Kerry on Syria: The Absurdity of Certainty

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd”.     Voltaire

In May, 2013, Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria told Swiss TV that there was no evidence of government use of nerve gas, and testimony from victims strongly suggested that it was the rebels who had used Sarin.  The following month, Washington announced it would continue to arm the rebels citing evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.   In spite of the alleged evidence, Washington refused to send gas masks to the rebels. 

Today, while the UN chemical weapons inspectors in Syria are investigating the possible use of chemical agents, US Secretary of State John Kerry put all doubt aside announcing that he has irrefutable evidence that the Assad government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.  Mr. Kerry is of the opinion that since he has the ‘facts’, the UN inspectors have nothing new to offer - after all, ‘the American intelligence community has high confidence’ in its findings.   This degree of certainty is simply absurd -- or dishonest.

 These allegations are all the more dubious given their source - the Israeli intelligence.  It was reported that an “IDF intelligence unit was listening in on senior Syrian officials when they discussed the chemical attack”.   In his remarks, Kerry stressed “evidence in the assessment that regime forces had spent three days in eastern Damascus preparing for the attack”.    If true, this indicates that IDF unit was aware of the plans and did not inform Washington (or Washington did not act on it) -- unless the IDF miraculously “intercepted a conversation between high-ranking regime officials regarding the use of chemical agents at the time of the attack” (The Times of Israel).   

As the Kerry-doing-Powell tells us:  “We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and landed only in opposition-held areas”.   Basing the intelligence on these rockets is all the more questionable as the rockets alleged to have been used by Assad bear a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon - the SLUFAE .    Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several countries --  namely  Israel.  According to a former UN inspector "a very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions," into Southern Lebanon.” (Foreign Policy).  

So we are left with dubious intelligence and mystifying rockets - but what of the chemical weapons which are reported to have taken a high toll?  Another anomaly in the Kerry allegations is that at the rocket site,  there is a complete absence of fear shown by people posing with the weapons, and an absence of any kind of protective gear.   So if not rockets, what was the delivery method, and by whom?

Dubious  reports have surfaced on the internet which cite a rebel’s father claiming that the Saudis supplied the chemical weapons without instructions, or without telling the rebels what they were which is why “they” went off in the tunnel causing so many accidental deaths.  Although these allegations reinforce the fact that chemicals were used, the unlikely story flies in the face of Israeli intelligence and  Kerry’s  allegations, serving to add confusion to an already mystifying event.  What other plausible explanations are there?

Writing for the prominent Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in his 2005 article entitled “Unmanned Air Vehicles as Terror Weapons: Real or Imagined?”, Dennis Gormley stressed the danger of UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles - drones) and stated: “Dispersal of chemical or especially biological agent is ideally suited for a UAV; its flight stability permits the release of agent evenly along a line of contamination.”

Coincidentally, in April 2013, The Times of Israel citing Le Figaro reported that ‘Israeli drones were given leave to fly over Jordan  in order to monitor the chemical caches and take action if necessary’.   Could these drones have been used to destroy an existing caches -  or, were the drones used to disperse the chemical weapons? Certainly Israel  had the weapons, the means and the opportunity.  

The Israeli government has issued no policy statement on biological arms control and it has either signed nor ratified the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC); however,    according to Avner Cohen “Ben Gurion’s desire to seek  scientists to “either increase the capacity to kill masses or to cure masses” implied -- in the 1948 context -- was an interest in biological warfare.  Subsequently, the Israel Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) was founded in Ness Ziona, some 12 miles southeast of Tel Aviv[i] (The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001).

The institute was not without its hazards.  Several ‘accidents’ took place in Ness Ziona and in August 1998, the British Foreign Report citing Israeli sources claimed that “one accident was so serious that the authorities were contemplating evacuating the entire town of Ness Ziona  before the IRIB scientists had concluded that the threat has passed. 

There were further revelations in October 1998 when Israel admitted that the El Al Boeing plane which crashed in Amsterdam in 1992, was carrying cargo destined for Ness Ziona.  The shipment contained DMMP - a dual-use chemical used in the manufacture of sarin nerve gas.   Perhaps it is the experiments being carried out by the IRIB in Ness Ziona, and all the related incidents, in addition to Israel’s policies that has the Israeli  citizens on a constant alert -- masks ready,  images of which are broadcast to justify aggressive, illegal action.  

