Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer Report
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.
Read more
Pepe Escobar
Asia Online
Let's cut to the chase. As in chasing that Zara outdoor summer
collection, complete with state of the art assault rifles, brand new
white Nike sneakers and brand new, unlimited mileage white Toyotas
crossing the Syrian-Iraqi desert; the Badass Jihadis in Black.
Once upon a (very recent) time, the US government used to help only
"good terrorists" (in Syria), instead of "bad terrorists". That was an
echo of a (less recent) time when it was supporting only "good Taliban"
and not "bad Taliban".
So what happens when Brookings Institution so-called "experts" start
blabbering that the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) is really the baddest jihadi outfit on the planet (after all they were cast
out of al-Qaeda)? Are they so badass that by warped newspeak logic
they're now the new normal?
Since late last year, according to US government newspeak, the "good
terrorists" in Syria are the al-Qaeda spinoff gang of Jabhat al-Nusra
and (disgraced) Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, the Islamic
Front (essentially a Jabhat al-Nusra multiple outlet). And yet both
Jabhat and ISIS had pledged allegiance to Ayman "the doctor"
al-Zawahiri, the perennial gift that keeps on giving al-Qaeda capo.
That still leaves the question of what Men in Black ISIS, the
catwalk-conscious beheading stormtroopers for a basket of hardcore
tribal Sunnis and Ba'ath party "remnants" (remember Rummy in 2003?) are
really up to.
We interrupt this desert catwalk to announce they will NOT invade
Baghdad. On the other hand, they are busy accelerating the balkanization
- and eventual partition - of both Syria and Iraq. They are NOT a
CIA brainchild (how come Langley never thought about it?); they are in
fact the bastard children of (disgraced) Bandar Bush's credit card
largesse.
The fact that ISIS is NOT directly in Langley's payroll does not imply
their strategic agenda essentially differs from that of the Empire of
Chaos. The Obama administration may be sending a few marines to protect
the swimming pools of the largest, Vatican-sized embassy on Planet
Earth, plus a few "military advisers" to "retrain" the dissolving Iraqi
Army. But that's a drop of Coke Zero in the Western Iraqi desert.
There's no evidence Obama is about to authorize "kinetic support"
against ISIS, even though Baghdad has already green-lighted it.
Read more
Land Destroyer
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.
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.
