US Vows to "Overthrow" Iran as Terrorists Target Iranians

September 24, 2018  (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A terrorist attack on a military parade targeting civilians and military personnel alike left at least 29 dead and up to 70 more wounded in Iran's southwest region of Ahvaz. 

At the same time, in New York City, US political figures including US President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudolph Giuliani attended and expressed open support for "revolution" in Iran at the 2018 Iran Uprising Summit organized by Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). 

MEK is a terrorist organization that has previously killed US service members and civilian contractors, but was removed from the US State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in order for the US to more openly and directly support the terrorist front's efforts to destabilize and overthrow the Iranian government. 

West Refuses to Call Ahvaz Attackers Terrorists 

The Iranian government has blamed the Al Ahvaziya terror organization for the September 22 attack.

According to the BBC, Al Ahvaziya has also taken credit for the attack - yet the BBC - along with other media fronts across the West as well as Western governments - has refused to characterize Al Ahvaziya as a terrorist organization and instead depicted it as an "anti-government Arab group."

The BBC's article, "Iran blames Gulf foes for deadly Ahvaz attack," would claim: 

A spokesman for the Ahvaz National Resistance, an umbrella group that claims to defend the rights of the Arab minority in Khuzestan, said the group was behind the attack.

Yet the same BBC in 2006 after a similar attack in Ahvaz, Iran would clearly characterize the group's activities as terrorism and would even quote the UK Foreign Office who condemned the attack as terrorism while denying accusations the British government had been covertly backing the terrorists.

The BBC in its 2006 article titled, "Iran accuses UK of bombing link," would claim:

A UK Foreign Office spokesman in London has denied the accusation, saying Britain condemned terrorism. 

"Any linkage between HMG (Her Majesty's Government) and these terrorist attacks is completely without foundation," said the official. 

The failure of the US and British governments to now wholly condemn the recent Ahvaz attack as an act of terrorism carried out by what is undeniably a terrorist organization, alone raises suspicions. However, US policy papers have revealed a long-term open conspiracy to back armed militancy in Iran, just as the US, UK, and their allies have been exposed currently doing in nearby Syria as well as Libya in 2011.

US-backed Iranian "Revolutionaries" are Terrorists - Says US  

As Iran grieved in the wake of the Ahvaz attack, US politicians hosted MEK terrorists in New York, vowing to overthrow the Iranian government. 

Reuters in their article, "Trump lawyer Giuliani says Iran's government will be overthrown," would report:

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said that U.S. sanctions on Iran are leading to economic pain that could lead to a “successful revolution” contrasting with administration comments that government change in Tehran is not U.S. policy.

“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them,” said Giuliani, who spoke in his own capacity though he is a Trump ally, at an Iran Uprising Summit held by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, which opposes Tehran’s government.

Reuters would intentionally avoid naming the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and MEK as the event's organizers - and would even crop a photo for their article of Giuliani speaking to hide the NCRI's logo.

While defenders of US support for MEK claim the group has reformed itself, US policy papers reveal that MEK was delisted specifically so the US could more openly use the group to carry out armed subversion against the Iranian government on Washington's behalf.

Syrian-Russian Victory Only Way to Avenge Israeli-French Strikes

September 19, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Western and Russian media sources have reported an alleged joint Israeli-French strike on Syria on September 17. The attack included Israeli warplanes and French missile frigates operating in the Mediterranean off Syria's coast. Amid the attack, a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft with 14 service members aboard disappeared.

The attack immediately prompted commentators, analysts, and pundits to call for an immediate retaliation to the unprovoked military aggression, warning that a failure to react would leave Russia looking weak. Some commentators even called for Russian President Vladimir Putin to step down.

Not the First Provocation 

Yet the attack is reminiscent of the 2015 Turkish downing of a Russian warplane - after which similar calls for retaliation were made, coupled with similar condemnations of Russia as "weak." And since 2015, Russia's patient and methodical approach to aiding Syria in its proxy war with the US-NATO-GCC and Israel has nonetheless paid off huge dividends.

Russia would later aid Syria in retaking the northern city of Aleppo. Palmyra would be retaken from the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) -  Homs, Hama, Eastern Ghouta, and the southern city of Daraa would also be retaken - leaving virtually everything west of the Euphrates River under the control of Damascus.

In fact, the near precipice of total victory was achieved by Russia and its allies ignoring serial provocations carried out by the US-NATO-GCC and Israel, and simply focusing on the task of systematically restoring security and stability to the conflict-ridden nation.

Russian-backed Syrian forces are now staged at the edge of Idlib. So far tilted has the balance of power tipped in Damascus' favor that even Turkey has found itself seeking negotiations with Russia over the last remaining territory still held by the West's proxy forces.

The Reality of Western Provocations

Syria and its allies were winning the proxy war for the nation's future before Israel and France attacked, and they are still winning the proxy war in the aftermath of the joint strike. Syria has weathered hundreds of such attacks - big and small - throughout the past 7 years.

Israeli warplanes have been operating at a distance, using standoff weapons. French missiles launched from frigates also constitute a standoff strategy, avoiding the risk of overflying Syrian territory and being targeted or shot down by Syrian air defenses.

Modern warfare doctrine admits that no war can be won with air power alone. This means that a nation flying sorties over a targeted nation cannot achieve victory without ground forces coordinating with air power from below. If air power alone over a nation makes it impossible to achieve victory, standoff air power makes victory even more futile.

But there is another possible motive behind the West's serial attacks. Modern electronic warfare includes the detection and countering of air defense systems. Each time an air defense system is activated, its position and characteristics can be ascertained. Even if air defense systems are mobile, the information they provide during a provocation while attempting to detect and fire at targets is invaluable to military planning.

Should Russia engage its most sophisticated air defense systems during provocations, affording the West a complete picture of both its technology in general and the disposition of its defenses in Syria specifically, should the West decide to launch a knock-out blow through a full-scale air assault, it could do so much more effectively.

