territory and killing rival commanders – finished withdrawing from the Idlib and Latakia provinces and moved its forces toward the eastern Raqqa province and the eastern outskirts of the northern city of Aleppo, activists said.

The question remains, if a Lebanese newspaper knew ISIS was on the move eastward, why didn't the CIA? The obvious answer is the CIA did know, and is simply feigning ignorance at the expense of their reputation to bait its enemies into suspecting the agency of  incompetency rather than complicity in the horrific terroristic swath ISIS is now carving through northern Iraq.

NATO's Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for Syria Invasion

June 12, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - All roads lead to Baghdad and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is following them all, north from Syria and Turkey to south. Reading Western headlines, two fact-deficient narratives have begun gaining traction. The first is that this constitutes a "failure" of US policy in the Middle East, an alibi as to how the US and its NATO partners should in no way be seen as complicit in the current coordinated, massive, immensely funded and heavily armed terror blitzkrieg toward Baghdad. The second is how ISIS appears to have "sprung" from the sand dunes and date trees as a nearly professional military traveling in convoys of matching Toyota trucks without explanation.

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran's arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey's (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover.  The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

In March, ISIS withdrew its terror battalions from Latikia and Idlib provinces and repositioned them in the east of Syria, now clearly in preparations for invading northern Iraq. The Daily Star reported in a March 2014 article titled, "Al-Qaeda splinter group in Syria leaves two provinces: activists," that:

On Friday, ISIS - which alienated many rebels by seizing territory and killing rival commanders - finished withdrawing from the Idlib and Latakia provinces and moved its forces toward the eastern Raqqa province and the eastern outskirts of the northern city of Aleppo, activists said.  

The alleged territorial holdings of ISIS cross over both Syrian and Iraqi borders meaning that any campaign to eradicate them from Iraqi territory can easily spill over into Syria's borders. And that is exactly the point. With ISIS having ravaged Mosul, Iraq near the Turkish border and moving south in a terror blitzkrieg now threatening the Iraqi capital of Baghdad itself, the Iraqi government is allegedly considering calling for US and/or NATO assistance to break the terror wave. Adding to the pretext, ISIS, defying any sound tactical or strategic thinking, has seized a Turkish consulate in Mosul, taking over 80 Turkish hostages - serendipitous giving Turkey not only a new pretext to invade northern Iraq as it has done many times in pursuit of alleged Kurdish militants, but to invade Syrian territory where ISIS is also based.

Turkey Has Already Attempted to Use Al Qaeda False Flag Attacks to Justify Invading Syria 

Iran: A Diplomatic Threat?

Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.com appears on Press TV to discuss the absurd accusation of Iran being in league with Al Qaeda.  Draitser explains that such a narrative is rooted in a deeply held fear that Iran’s foreign policy presents an obstacle to US hegemony in the region.  He draws the connection between US policy in Syria, and the similarity of these most recent accusations with similar lies spouted by the Bush Administration.

Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough"

November 26, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - "...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.

Which Path to Persia? .pdf
....

Written years ago, as the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were already plotting to overrun Iran's neighbor and ally Syria with Al Qaeda to weaken the Islamic Republic before inevitable war, this quote exposes fully the current charade that is the "Iran nuclear deal."

The West has no intention of striking any lasting deal with Iran, as nuclear capabilities, even the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran was never truly an existential threat to Western nations or their regional partners. The West's issue with Iran is its sovereignty and its ability to project its interests into spheres traditionally monopolized by the US and UK across the Middle East. Unless Iran plans on turning over its sovereignty and regional influence along with its right to develop and use nuclear technology, betrayal of any "nuclear deal" is all but inevitable, as is the war that is to shortly follow. 

Exposing the duplicity that accompanies Western "efforts" to strike a deal will severely undermine their attempt to then use the deal as leverage to justify military operations against Iran. For Iran and its allies, they must be prepared for war, more so when the West feigns interest in peace. Libya serves as a perfect example of the fate that awaits nations reproached by the West who let down their guard - it literally is a matter of life and death both for leaders, and for nations as a whole. 

Continuity of Agenda: Syria Catastrophe Engineered Under Bush, Executed Verbatim Under Obama

The rise of Al Qaeda in Syria and the predictable bloodbath that followed is the documented work of US, Israel, & Saudi Arabia.