There are far too many unanswered questions and potential possibilities - all of which underscore the absurdity of Kerry’s certainty on Syria.    As oft repeated on this topic - qui bono (who benefits)?  For now, we know that that Mr. Kerry’s attention been redirected from the ‘peace plan’ to war planning - at a ludicrously high cost to Syria and at the expense of America’s credibility. 

---

[i] Avner Cohen, “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control”

America’s Battle Cry: Lines and Lies

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”  Walter Scott

 Historians consider the Mongol raids and invasions as some of the deadliest conflicts in human history.  Their legacy of savagery and bloodshed preceded them; their orgy of violence and destruction left its ugly imprints in the collective memory of peoples everywhere.  So much so that until recently simple folk in some corners of the world would cower unruly children with the threat of an impending ‘Mongol arrival’.  Today, the loathing and dread formerly associated with the Mongols has been transferred to America.  In sharp contrast to Genghis Khan’s frank battle cry -- Morindoo (Mount Up), America prepares for battle with sheer lies.  

 In the 21^st century alone, Washington has rolled out a heavy arsenal of lies, misinformation, and dubious intelligence to sell war to the American people - and abroad.  On September 13, 2001, while the country was digesting 9/11, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) already had a statement/plan ready for Washington.  Their policy called for America to be involved in disputes far and wide for the unforeseen future not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria and eventually Saudi Arabia and Egypt’.[i]  Washington heeded.

In the fall of 2001,  the Rendon Group was given a  contract to handle PR aspects of the U.S. military strike in Afghanistan.   One year later, in  September 2002, a 'meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein’ was devised[ii].   As part of this strategy, an interagency ‘Iraq Public Diplomacy group’ comprising of NSC, CIA, Pentagon, State and USAID staffers was created.  This group produced documentary and press releases showing interviews with Iraqi exiles and dissidents, chief among them the Iraqi National Council (INC) -- a 1992 project of the Rendon Group with Ahmad Chalabi at its head.

 

Simultaneous with interviews,  the public mind was lulled into submission by being shown pictures of the smoking Twin Towers and victims of Saddam Hossein’s chemical attacks (weapons supplied by the United States and with Washington’s full knowledge to use against Iranians) with the goal of convincing the public that Saddam Hossein’s non-existent WMD.   The public was convinced. America launched on its campaign of ‘shock and awe’ from the stolen nation of Diego Garcia where the natives of the Island had been expelled from their homes after which  "officials ordered their pets to be exterminated. They were gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles” [iii].   

Soaking in a bloody orgy of destruction in Iraq, Washington was preparing the next battle front - Syria (in addition to  Iran and the other aforementioned countries).   In almost exact replica of the Iraq lies, plans were put into motion to remove Assad and neutralize Syria with help from the “opposition” (HERE).   Among those who cooperated with Washington and allies, the Syria  National Council (SNC) gained prominence.  Not surprising given the support of their political heavyweights.    SNC’s  most senior spokesperson, Bassma Kodmani who worked for the Ford Foundation[1] in  Cairo in 2005, took up a new post as executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI) initiated by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).   Thereon, Kodmani attended Bilderberg conferences (see more  HERE).  This time the PR firm for the “opposition” was the powerful Lynton Crosby which lobbied on their behalf.  

Barely a decade has passed since the spin masters lies led to an illegal, immoral, and costly war against Iraq as once again they are bombarding us with propaganda and lies -  wanting us to believe that the Assad government used chemical weapon and Syrians must be rescued with our bombs.   Even though revelations have been made that such a false flag operation had been in the making, and that the United States backed the plan to use chemical weapons and blame it on Assad,  and as skepticism is being  voiced in every corner (HERE), Washington is planning a  “humanitarian” war.   

Given the appointment of the interventionist Samantha Power to the United Nations, and her awareness of the Mongol legacy, makes this move inevitable.  Citing Hitler, Power wrote:  

            “It was knowingly and lightheartedly that Genghis Khan sent thousands of women and children to their death.  History sees in him only the founder of a state… The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically”. (Power, 2002[iv])  

Perhaps she, along with other Washington decision makers, is looking at history in the same fashion as Washington prepares to move onto the next target - a target that will entangle America in a global conflict.   