This is precisely what the US did in 1990 during Operation Desert Storm when taking on Iraq's formidable air defenses. The initial air campaign was preceded by the use of some 40 BQM-74C target drones used to trick Iraqi air defenses into turning on their equipment which was being monitored by US electronic warfare aircraft flying along the Iraqi-Saudi border. It was the disclosure of the disposition and characteristics of Iraq's anti-aircraft systems more than any sort of "stealth" technology that allowed the US to then overwhelm Iraqi air defenses.

Considering that hundreds of provocations have been launched against Syria, we can assume that somewhere among them, serious attempts at electronic surveillance and reconnaissance have taken place. We can also assume that competent Russian military leadership has been aware of this and has taken measures to safeguard the disposition and capabilities of its premier air defense systems until it is absolutely essential to reveal them.

The Best Revenge Will Be Victory Over NATO 

Downed Syrian and Russian aircraft, or casualties inflicted upon Syrian forces and their allies on the battlefield are difficult as human beings to watch without stirring desires for immediate revenge. Yet it must be kept in mind that immediate revenge rarely serves well long-term strategies toward victory.

Idlib: Al Qaeda's Last Stand

September 7, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States has raised tensions further amid Syria's ongoing conflict. It has issued a threat in the form of a "warning" against Damascus against retaking the northern region of Idlib. More specifically, the US has accused Damascus of preparing chemical weapon attacks as part of its alleged strategy to retake the territory.

No evidence has been provided by the US to substantiate these accusations - and it is clear that the warning was actually a threat implicating a planned, staged provocation likely to be followed by US military aggression.

Idlib: Al Qaeda's Syrian Capital 

The northern city of Idlib has become the defacto capital for Al Qaeda in Syria.

It is home to Al Qaeda affiliates, partners, and allies including Tahrir al-Sham - formally Jabhat Al Nusra, a US State Department-listed Foreign Terrorist Organization, Nour al-Din al-Zenki - a US-armed and backed military front notorious for its many war atrocities involving torture and executions including the beheading of a child, and Ahrar al-Sham which has repeatedly cooperated with the self-proclaimed "Islamic State in Syria and Iraq" (ISIS).

The nature of the militants occupying Idlib is well known to Washington, London, Brussels, and the Persian Gulf nations sponsoring them. It is because of this knowledge that the West's media monopolies work feverishly to cover up, deny, defend, or even excuse their atrocities.

When Idlib-based terrorist front Nour al-Din al-Zenki beheaded a child, the BBC disgracefully attempted to defend the atrocity by suggesting the boy was a "fighter," and attempting to dispute his age, claiming:

...he appears to be as young as 10, although other reports suggest he is considerably older.

The BBC appears indifferent to the fact that if the victim had been a fighter and was over the age of 18, Nour al-Din al-Zenki would still be guilty of an egregious war crime.

BBC's defense of war atrocities committed by terrorist organizations occupying Syrian territory is the rule, not the exception - not just for British state broadcaster BBC, but the Western media as a whole. From the beginning of the 2011 conflict, the BBC and others have played a direct role in covering up the terrorist affiliations of fighters attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.

Terrorist Central - A Collaborative Western Project 

Idlib remains one of the last remaining strongholds of Al Qaeda in Syria specifically because of its proximity to the Turkish border - Turkey being a NATO member who has provided years of financial, political, and military support to militants operating in Syria.

Syria: Bolton's 'Damascus Chemical Weapons Plot' Lacks Motive, Credibility

August 29, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US National Security Adviser John Bolton - a tireless proponent of US-led war around the globe - has recently claimed the Syrian government is preparing to use chemical weapons to retake territory held by militants in northern Syria. In response, the US has already threatened to carry out military strikes against Syria. 

Bloomberg in its article titled, "U.S. Warns Russia It Will Hit Assad If He Uses Chemical Arms, Sources Say," claims: 

Tensions between the nuclear powers flared after National Security Adviser John Bolton told his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, that the U.S. has information Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may be preparing to use chemical weapons to recapture the northwestern province of Idlib from rebels.

The article also claimed:  

In April 2017, and again a year later, the U.S. carried out limited airstrikes on Syrian targets as punishment for what it said was the use of chemical weapons. Bolton said any U.S. action will be stronger this time, the people familiar with the talks said.

However, not only has the US failed categorically to produce the evidence it claimed to possess regarding previous alleged chemical weapon attacks blamed on Damascus, it has also failed to provide any logical motive to explain why Damascus would carry out such attacks. 

The Syrian military along with its Russian, Iranian, and Lebanese allies have retaken large swaths of occupied Syrian territory from Western-backed terrorists through the use of conventional weapons, including precision strike capabilities provided by Russian military aviation. 

Alleged chemical weapon attacks have been on such small scales as to have no tactical or strategic value to Damascus, but demonstrable political value to the United States, its regional partners, and the militants it has been arming and backing since the 2011 conflict began.

Chemical Weapon Attacks: Cui Bono? 

The US media and its corporate sponsors have repeatedly attempted to explain the rationale behind Damascus' alleged use of chemical weapons. This struggling narrative is best summed up by Atlantic Council "expert" Aaron Stein and US Army Reserve officer Luke O'Brien in their coauthored article titled,  "The Military Logic Behind Assad's Use of Chemical Weapons."

The article claims that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative for struggling regimes fighting wars "on the cheap." The article proposes that chemical weapons are ideal for terrorizing the population and to target "buried facilities" that a lack of precision munitions have left otherwise invulnerable.

The article claims: 

 Chemical weapons have proved to be more psychologically damaging to populations than conventional munitions, and are thus well-suited to the regime’s strategy of mass punishment.

Yet the article can only cite 4 instances in which the Syrian government allegedly even used chemical weapons in the past 5 years. There have literally been more total cities the Syrian military has had to retake from foreign-sponsored militants than even the most liberal number of alleged chemical weapon attacks blamed on Damascus.

Stretching the credibility of this narrative further, the article assigns another impetus to Damascus' alleged use of chemical weapons, claiming:

For Assad, chemical weapons also compensate for the limitations of his army’s older, less sophisticated weapons. While the use of precision-guided munitions has grown in militaries around the world, they are still a comparatively small part of most countries’ arsenals, limited to anti-tank roles or against naval targets. As a result, most states are forced to use unguided munitions instead. Many targets, if sufficiently protected, can weather most unguided attacks by sheltering in structures, tunnels, or fighting positions.