September 13, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - Tens of thousands of deaths, devastated cities, and the scattering of terrified Syrian minorities add up to a catastrophe that has unfolded in Syria over the last 2 years. International organizations including the UN call it the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century, and despite this, have put little effort into tracking down the actual genesis of the conflict, the key players perpetuating the violence, and in prescribing the obvious solutions to this conflict. With a recent initiative by Russia and Syria blunting the West's pro-war drive, Western propagandists have attempted to reassert their crumbling narrative regarding the conflict, past, present, and future.

The Genesis of Syria's Conflict

We are told by Western politicians and Western media houses that the conflict in Syria began with a spontaneous "peaceful," "pro-democracy" uprising influenced by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. We are told that these peaceful protests were brutally crushed by the Syrian government and resulted in the militarization of the so-called "opposition."

This is a verified lie.

In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that [emphasis added]: 

"US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years [starting in 2009] to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments."The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect." 

Not only were the protests in Syria planned, funded, and directed by the US State Department, years before the so-called "Arab Spring" began, but so were the alleged protests that "triggered" events in Syria - namely similarly engineered protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and the violent US-led subversion carried out in Libya.

What's more disturbing is that the US-engineered "protests" were not designed to overthrow targeted governments, but instead to serve as a smokescreen for similarly pre-planned armed subversion. As early as 2007, under then President George Bush, the arming, funding, and otherwise supporting of sectarian extremists across the Middle East to undermine Lebanon, Syria, and Iran was put into motion.

Story of Iran "Rape Threat" Written by Neo-Con Cartoon Character "Reza Kahlili"

September 9, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - "Reza Kahlili" is not his real name. Appearing either masked or silhouetted, "Reza Kahlili" is a reoccurring character in the US Neo-Con's long-running pro-war, anti-Iranian propaganda campaign, stretching all the way back to the Bush administration. His biography, as stated on Neo-Con warmonger Joseph Farah's "World Net Daily" (WND), is as follows:

Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book "A Time to Betray," served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East.

The FDI of course, is a US National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-funded consortium of Neo-Cons and Iranian accomplices who have played an instrumental role in the selling, execution and perpetuation of America's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and its current covert involvement in subverting Syria and Iran. Included upon the FDI's advisory board are notorious Neo-Cons Frank Gaffney and James Woolsey, who along with Reza Kahlili, participated in the war propaganda film "Iranium," indisputably as absurd as it is insulting to one's intelligence.

Video: An except from the cartoonish Neo-Con war propaganda film, "Iranium." Here we have WND contributor, and CIA agent "Reza Kahlili" inadvertently explaining to us why we should never believe a word he says. Despite this cartoonish facade, Western media outlets have repeated his latest, baseless claims that "Iran" has threatened to "rape" Obama's daughter, in perhaps the most bizarre and disturbing ploy yet to sell war with Syria and in turn, Iran.

....

Considering the background of "Reza Kahlili," whose real identity is unknown and who is a documented propagandist serving the interests of documented liars, it would seem appropriate to dismiss out of hand any claims he makes unless credible evidence was provided, and still, independent verification would be needed.

Yet the Western media, eager to sell war with Syria, and in turn, Iran, have repeated recent allegations made by "Kahlili" regarding a threat against US President Barack Obama's daughter (Sasha) made by a supposed "former Iranian official" named "Alireza Forghani." "Kahlili" claims in a Daily Caller article titled, "Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria," that: 

Forghani warned, “We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha.” The statement is written in both English and Farsi, but in the Farsi version, Forghani clearly stated that Sasha will be raped by someone who has been able to get close to the Obama family.

Of course, "Kahlili" is unable to make any credible connection between this bizarre statement from this alleged individual and any element of the actual Iranian government - akin to a foreign propagandist attributing the ravings of a foul-mouthed racist backwater former-sheriff to the official position of the White House.

Whether Alireza Forghani exists or not, or made these statements is irrelevant. They are not the official position of the Iranian government, as "Kahlili" attempts to disingenuously portray, and rather yet another elementary attempt to manipulate a public "Kahlili" and his Neo-Con collaborators must assume are infinitely ignorant.

However, knowing "Reza Kahlili's" background, and examining closely his latest piece of pro-war, anti-Iranian propaganda, we can expose this ploy along with the disingenuous media outlets that played a part in disseminating it to the public, including Glenn Beck's "The Blaze," Joseph Farah's "WND," and the David Horowitz "Freedom Center" Islamophobia nexus, Frontpage Magazine.

As a general rule, the more outrageous the claim, the more effort that should be put into finding out who is making the claim and why. Simple investigative work into the sources behind the "Iranian rape threat" would reveal a troupe of practiced liars and propagandists at work doing what they do best - lying to manipulate a hopefully unwitting public.

