maybe a certain amount of repetition in these, but worthwhile
“Peace envoy” sits on board with traitors, meddlers, and warmongers
Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer, Mar 20 2012
“UN-Arab League envoy” Kofi Annan has claimed over the last several weeks to be backing “peace efforts” in Syria to end the conflict which has lasted over a year now. In reality, it has been revealed that his function is to simply buy time for a collapsing militant front and the creation of NATO-occupied “safe havens” from which further destabilization and “coercive action” can be conducted against the Syrian government. This has been confirmed by Fortune 500-funded, US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their latest report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” it is stated:
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 US 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.
While some may be surprised that “peace envoy” Kofi Annan is essentially lying to both Syria’s government and to the world, with a complicit UN and “Arab League” willfully “in” on the fraud, Annan’s ties with notorious traitors, meddlers, and warmongers indicate that this latest deception is par for the course. Annan is a trustee of Wall Street speculator George Soros’s International Crisis Group, alongside neoconservative corporate lobbyist and warmonger Kenneth Adelman, US State Dept-listed Iranian terror organization MeK, lobbyist Gen Wesley Clark, Wall Street-backed color revolution leader Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, and Brookings Institution’s Samuel Berger. Serving “advisers” to the International Crisis Group include neoonservative warmonger Richard Armitage, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bank of Israel Governor Stanely Fischer, and President of Israel Shimon Peres.
It must surely warm the cockles of the Syrian people’s hearts to realize Annan, with direct ties to the neoconservative establishment who has long sought Syria’s destabilization and the Israel government as well as its financial institutions, is so “concerned” about establishing peace in a conflict where Syrian rebels and foreign militants are turning up with US and Israeli weapons in their hands. It must also warm their hearts to see direct admissions from the Brookings Insitution that Annan’s mission is simply to buy time for a faltering foreign-funded rebellion so that it may be preserved and rehabilitated back to full strength under the guise of a “peace deal.” The fact that Egypt’s ElBaradei, another foreign-backed subversive traitor, as well as Kenneth Adelman, lobbyist for Wall Street proxy Thaksin Shinwatra of Thailand and council for Edelman public relations, a sponsor of the US State Dept’s “Alliance for Youth Movements” who trained, equipped and backed the uprising that destabilized Syria to begin with, are involved in ICG’s work indicates that the “International Crisis Group” may indeed be attempting to fulfill its mission statement of “preventing and resolving deadly conflict.” However, that is with the hidden caveat being the conflicts it seeks to resolve have been created by them and their agents in the first place to justify a series of predetermined “solutions.” A case of manufactured problem, corporate-media perception managed reaction, predetermined, self-serving solution.
It then appears, despite the UN being stamped upon Annan’s efforts, that he is in fact a direct representative of Western geopolitical ambitions, more specifically those of Wall Street and London. The International Crisis Group of which Annan serves as a trustee for, is funded by the following corporate-financier interests: Carnegie Corporation of New York; Humanity United; Hunt Alternatives Fund; Jewish World Watch; Open Society Institute; Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Sigrid Rausing Trust; British Petroleum (BP); Chevron; Shell; Statoil; Kimberly-Clark Corporation; Morgan Stanley; NPI Capital; and Deutsche Bank Group.
When considering the Brookings Institution’s admissions that Annan is simply playing a part in the overall strategy to execute long-planned Western-backed regime change in Syria, and the equally impressive array of corporations, banks, and corporate-funded foundations backing Brookings, it is clear that it is corporate-financier interests, not an “international consensus” that is behind the UN’s efforts versus Syria. The UN is merely a convenient front lending legitimacy to what is otherwise the naked aggression of foreign military conquest. In fact, the Brrokings Institution admits as much in their report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” where they declare:
Taking actions without a UN mandate would also likely only add to the unraveling of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, in as much as it emphasizes the need for UN-legitimated authority.
This of course in the context of outlining the various unilateral actions the US can take to circumvent Russia and China’s objections to meddling in Syria’s sovereign affairs and in essence render moot its own contrived international legal process, as well as an acknowledgement to the flagrant abuse of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine in regards to Libya. The UN is mentioned throughout the report merely as a mechanism for obtaining US interests in the Middle East, a mere pawn rather than a driving factor behind US involvement or any sort of international “responsibility” the US is “altruistically” fulfilling. The same can then be said of Annan’s function, a mask of legitimacy behind which neo-imperial aggression is being carried out. Already, Annan’s efforts are being matched by NATO-member Turkey’s preparations to establish the sort of militarily occupied “safe haven” in Syrian territory, prescribed in the Brookings report. It is a plot Annan knowingly works in tandem with US-led NATO, a plot whose final objective is the further violent destabilization and overthrow of the sovereign government of Syria, not peace.
As warmongers plot to destroy Syria, Syrians face only one choice
Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer, Mar 19 2012
Before considering the US military options in Syria, it would be instructive to re-read this article from Mar 21 2011 titled, “Libyan War: Globalists Bluffing their way to Victory,” to understand the true purpose of these current military options and how they were used effectively to win the otherwise unwinnable military campaign in Libya. Through terror and fear, the West was able to fold superior fighting forces that could have held out for years had they stood united.