The article claims that chemical weapons can seep into these heavily defended positions "with relative ease." However - again - the article itself can only cite 4 instances where Damascus allegedly used chemical weapons in the past 5 years. Syrian forces have obviously encountered well-fortified militant positions more than 4 times in the past 5 years - having retaken buildings, blocks, districts, and even entire cities through the use of conventional weapons and military tactics. 

US-Saudis Enlist Al Qaeda For Yemen War

August 22, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Associated Press has revealed that the US-backed, Saudi-led war against Yemen includes the use of Al Qaeda as a mercenary force against Houthi rebels.

This confirms as fact what was widely dismissed by Western politicians and a complicit Western media as a "conspiracy theory" since 2011.

Evidence that the US and its allies enlisted Al Qaeda and other extremist groups to wage serial proxy wars across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), from Libya and Syria to Yemen, has piled up into a mountain emerging high above the fog of disinformation behind which these wars had been fought.

The AP article titled, "AP Investigation: US allies, al-Qaida battle rebels in Yemen," would report (emphasis added):

Again and again over the past two years, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States has claimed it won decisive victories that drove al-Qaida militants from their strongholds across Yemen and shattered their ability to attack the West. 

Here’s what the victors did not disclose: many of their conquests came without firing a shot.

That’s because the coalition cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash, an investigation by The Associated Press has found. Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself.

AP would also link the Muslim Brotherhood directly to Al Qaeda militants, stating:

In some places, militants join battles independently. But in many cases, militia commanders from the ultraconservative Salafi sect and the Muslim Brotherhood bring them directly into their ranks, where they benefit from coalition funding, the AP found.

This is further evidence exposing the Muslim Brotherhood's role in preparing the grounds for the US-engineered 2011 "Arab Spring" uprisings and the planned violence that accompanied them.

Of course, while Western leaders and the media attempted to deny complicity in the dominant role Al Qaeda played in conflicts across MENA for years, a look at any conflict map - be it in regards to Syria or Yemen - reveals that pockets of extremists operating in both nations are adjacent to US-Saudi-controlled supply lines and US-Saudi controlled territory - not because the US or Saudi Arabia are fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates - but because they are protecting and using these extremists to fight their various regional wars on their behalf.

As to why the US and Saudi Arabia might be aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, AP would quote Michael Horton of the Jamestown Foundation. AP would report:

“Elements of the U.S. military are clearly aware that much of what the U.S. is doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that,” said Michael Horton, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a U.S. analysis group that tracks terrorism.

“However, supporting the UAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against what the U.S. views as Iranian expansionism takes priority over battling AQAP and even stabilizing Yemen,” Horton said.

However, the US has failed to make a case as to what threat Iran constitutes that is equal or greater to the threat posed by Al Qaeda. It was supposedly Al Qaeda, not Iran that hijacked airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in 2001 - tipping off a now nearly two decade-long "War on Terror." In fact - Iran has invested blood and treasure in fighting and defeating Al Qaeda and its proxies, including the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" in both Syria and Iraq - contributing directly to both terrorist organizations' defeat.

It would appear that if Iran is involved in Yemen, it is also clearly fighting against Al Qaeda there as well.

Will Turkey Back or Break Militants in Northern Syria?

August 20, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Syria once again finds itself at another critical juncture. Having secured virtually all territory in the nation's southwest, Damascus' attention is now fixated on Idlib in the north.

Reuters has recently reported on a so-called "National Army" based in northern Syria that appears poised to confront Syrian efforts to restore peace and security nationwide.

In an article titled, "Syrian rebels build an army with Turkish help, face challenges," Reuters would claim:

A “National Army” being set up by Syrian rebels with Turkey’s help could become a long-term obstacle to President Bashar al-Assad’s recovery of the northwest...

Reuters would also report:

The National Army compromises some 35,000 fighters from some of the biggest factions in the war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and forced some 11 million people from their homes over the last seven years.

And:

Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, has vowed to recover “every inch” of Syria, and though he has now won back most of the country, the Turkish presence will complicate any government offensive in the northwest.

The idea of having NATO military forces on the ground in Syria, providing protection for Western-backed militants in safe-havens has been stated US policy since the beginning of the Syrian conflict.

Seeking Safe-Havens Since 2012

The Brookings Institution - a US-based corporate-financier funded policy think tank - in its March 2012 "Middle East Memo #21" titled, "Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" (PDF), stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

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.   

The document would also state in regards to a NATO invasion of Syria that:

Turkey would have to be willing to provide the logistical base and much of the ground troops for the operation. Turkey is best placed of any country to intervene in Syria: it has a large, reasonably capable military; it has vital interests in Syria; and its interest is in seeing peace and democratic transition. 

While Brookings policymakers noted Turkey's hesitation to do this in 2012 due to fears that Syrian Kurds might be used in some form of retaliation, the dynamics have since shifted due to Turkey's incremental occupation of northern Syria and Washington's minding of Kurds east of the Euphrates River.

Building a Better Proxy Army

Another more recent Brookings paper titled, "Building a Better Syrian Opposition Army" (PDF), published in 2014 would designated both Jordan and Turkey as potential bases from which to train and deploy a US backed "Syrian opposition army."

The plan included the seizure of a significant swath of Syrian territory after which the US could recognize the militants as the "new provisional Syrian government," then lend them more direct military, political, and economic support. In northern Syria, particularly around the city of Idlib, a slow-motion version of this plan has been unfolding for years, under the protection of the Turkish military.

Of course, both Brookings papers were written before Russia intervened directly in the Syrian conflict in 2015. Iran also has a sizable presence in Syria. Militant-held territory has been retaken all the way up to the Syrian-Jordanian border and Syrian forces are reportedly mobilizing for operations against Idlib itself.

Ankara and Washington also appear to be at odds, while at the same time, Ankara has been making overtures toward Moscow and Tehran. Of course, all of this could be geopolitical theater. It is not unprecedented for nations - particularly those aligned to the US - to feign a shift in policy only to backtrack and double down. Turkey is heavily dependent on Europe in particular economically and the vector sum of its foreign policy still appears to favor Western interests.