Why Drag Iran Into the Fray?

"Reza Kahlili's" mission was to drag Iran into the debate surrounding the looming US attack on Syria. As far back as 2007, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker piece "The Redirection," Neo-Cons within the Bush administration were engineering the very sectarian bloodbath now unfolding in Syria amidst which the US now plans on "intervening." The purpose of embroiling Syria in a destructive and protracted internal conflict was to weaken it, and deprive neighboring Iran of an ally. The goal is to eventually move on Iran once it is sufficiently isolated.

The report states specifically:  

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Framing Iran as an irrational, belligerent, and savage enemy, seeking to "rape" the US President's daughter, primes the stage for false flag attacks and the rhetorical justification for widening current plans for Syria to include Iran as well. 

US-Canada Claim Iran-Al Qaeda Ties Despite US Funding Al Qaeda in Iran for Years

April 23, 2013 (LD) - As the FBI reels from what now appears to be revelations it was directly involved in the Boston Marathon bombings, a deluge of FBI "success" stories have been "serendipitously" splashed across Western headlines. Among them was an allegedly "foiled" terror attack in Canada, reported to be the work of terrorists supported by "Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran." The Globe and Mail, in its report, "Canada joins U.S. in alleging al-Qaeda has operatives based in Iran," states:

"To many, it came as a surprise that the RCMP is alleging that two terror suspects arrested in Canada on Monday were supported by al-Qaeda operatives in Iran.

The Sunni-based al-Qaeda and Shia Iran belong to different branches of Islam that have been at odds historically. But in recent years U.S. officials have formally alleged that Iran has allowed al-Qaeda members to operate out of its territory."

Both at face value and upon deeper examination, this assertion is utterly absurd, divorced from reality, and indicative of the absolute contempt within which the Western establishment holds the global public. In reality, the West, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in particular, have propped up and perpetuated Al Qaeda for the very purpose of either undermining or overthrowing the governments of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, Libya,  Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and beyond.

Regarding Iran in particular, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker piece titled, "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" would state:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

In a follow up, Hersh in his 2008 New Yorker piece titled, "Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran," spelled out a damning indictment of US involvement in bolstering, arming, and funding terror organizations, not linked to, but described as actually being Al Qaeda.

Syria's Internet Outage & the Future of Information Warfare

December 1, 2012 (LD) - It's not that Syria's government didn't prepare for war. They perhaps, simply prepared for the wrong kind of war.

This week when sweeping outages in Syria's communication networks were reported, the Western media immediately accused the Syrian government of being behind the move. However, it should be noted that NATO-backed terrorists operating inside of Syria have been openly given advanced communication equipment (also here and here) by Western nations, including the United States, allowing militants to create their own, independent communication networks. This includes radio, satellite, and cell networks, as well as the under-reported existence of "suitcase Internets" (also here and here).

The reason a communications blackout in Syria would not effect NATO's primary proxy forces is because any node or bottleneck in Syria controlled by the government has already long since been circumvented, either through independent networks, or satellite links.

Image: New York Times depicts what is called a "mesh network," or an independent internet that uses computers and phones not only as interfaces, but as actual nodes to create the network Imagine in this case, that the "country border" is that of Turkey and Syria. Such networks can be set up virtually anywhere, and the development of methods and software to do so have been the subject of US State Department funding and implementation.

....

The New York Times in their article, "U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors," stated in June, 2011 that:

The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks.

The effort includes secretive projects to create independent cellphone networks inside foreign countries, as well as one operation out of a spy novel in a fifth-floor shop on L Street in Washington, where a group of young entrepreneurs who look as if they could be in a garage band are fitting deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a prototype “Internet in a suitcase.”

Therefore, the Syrian government would gain very little by shutting off the Internet to neutralize networks working entirely independent of infrastructure within state control. Conversely, if NATO has shut the Internet off at nodes leading into Syria, as appears to be the case, NATO and their proxies operating inside of Syria can begin spreading false information, uncontested, via radio, SMS, and even ad hoc WiFi networks.

With NATO's proxies possessing their own communication networks, their own ability to co-opt and control signals in and near their areas of operation, in particular along the borders where NATO forces themselves are directly involved in disrupting and controlling communications, according to Reuters, a disruption in Syria's communication networks would only serve to blind, hinder, and disrupt the government and the vast majority of Syria's civilians.