CONFRONTING
IRAN, "PROTECTING ISRAEL": The Real Reason for America's
War on Syria
Michel
Chossudovsky
11
June, 2012
Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton is calling for an R2P humanitarian
military intervention in Syria to curb the atrocities allegedly
ordered by the government of president Bashar Al Assad. In a
twisted logic, Clinton recognizes that while "opposition
forces" are integrated by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the
government rather than the terrorists is held responsible, without
a shred of evidence, for the ongoing massacre of
civilians.
Amply
documented, these sectarian killings and atrocities are being
committed by foreign mercenaries and militia which are armed and
supported by the Western military alliance.
The
killings are carried out quite deliberately as part of a
diabolical covert operation. The enemy is then blamed for the
resulting atrocities. The objective is to justify a military
agenda on humanitarian grounds.
In
US military jargon, it's called a "massive casualty producing
event", the historical origins of which go back to
"Operation Northwoods", an infamous 1962 Pentagon Plan,
consisting in killing civilians in the Miami Cuban
community, with a view to justifying a war on Cuba. (See
Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA:
Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing
Public Support for a R2P War against Syria, Global
Research, May 30, 2012)
"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro." (U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News emphasis added. This Secret Pentagon document was declassified and can be readily consulted, See Operation Northwoods, See also National Security Archive, 30 April 2001)
In
the logic of Operation Northwoods, the killings in Syria are
carried out to "create a helpful wave of indignation",
to drum up public opinion in favor of an R2P US-NATO
operation against Syria. "The international community cannot
sit idly by, and we won’t”, said US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.
What lies behind this outburst of humanitarian concern by "the international community". Is America coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for America's war on Syria?
This
question is addressed in a lead article by James P. Rubin, a
Bloomberg executive editor and former State department official
under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this
month's Foreign
Policy Magazine under
the clear-cut title: "The
Real Reason to Intervene in Syria"
In
an unusual twist, "the answer to the question", namely
"the real reason" is provided in the article's subtitle:
"Cutting Iran's link to the Mediterranean Sea is a
strategic prize worth the risk.".
The
subtitle should dispel --in the eyes of the reader-- the illusion
that US foreign policy has an underlying "humanitarian
mandate". Pentagon and US State department documents as
well as independent reports confirm that military action against
Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more
than 20 years.
Targeting
Iran, "Protecting Israel"
According
to James P. Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are
intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of
the same US-Israeli military agenda which consists in weakening
Iran with a view to "protecting Israel". The latter
objective is to be carried out through a pre-emptive attack
against Iran: "We're not done with the
possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran" says James
P. Rubin.
According
to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies ("a policy institute focusing on terrorism
and Islamism"), the humaniitarian concern is not
the primary objective but rather as "a means to an end": "If
the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and
children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about
Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why
should we Americans expend an ounce of energy? ...[The answer]
Because
Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important
ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic
threat facing the U.S. — hands down." (SeeNational
Review,
May 30, 2012)
The military roadmap to Tehran goes through Damascus. The unspoken objective of the US-NATO-Israeli sponsored insurgency in Syria is to destabilize Syria as a Nation State and undermine Iran's influence in the region (including its support of the Palestinian Liberation movement and Hezbollah). The underlying objective is also to eliminate all forms of resistance to the Zionist State: "That is where Syria comes in, says James P, Rubin. It is the strategic relationship between the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred -- but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests. The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime's fall "will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world ... and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." (The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria - By James P. Rubin | Foreign Policy, June 2, 2012, emphasis added)
US-Israeli
War Plans directed against Syria
Rubin
candidly outlines the contours of US military intervention in
Syria, which is to be implemented in close liaison with Israel. A
diplomatic solution will not work, nor will economic
sanctions: "only the threat or use of force will
change the Syrian dictator's stance" says Rubin:
"U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed." (Ibid)
Washington's
first step, according to James P. Rubin, should be to work with
"its allies", the Arab sheikdoms --Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
and Turkey-- "to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel
forces."
This
"first step" has already been launched. It was
implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in March 2012.
The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free
Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and
training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda
affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British,
Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO
sponsored mercenaries are recruted and trained in Saudi Arabia and
Qatar.
Sidetracking
the UN
Rubin's
proposed "second step" is "to secure
international support for a coalition air operation." outside
the mandate of the United Nations."Russia will never
support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the
U.N. Security Council" says Rubin. The air operation
contemplated by Rubin is an all out war scenario, similar to the
NATO air raids conducted in Libya.
Rubin
is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of the UN. The
option of "sidetracking" the UN Security Council has
already been endorsed by Washington. The violaiton of
international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to
the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms,
that "the worst and most probable scenario" in Syria
might be the option of "acting outside of the UN Security
Council's authority".
"In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity... The Council's unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council." Actions outside UN Security Council Likely in Syria - Rice | World | RIA Novosti, May 31, 2012
Rubin
also points to "the reluctance of some European states"
(without mentioning the countries) to participate in an air
operation against Syria: "this [military] operation will have
to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries.
Given Syria's extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should
be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led
by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. U.S. leadership is indispensable,
since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington
leads."
The
article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA)
as well carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground
operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used
--as in the case of Libya-- to support the FSA foot soldiers
integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades:
"Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes' aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. ... The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes." (Rubin, op cit)
While
the participation of Israel in military operations is not
mentioned, the thrust of Rubin's article points to active
cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and
intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations
in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would
also be carried out in the context of the bilateral
military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and
Turkey.
"Coming
to the rescue of the Syrian people" under a fake
"humanitarian" R2P mandate is intended to destabilize
Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political
control and influence over neighboring Arab states including
Lebanon and Syria.
A
war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken the
resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would
reinforce the Netanyahu government's ambitions to create a
"Greater Israel", initially, through the outright
annexation of the Palestinian territories:
"With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis' rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor, since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime ... make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking." (Rubin, op cit)
War
Crimes in the name of human rights: What we really need is "Regime
Change" in the United States of America.... and Israel.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.