Turkey Created and Backed Terrorists. Turkey is Still Harboring Terrorists 

Turkey still finds itself overseeing a nearly verbatim execution of stated US foreign policy in northern Syria. The militant groups it has consolidated and harbored under its protection have been refitting and rearming - many of them having been flushed out from across Syria as Damascus and its allies retake the country. These are groups that have rejected peace deals and have rejected offers to join Syrian forces in the fight against extremists still holding out across the country.

In many cases, these militants come from groups either fighting under Al Qaeda's banner, or alongside it. 

Turkey still finds itself overseeing one of the last bastions of anti-government militancy in Syria - the other being US-occupied eastern Syria.

Only Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran's intelligence services can know for sure what Ankara's intentions are, what its true disposition is in northern Syria, and what if anything Turkish forces can or will do if Syrian forces begin retaking Idlib.

For Damascus and its allies, promises and good will from Ankara must be coupled with realist provisions to ensure good will is the only good option Ankara has to choose from.

Ultimately, one of the last showdowns in Syria's long-fought war to foil Western-sponsored terrorism and subversion will be in territory Turkey has harbored US-backed anti-government militants in. Only time will tell if these militants are incrementally disbanded and Turkish forces withdraw thus bringing this conflict one step closer to an end, or a dangerous standoff with Turkey - mirroring Israel's illegal occupation of Syria's Golan Heights - begins.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.    

America's War on Yemen Exposed

August 14, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - As atrocities and scandal begin to mount regarding the US-backed Saudi-led war on the impoverished nation of Yemen, the involvement and hypocrisy of the United States and other Western backers is coming to full light.

Global condemnation of Saudi airstrikes on civilian targets has brought public attention to Washington's role in the conflict - a role the Western media has attempted to downplay for years. It is ironic, or perhaps telling, that alternative media outlets targeted as "Russian influence" are leading coverage of Yemen's growing humanitarian catastrophe.

US Denies Role in Proxy War That Couldn't be Fought Without It 
In a recent press conference, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis - when asked about the US role in the Yemeni conflict in regards to Saudi atrocities - would claim:

We are not engaged in the civil war. We will help to prevent, you know, the killing of innocent people.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Mattis himself would lobby US Congress earlier this year to continue US support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen.

A March 2018 Washington Post article titled, "Mattis asks Congress not to restrict U.S. support for Saudi bombing in Yemen," would admit:

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made a personal appeal to Congress on Wednesday not to restrict the United States’ support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen, as the sponsors of a privileged resolution to end Washington’s involvement announced that the Senate would vote on the matter next week.

Support includes US intelligence gathering for Saudi operations, the sale of of US weapons to the Saudi regime, and even US aerial refueling for US-made Saudi warplanes dropping US-made munitions on Yemeni targets selected with the aid of US planners.

In essence, the US is all but directly fighting the "civil war" itself.

Abetting War Crimes, Sponsoring Terrorists to What End? 

As to why the US believes it must continue supporting a proxy war Saudi Arabia is fighting on its behalf - beginning under US President Barack Obama and continuing in earnest under current US President Donald Trump - the Washington Post could conclude (emphasis added):

The war in Yemen has inspired much controversy in Congress, as lawmakers have questioned why the United States has involved itself so closely on the Saudi-backed side of a civil war against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebel forces. Successive presidential administrations have presented the campaign as a necessary component of the fight against terrorism and to preserve stability in the region. As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, “withdrawing U.S. support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict.”

However, Mattis, his colleagues, and his predecessors have categorically failed to explain how Iran constitutes a greater threat to either US or global security than Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a nation admittedly sponsoring Al Qaeda worldwide, including in Yemen as revealed by a recent Associated Press investigation, and the nation which both radicalized the supposed perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on New York City and Washington D.C. and from which most of the supposed hijackers originated from.

If Iran is indeed waging war against Saudi Arabia and its terrorist proxies in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, the real question is - why isn't the United States backing Tehran instead?

The obvious answer to this question reveals the crumbling moral authority of the United States as the principled facade it has used for decades falls away from its hegemony-driven agenda worldwide.

The US and its allies created the "War on Terror" and intentionally perpetuated it as a pretext to expand militarily around the globe in an attempt to preserve its post-Cold War primacy and prevent the rise of a multipolar alternative to its unipolar "international order." It has done this not only at the cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, it has done it at the cost of trillions of taxpayers' dollars and the lives of thousands of America's own soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines.

US Warmachine Seeks New Pretext in Syria

August 7, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US designs in Syria were made crystal clear by US Army General Joseph Votel - head of US Central Command (CENTCOM) - during a July 19th press briefing.

General Votel would state unequivocally when asked what the "arrangement" was regarding Syria, that:

Our mission is very, very clear: It is focusing on the defeat of ISIS and then helping our partners in both Iraq and Syria stabilize the situation and specifically in Iraq to help create a platform that can lead to a long-term political solution through the U.N. process.

Several aspects of this statement make it clear what the US was doing in Syria to begin with, and what it seeks to do now.

The US Created and Protects ISIS - Not Fights It 

General Votel echoes repeated claims by US policymakers and leadership that the US is dedicated to fighting and defeating the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS). Yet ISIS was admittedly created by the US and its partners in the region in the first place. It was a  2012  leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo that revealed: 

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

The DIA memo would also explicitly explain who these "supporting powers" are:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

ISIS would take shape precisely in eastern Syria where the DIA memo had said its "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) would. It would attempt to place pressure on Damascus and isolate it - particularly from Iranian logistical efforts traversing Iraq and entering Syria along the Euphrates River before moving deeper into Syrian territory itself.

While the US had invaded and occupied Syria openly since 2014, it wasn't until the Russian Federation's military intervention in 2015 that ISIS supply lines streaming out of NATO-member Turkey were targeted and destroyed. It was then and only then that ISIS positions across the nation began to collapse.

It is interesting to note that America's multi-trillion dollar military machine has still failed to eliminate the few remaining pockets of ISIS in eastern Syria. These are pockets that for all intents and purposes are isolated from any of the outside support that allowed the group to flourish for as long as it did.