Corporate-funded think-tank and purveyor of US foreign policy, the Brookings Institution, had in 2009 literally blueprinted the strategy with which the West would slowly strangle and topple the government of Iran. Throughout the pages of their report, “Which Path to Persia?” everything from sanctions, to purposefully provoking war with Iran, to stoking US-backed uprisings, to funding, training, and arming US State Dept-listed terror organizations was plotted before being promptly executed. Amongst those signing their names to this treasonous conspiracy to commit mass-murder against a sovereign nation was Michael O’Hanlon. Besides contributing extensively to the West’s corporate-media, he has no operational experience to speak of militarily, economically, or even administratively. He has never once shouldered a rifle for his nation, nor truly jeopardized his life for any cause he seemingly has no problem having tens of thousands of others die for in his stead. He is the quintessential imperial scribe. Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” makes no secret that “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change. Admissions that Syria’s rebels are carrying out an increasing amount of sectarian violence (page 8), that Kofi Annan’s mission to Syria is in fact to establish an occupied “safe haven” on Syrian territory to launch further attacks (page 4), as well as the involvement of Al Qaeda on the side of rebels are noteworthy points. The report would also state in reference to arming the rebels, “alternatively, the US might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention,” which contradicts the entire premise of the “humanitarian war” and the “responsibility to protect (R2P)” by purposefully prolonging violent conflict.
O’Hanlon’s most recent work involves spelling out the “military options” the US has in regards to Syria in an op-ed aptly titled, “What Are Our Military Options in Syria?” The West purposefully destabilized Syria, and is currently perpetuating extensive bloodshed through militant proxies funded, trained, and armed by the West and operating on Syria’s borders as well as within Syria itself. As the bloodshed mounts, the West is now insidiously using the carnage to justify more overt intervention to execute long planned regime change. Just as it was spelled out and promptly executed in O’Hanlon’s “Which Path to Persia?,” the operation in Syria involves almost identical elements altered only slightly to suit Syria’s geopolitical predisposition. US-backed uprisings, armed militants, and sanctions have all already been set in motion with overt military options being all that is left on the table. The military options O’Hanlon envisions to achieve the overthrow of Syria’s government include:
- A punitive naval or air operation to encourage a coup against Assad, and an outright act of war designed to completely cut off Syria, including its millions of civilians, from importing or exporting anything. There are also planned airstrikes designed to psychologically shake Assad’s allies and panic them into defecting and instead “share power” with the US-backed opposition. Of course, O’Hanlon must perceive the Syrian government as supreme ignoramuses to have seen how “sharing” was carried out in another Brookings project, Libya, and still count this as a viable alternative to holding fast against foreign-funded militants. It was during NATO’s campaign against Libya that many defectors ended up dead the absolute first moment their services were no longer required -or sometimes even beforehand. Case in point, General Abdul Fattah Younis, whose reward for accepting offers to “power share” with the Libyan rebels was his assassination.
- A broader Balkans-like campaign to help depose Assad. And by this, O’Hanlon of course means, a “Libyan-like campaign,” but would rather focus on the Balkans because it is further in hindsight and much more has been done to rewrite its historical outcome as “favorable.” Evoking the NATO-led genocidal killing spree that just unfolded in Libya, complete with the destruction of several major cities, would again remind potential defectors in Syria the cost of allowing their nation to fall into NATO hands. That cost would be the plunging of Syria into perpetual division, instability, violence, and an uncertain political future that could see any defector a hero one minute and at the wrong end of a rifle the next. There will be no power sharing, there will be no seats at the table for “defectors,” and as Libya has proven, it is very unlikely there will even be a table for seats to be placed around in the first place.
- Creation of a safe zone for Syrian civilians: O’Hanlon indirectly admits that this would only be done as a means to eventually include one or both of the above mentioned options. This was already stated in “Genocidal Turkish Government Eyes Syria,” where it appears that NATO-member Turkey has been elected to create just such a zone from which increasing hostilities could be conducted.
What must be remembered is that O’Hanlon is not writing this for the consideration of the Pentagon. Instead, he is specifically writing this so that pundits and media outlets can repeat what is essentially extortion directed at Syria’s establishment. The purpose of this exercise is to prey on the fear of Assad’s political allies and those across Syria’s business community who have so far stood behind their nation’s government. It is hoped that the West can bluff their way into folding opposition by presenting them with a difficult and costly military campaign verses the alternative of “power sharing.” Unfortunately for O’Hanlon and his superiors, Syria has already seen the dead end “power sharing” led to in Libya, a dead end Libya will remain in well into the foreseeable future. The rationale of businessmen capitulating to see UN sanctions relieved is also absurd considering the inevitable fracturing and perpetual destabilization that will wreck both the country and its economy should the current government fall. Syria’s opposition is entirely dependent on foreign fighters, foreign arms, foreign funds, and an international consensus that allows such foreign resources to continue flowing to them unabated. Already cracks have begun to show and now the West’s only chance is to psychologically break Assad’s power base through threats and perhaps even a limited military incursion. The catch is, should Syria remain united, order can be restored and nothing short of total war waged by the West could prevent it.