Elsewhere across Syria - government forces with the backing of Russia and Iran have eliminated ISIS almost entirely. Operations ongoing in southern Syria seek to dislodge the final remnants of this terrorist front - coincidentally sustaining itself directly on the border of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. 

Why is the stretched resources of the Syrian military able to mount successful campaigns to eliminate ISIS west of the Eurphrates, but the US is unable to do so in the east?

ISIS Continues Attempts to "Isolate Damascus" 

The largest pockets of ISIS remain in and around US occupied territory in Syria. It is from these pockets that ISIS militants have launched repeated attacks on Syrian forces along the Euphrates River, particularly near the Syrian-Iraqi border crossing where Iranian support flows into Syria.

This is also where Western airstikes in June hit Iraqi militias who were fighting ISIS in the area. The BBC would claim in their article, "Syria war: Iraqi militias blame US for deadly border strike," that:

Iraq's Popular Mobilisation said missiles hit one of its positions on the Iraqi-Syrian border overnight. The paramilitary force is led by Iran-backed Shia Muslim militias and is itself fighting IS.

While General Votel - when asked what the US was doing to "stop Iranian expansion into Syria,"  would claim the US was solely focused on fighting ISIS, it is the US' occupation of eastern Syria that prevents Syrian forces from defeating ISIS there, and allows ISIS militants to attack and undermine Iranian support for the Syrian government. It is also the US occupation of eastern Syria that has provided a perpetual pretext to and foothold from which to strike at Syrian forces and their allies directly as they struggle to keep the Syrian-Iraqi border open.

The US Has No Legitimate Partners in Syria 

General Votel's claim that the US seeks to work with its "partners" in Syria to "stabilize the situation," ignores the fact that the US occupation of Syria is illegal and that its partners in Syria are neither the recognized representatives of the Syrian people, nor capable of stabilizing the situation.

The so-called "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF) are a primarily Kurdish front, overstretched and representing a fraction of the population in even the territory they now hold.

This has created tensions and even violence in areas the SDF is occupying. Their ability to hold eastern Syria is tenuous at best and any prospect of them expanding beyond its current boundaries is unlikely. Their current position politically and militarily is entirely dependent on the US which itself is occupying a tenuous position in eastern Syria based on an equally tenuous pretext.

Regime change in Syria has failed. The notion of balkanizing Syria would simply create a net burden on the US and its allies - clinging to territory through direct military occupation and through unpopular and/or indefensible proxies. Time, for now, is on Damascus' side.

Shopping for a New Pretext
  
With this the case, and with the entire US-led proxy war on Syria launched as merely a stepping stone toward the further encirclement, subversion, and eventual overthrow of the Iranian government in the first place, the US is racing against the clock to shift the diminishing conflict in Syria to Iran.

Islamic State Drone Program Study Reveals NATO Ratlines

July 30, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Despite attempts by the US and European media to depict the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in cartoon villain terms, it was always clear to serious analysis that the terrorist organization's fighters, weapons, supplies and money were entering Syria and the result of extensive outside support.

A look at any map of the Syrian conflict, regardless of its source over the past 7 years shows IS and other militant groups maintaining territory with corridors leading directly to the borders of Syria's neighbors, particularly NATO-member Turkey and US allies Israel and Jordan.

There have been direct admissions from the US itself that it played a role in IS' creation. A 2013 leaked US Defense Intelligence Agency memo (.pdf) would explicitly note that the US and its allies sought the creation of what it then called a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria, precisely where IS would later establish itself.

There have also been direct admissions that US allies were funneling weapons and cash to IS and other designated foreign terrorist organizations. In a leaked e-mail sent by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lobbyist John Podesta, she would explicitly claim:

...we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [IS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

There have also been more indirect admissions, in which the US and European media have claimed that large amounts of US-provided arms and cash were "accidentally" falling into the hands of IS via supposedly "moderate rebels," including when large numbers of these so-called moderate rebels would defect to IS.

A 2014 article in the Telegraph titled, "‘Moderate’ Syrian rebels defecting to ISIS, blaming lack of U.S. support and weapons," would admit:

Western-backed “moderate” rebels fighting jihadists in Syria are refusing to do battle and even defecting for lack of weapons and other promised support, leaders said.

With them, they took US weapons including US-made TOW anti-tank missiles which eventually turned up in large numbers among IS terrorists. An earlier Telegraph article from 2012 would indirectly admit US weapons and cash were falling into Al Qaeda's Al Nusra Front's hands through similar "defections."

Islamic State Drone Program Supplied via Turkey 

When IS began employing drones for surveillance, forward observation missions and even to deliver ordnance to targets, questions began being asked just how such a program could be developed by an organization ordinarily depicted by the US and European media as having simply sprung from Syrian and Iraqi sand dunes.

Among those asking these questions, and finding the answers, was the US Army's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. In its 2018 report titled, "The Islamic State and Drones: Supply, Scale, and Future Threats" (.pdf), it would note just how drones and other parts and equipment made it to the terrorist organization in Syria. 

Syria: The White Helmets' Final Performance

July 25, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It is commonly known that when a ship is sinking, the crew does not board the lifeboats before the passengers. Most noble of all is when the captain and crew go down with the ship. Then with what level of ignobility should we assess the so-called "Syrian Civil Defense" more commonly referred to as the White Helmets?

We are told that Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower are brutalizing the remnants of "rebels" in southern Syria near the Jordanian border and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Surely now more than ever do the people of southern Syria need the "bravest of the brave" - as UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt described them on social media.

Yet instead of rushing to where the cannons sound loudest, the White Helmets slunk across Syria's borders with the aid of the Israeli Defense Forces, onward to Jordan, where the UN is working to relocate them - allegedly to Europe and North America.

It is a final act laying to rest once and for all a monumental lie - that the White Helmets were anything more than an extension of the foreign-funded proxy war aimed at overthrowing Damascus.

And now that overthrowing Damascus is no longer a possibility, the White Helmets are being evacuated to lie another day.

An Acting Troupe

The White Helmets were never "rescuers," but a public relations wing of Al Qaeda and its various affiliates. The US did not arm and funded terrorists for years to ravage Syria only to "also" fund groups to help save lives. Instead, the White Helmets' only real mandate was to augment the proxy war, exploiting humanitarian themes similar to how the US and NATO justified and executed the destruction of Libya.

Videos of clearly uninjured individuals - showered in dust and red paint - rushed to awaiting ambulances often feature more cameramen in the frame than supposed rescue workers. Absent from the vast majority of the White Helmets' videos is the actual gore, horror, and misery of real war - gaping wounds, dangling or missing limbs, burnt flesh and hair - all the horrors real Syrians faced daily since 2011 when the US-backed proxy war began.

During the 2016 "Save Aleppo" protests held by the Syrian opposition across Europe, actors were dressed up, dusted and painted up with artificial blood, then posed in scenes indistinguishable from their Syrian-based counterparts' videos. What was supposed to be another emotional gimmick aimed at manipulating the Western public to back wider Western military intervention, instead served as an indictment of precisely the game the White Helmets had been funded by the US and British governments to play amid Syria's ongoing war.

The Guardian in a hastily written rebuttal to avalanches of evidence exposing the White Helmets of not only producing war propaganda, but doing so on behalf of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, would claim:

The White Helmets, officially known as the Syria Civil Defence, is a humanitarian organisation made up of 3,400 volunteers – former teachers, engineers, tailors and firefighters – who rush to pull people from the rubble when bombs rain down on Syrian civilians.

They’ve been credited with saving thousands of civilians during the country’s continuing civil war.  They have also exposed, through first-hand video footage, war crimes including a chemical attack in April. Their work was the subject of an Oscar-winning Netflix documentary and the recipient of two Nobel peace prize nominations.

Indeed, the White Helmets have provided evidence of chemical weapons attacks - as noted by multiple OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) reports - but it is evidence the OPCW has never been able to verify.

Al Qaeda's Propagandists

The reason why the OPCW was never able to verify the evidence was because the White Helmets who allegedly collected and transferred it over to OPCW investigators operate exclusively in territory held by terrorists fronts - most notably Al Qaeda's various affiliates.

The OPCW would report regarding the April 2017 alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhun that (emphasis added):

...it was determined that the risk of a visit to the incident area would be prohibitive for the team. Therefore, the team could not visit the site shortly after the allegation to observe, assess, or record the location of the alleged incident, could not canvass directly for other witnesses, and could not collect environmental samples and/or remnants of the alleged munitions.

This meant that all evidence and witness testimony considered by the OPCW was handed to them. The OPCW admits (emphasis added):

Through liaison with representatives of several NGOs, including Same Justice/Chemical Violations Documentation Centre Syria (CVDCS), the Syrian Civil Defence (also known as White Helmets, and hereinafter “SCD”), the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), and the Syrian Institute for Justice (SIJ), the FFM identified a number of witnesses to be interviewed. These witnesses were expected to provide testimony and potentially relevant evidence.

The report admits it was the White Helmets who allegedly were first to arrive at the scene of the attack and repeatedly cites them throughout the report as the primary source of accusations regarding the attack. The report would note (emphasis added):

At the time of handover, the team was informed that all samples provided on 12 and 13 April 2017 were taken by the chemical sample unit of the SCD [White Helmets]. A member of the chemical sample unit who took the samples was present at the handover and provided information on every sample.

As to what risks prevented the OPCW team from collecting the evidence itself instead, a Deutsche Welle article titled, "Death toll rises in Syria 'gas attack'," would provide a clue:

Idlib province, where Khan Sheikhun is located, is mostly controlled by the Tahrir al-Sham alliance, which is dominated by the Fateh al-Sham Front, formerly known as the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front. 

Thus, the OPCW was not able to visit the site because it resided in territory occupied by Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, Al Nusra. This fact is also why we do not see Western media personalities on the ground embedded with their supposed "moderate rebels," because none exist.

Who are Washington's "Revolutionaries" in Iran?

The US backed Iranian opposition are neither "revolutionary," nor even "in" Iran. Yet they have been designated as Washington's proxies of choice, and an alternative government they seek to place into power in Tehran.


July 11, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - As the US-led proxy war in Syria reaches a relative stalemate and with time on Damascus and its allies' side, Washington's wider agenda of using the conflict as a stepping stone toward regime change in Iran is leading into a much larger conflict.

Geopolitical expert F. William Engdahl has pointed out the means through which Western oil corporations have orchestrated global schemes to raise oil prices to make American shale oil production profitable. At the same time, the US has for years now used sanctions against Iran, political subversion in Venezuela, war in Libya, and proxy war in Ukraine to prevent Tehran, Caracas, Libya's opposition, and Moscow from benefiting long-term from higher oil prices.

For Iran, undermining its oil revenues and reintroducing sanctions and secondary sanctions on nations that refuse to recognize America's withdrawal from the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, is done in tandem with direct, covert subversion inside Iran itself.

Together, these efforts seek to cripple Iran as a functional nation state, as well as reduce its influence through the Middle Eastern and Central Asian regions.

US Portrays Terrorist Cult as "Iranian Opposition"

Just as the US has done in Libya and Syria, it is using terrorist organizations to attack and undermine the Iranian state.

With Iranian-backed militias already fighting Al Qaeda and its multitude of affiliates including the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, the likelihood of these militant forces being exported into Iran itself - should Iranian-backed militias be pushed out of Syria and Iraq and destabilization inside of Iran itself reach that threshold - is high.

But there is another, lesser known group the US is portraying as the voice of Iran's opposition, a group that is - by its own US sponsors' admission - undemocratic, terroristic, and cult-like.

It is the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

Until 2012, MEK was listed by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization. Only through immense lobbying was MEK delisted. Since being delisted, no evidence suggests the fundamental aspects of MEK that make it a terrorist organization have changed. In fact, US-based corporate-financier policy think tanks that have advocated MEK's use as a proxy against Iran have admitted as much.

The Brookings Institution in a 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), would openly admit (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S.  proxy  is  the  NCRI  (National  Council of Resistance of  Iran),  the  political  movement  established  by  the  MeK  (Mujahedin-e  Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.  

 Brookings would elaborate regarding its terrorist background, stating (emphasis added): 

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MeK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main  political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed  credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on  Iranian civilian and  military targets between 1998 and 2001.

Brookings also mentions MEK's attacks on US servicemen and American civilian contractors, noting:

In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran.

Brookings would also emphasize (emphasis added):

The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no  political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence. In particular, its  active participation on Saddam Husayn’s side during the bitter Iran-Iraq War made the group widely  loathed. In addition, many aspects of the group are cultish, and its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, are revered to the point of obsession.  

Brookings would note that despite the obvious reality of MEK, the US could indeed use the terrorist organization as a proxy against Iran, but notes that:

...at the very least, to work more closely with the  group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign  terrorist organizations.  

And in 2012, after years of lobbying, that is precisely what the US did. Regarding that decision, the US State Department's 2012 statement titled, "Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq" would claim:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.

The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

Nothing in the US State Department's statement indicates that MEK is no longer a terrorist organization. It simply notes that it has publicly - as a means of political expediency - renounced violence. It should be noted that the Brookings Institution's 2009 policy paper's mention of MEK is under a chapter titled, "Inspiring an Insurgency," inferring armed violence all but guaranteeing MEK militants will indeed be one of several fronts carrying out that violence in their capacity as US proxies. 

It would be the "cultish" MEK leader, Maryam Rajavi, whom prominent American politicians and political lobbying groups would work with for years before MEK was removed from the US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 2012. This includes prominent pro-war advocates - particularly war with Iran - now current National Security Adviser John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, and current legal adviser for US President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani.

Atlantic Council Lies Dashed "On the Rocks" in Syria

June 16, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Atlantic Council spearheads pro-war propaganda for US-NATO wars around the globe. This includes US-led hybrid warfare against Russia, the subversion and overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014 and the subsequent conflict that resulted, as well as America's interventions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

The Atlantic Council describes itself as:

...an essential forum for navigating the dramatic economic and political changes defining the twenty-first century by informing and galvanizing its uniquely influential network of global leaders. Through the papers we write, the ideas we generate, and the communities we build, the Council shapes policy choices and strategies to create a more secure and prosperous world.

The Atlantic Council seeks to create this "secure and prosperous world" for its corporate-financier sponsors which include weapons manufacturers like Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing - big-oil interests like Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil - big-banks like JP Morgan, Bank of America, and HSBC - and also governments and organizations like the US State Department itself, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and NATO.

Yet despite the scale and scope of both the Atlantic Council's mission and resources, its ability to influence public perception appears to be diminishing.

It has been in Syria in particular where the Atlantic Council's influence has reached all time lows in both credibility and effectiveness. This is owed mainly to the fact that Atlantic Council "experts" are confined to armchairs in offices scattered across the West while alternative media sources are on the ground in Syria.

A recent piece co-authored by one of these Atlantic Council "experts" - Aaron Stein - along with US Army reserve officer Luke J. O'Brien - serves as an example of how ineffective the Atlantic Council and its sponsors have become in communicating narratives to the public.

Alleged Rationale for Syrian CW Use is Illogical at Face Value 

The article titled, "The Military Logic Behind Assad's Use of Chemical Weapons" published in "War on the Rocks," claims as its premise (emphasis added):

When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime uses chemical weapons, as it has done on at least four different occasions in the past five years (August 2013, March 2017, April 2017, and April 2018), conspiracy theorists and Russian propaganda outlets immediately kick into gear to begin denying it. They posit that the Syrian regime would never use chemical weapons because, after all, it is already winning the civil war. Instead, these outlets suggest, the anti-Assad opposition (working with external powers) stages “false flag” events to provide excuses for an American military strike aimed at toppling the regime. 

These denials are absurd for a number of reasons, one of which is that there is an obvious – but often overlooked – rationale for the regime’s use of chemical weapons. The Syrian conflict has demonstrated the value of these weapons for Assad’s enemy-centric approach to counter-insurgent warfare, which is premised on the idea of using overwhelming force to punish local populations where insurgents are active. Rather than working to deliver services and stability to contested spaces to compel popular support, the intent is to re-establish central government control through naked aggression.

The article would claim that chemical weapons (CWs) are more psychologically damaging to targeted populations than conventional weapons. The article also makes the claim that to dislodge militants from even a moderately-sized structure, it would require upward to 147 unguided 155mm artillery shells. Thus CWs - Stein and O'Brien argue - are more efficient than conventional weapons.

The article claims that CWs can (emphasis added):

...seep into these buildings with relative ease, as long as the shells land even reasonably close to the target. In Syria as well as in other conflicts, the anti-Assad opposition has dug fairly sophisticated tunnel systems that are, in theory, impervious to the regime’s heavy artillery and unguided bombs. To effectively target these buried facilities, Assad has turned to chemical weapons, which often descend and concentrate in low-lying areas. The advantage is clear: The regime can ensure heavy casualties with a small amount of effort, either by incapacitating or killing combatants, or by terrorizing these groups and the civilians who live alongside them.

Yet in order for this narrative to be viable - readers would need to believe that the Syrian government had only encountered determined, well-entrenched enemies on "at least four different occasions in the past five years," as admitted in the article's opening paragraph - an utterly absurd notion at face value.

Even casual observers of the Syrian conflict are now familiar with the dense urban environments combat has taken place in, with literally hours of combat footage available even to the Atlantic Council's office-bound "experts" to observe online, depicting Syrian combat operations using conventional weapons to dislodge militants from "moderately-sized structures," immense structures, and even entire cities.

While Stein and O'Brien attempt to describe Syria deploying chemical weapons as a cheap and effective weapon of war to dislodge entrenched enemies, the fact that they themselves only cite four attacks in the past five years and the fact that the number of dead from those attacks - 1,620 by the West's most politically-charged accusations - represents only 1.2% of the total number of militants killed or 0.45% of the total war dead since 2011 - reveal their premise as an inverted reality.

All Areas Syria "Used Chemical Weapons," Still Held by Militants Afterwards 

Stein and O'Brien never explain how such limited use of chemical weapons - even if the Syrian government was the culprit in each case - afforded Damascus any significant advantage over the overwhelming use of conventional weapons Damascus is actually winning the war with.

In fact, all of the CW attacks they cited in their opening paragraph appear to indicate precisely the opposite.

Israel Baits the Hook. Will Syria Bite?

May 12, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Israel has repeatedly struck Syria with missiles and rockets - the most recent exchange taking place after Israel claims "Iranian rockets" struck positions the Israeli military is illegally occupying in Syria's Golan Heights.

Headlines like the UK's Independent's, "Israel and Iran on brink of war after unprecedented Syria bombardment in response to alleged Golan Heights attack," attempt to portray the Israeli aggression as self-defense. The Independent, however, failed to produce any evidence confirming Israeli claims.

At face value, for Iran to inexplicably launch missiles at Israel, unprovoked and achieving no conceivable tactical, strategic, or political gain strains the credibility of Israel's narrative even further.

But it is perhaps published US policy designating Israel as a hostile provocateur tasked with expanding Washington's proxy war against Damascus that fully reveals the deadly and deceptive game Israel and the Western media are now playing.

For years, US policymakers admitted in their papers that the US desired regime change in Iran and sought to provoke a war to achieve it.

Israel Baits the Hook 

The corporate-funded Brookings Institution - whose sponsors include weapon manufacturers, oil corporations, banks, and defense contractors - published a 2009 paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," and would not only spell out the US desire for regime change in Iran but devise a number of options to achieve it.

These included sponsoring street protests in tandem with known terrorist organizations to wage a proxy war against Iran as was done to Libya and Syria. It also included provoking Iran to war - a war Brookings policymakers repeatedly admitted Iran seeks to avoid.

In regards to provoking a war with Iran based on a number of contrived cases, the paper would admit (emphasis added):

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

The Brookings paper even admits that Iran may not retaliate even to the most overt provocations, including US or Israeli air raids and missiles attacks. The papers notes:

...because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missiles attacks.

Brookings also admits that even massive airstrikes on Iran would not achieve US objectives, including regime change and that airstrikes would have to be part of a wider strategy including either a proxy war or a full-scale war led by the US.

More recent Brookings papers, like the 2012 "Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution," would admit that Israel's role - particularly from its occupation of the Golan Heights - is to provide constant pressure on Syria to aid in regime change there. 

The paper notes (emphasis added): 

Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.

We can assume that the 2012 objective of taking pressure off "the opposition" has failed - since US-NATO-Gulf sponsored terrorists have been all but defeated everywhere inside Syria, save for border regions and territory occupied by US forces to the east. 

Instead, Israel's role now has switched - both from pressuring Syria, and from attempting to provoke Iran with attacks on Iranian territory - to provoking a wider war with Syria and its allies - including Iran - by launching provocations against Syria as described in the 2009 Brookings paper, "Which Path to Persia?" 

Despite Israel's serial provocations going unanswered for years by Syria, each attack is depicted by the Western media as defensive in nature. At the beginning of May when Syrian forces finally did retaliate, the Western media attempted to depict it as an unprovoked attack, citing Israeli military officials who claimed "Iranian missiles" were fired at the Golan Heights - rather than on-the-ground sources - both Israeli and Syrian who said otherwise.

Syria Isn't Biting 

Retaliation by Syria, however, has been proportional and reluctant.

America Planned to Break "Iran Nuclear Deal" Years Before Signing It

May 9, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The so-called "Iran Nuclear Deal," officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed on 2015 now under threat by a backtracking US - was billed at the time of its signing as a historic agreement that provided a path forward towards peace between the US and Iran. 

The BBC in an October 2017 article titled, "Iran nuclear deal: Key details," would even go as far as claiming: 

The 2015 nuclear deal struck between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany - was the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama's presidency.

The initial framework lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country's controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers feared Iran would use to create a nuclear weapon.

But while the agreement has been hailed as a "signature foreign policy achievement," it was, before even its inception - not a vehicle towards peace - but a cynical ploy to justify future war.

The United States had never intended to allow Iran to rise as a counterbalancing regional power in the Middle East or Central Asia nor escape from under the constant threat of US military intervention or the crippling sanctions it has targeted the nation with for decades.

The enduring presence of US military forces in Afghanistan transcending now three presidencies and nearly two decades was one of two bookends placed around the rise of Iran.

The other has been a war waged in the Middle East by the US and its allies against Iraq beginning in 2003 and spreading to Syria and Yemen by 2011.

Despite the numerous proxy wars Washington is waging against Tehran, US policymakers had determined years ago the necessity to justify a wider and more direct confrontation with Tehran itself.

A Conspiracy to Offer Then Sabotage an Iran Peace Deal is Stated US Policy 

Far from conjecture, plans by US policymakers have been documented and are available freely to the public from among the various corporate-financier funded policy think tanks that produce US foreign and domestic policy.

Prominent among these is the Brookings Institution whose corporate-financier sponsors include arms manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, energy giants Exxon Mobil, BP, Aramco, and Chevron, and financiers including Bank of America, Citi, and numerous advisers and trustees provided by Goldman Sachs. 

In their 2009 paper, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), Brookings policymakers would first admit the complications of US-led military aggression against Iran (emphasis added): 

...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 paper then lays out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran's betrayal of a "very good deal" as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added): 

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.

And from 2009 onward, this is precisely what the United States set out to achieve. First with US President Barack Obama's signing of the 2015 JCPOA, up to and including current US President Donald Trump's attempts to backtrack from it based on fabricated claims Iran failed to honor the agreement.

America's Clumsy Warmongering 

Perhaps unbeknownst to Brookings policymakers in 2009 was the eventuality of Western propaganda unraveling in the face of growing opposition in the form of both national and alternative media organizations.

Today, attempts to cite "chemical weapons attacks" and recycle 2003 "weapons of mass destruction" narratives to fan the flames of America's multiple and perpetual global conflicts are failing to persuade increasingly skeptical audiences.

The "game" - as Brookings policymakers called their attempts to covertly provoke war with Iran in their 2009 paper - they had hoped to hide from public view, is now exposed - dissected and displayed by independent analysts and national media organizations with unprecedented reach into global audiences once solely dominated by Western propaganda.