 In April 2013, the powerful BRICS nations drew their red line on Syria and Iran. Iran recently drew its own red line on Syria.   These are the red lines Washington should heed instead of caving in to the lobbies’ war cries if it is to conflict  - a conflict which will bring an abrupt end to the declining empire. 

---

[1] Ford Foundation was a conduit for CIA funds during the Cold  War according to Frances Stonor Saunders ( The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: New Press 2000)  and seemingly, it continues to play a prominent role in post Cold War activities. 

---

[i] Richard Bonney, False Prophets: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and the Global War on Terror, Peter Lang 2008; "This Goes Beyond Bin Laden," JINSA press release, September 13, 2001.

[ii] Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, “Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq.”  Penguin, 2003

[iii] http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski08012004

[iv] Power,  Samantha.  “A Problem From Hell; America and the Age of Genocide”. Perennial, 2002.  pp23

RT Interview on Rouhani's inauguration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhGDxOJeuww&feature=youtu.be

Egypt: Jeers to Cheers; Staging a “Democratic” Military Coup

During the 2011 Egyptian uprisings, the military was jeered for cracking down on protestors and for the infamous virginity tests they conducted on detained female protestors.  In June 2012, when Mohamed Morsi won the presidential race with 51% of the votes, crowds gathered in Tahrir Square to celebrate his victory, chanting : "God is great" and "down with military rule."    Barely a year passed before the crowds were cheering the U.S.-backed military for ousting their first democratically elected president in a coup dubbed by various media outlets as a democratic coup.   What transpired?

 

Mr. Morsi alienated both Egyptians and foreign states in his short term in office.  No doubt many Egyptians were alarmed and opposed to what they perceived as his ‘power-grab’, as well as the new constitution which passed in a referendum with 64% of a measly 33% turnout; but inarguably,  the economy was a huge factor in sending protestors to the streets.  The lack of progress in dealing with the economy, the fuel shortages,  and the IMF loan delay also contributed to the continuous unrest in Egypt. 

 

It is worthwhile mentioning here that a significant percentage of Egypt’s economy is run by the military.    Robert Springborg, an expert on Egypt’s military told The New York Times: “Protecting its businesses from scrutiny and accountability is a red line the [Egyptian] military will draw”.    Also of note is the fact that long lines formed at gasoline stations in Cairo amid an apparent fuel shortage, disappeared quickly after the coup.  This led to speculation that the fuel crisis had “been deliberately engineered to feed unrest and dissatisfaction with the Morsi government in the days before its overthrow.”

 

Gripped in social and economic crisis, it came as no surprise that on May 1^st, a group opposed to Mr. Morsi which called itself “Rebel” organized a 1 million people march to be held on June 30^th.    The group also planned on delivering a signed petition to the Prosecutor General at the same time with the aim of collecting 15 million signatures by that date.  “In one month, movement promoters travelled the length and breadth of the country, collecting signatures door to door, on buses, in restaurants and offices as well as on the internet.” They claimed that they had secured just over 7 million signatures, and four weeks later, on June 28^th, the Washington Post reported that the group had secured 22 millions signatures.   (Given the timeframe and the challenges, surely this number has a place in the Guinness Book of World Records – if only it could be verifiable).

 

This number cited by “Rebel” became an accepted reality and was promoted by media outlets without verification.  As anti-protestors marched on Tahrir as planned, military  tanks and personnel blocked the pro-Morsi crowd from the onset;  enabling the media lens to capture the sea of anti-Morsi demonstrators and marginalizing his supporters.  These actions together with the unverified 22 million signatures claim played an essential role in calling a military coup a “democratic” coup.  Washington was off the hook and funds could to secure the Egyptian army’s cooperation and loyalty to Washington. 

But one should ask why was it that Washington which has a long standing relationship with the Moslem Brotherhood[1] rejected Morsi?

 

There are many answers to this question – with the most basic being that he was not part of the plan.  As early as 2007 speculation about Hosni Mubarak’s  replacement appeared in the American mainstream media.  Discussing his ailing health, in October 2007, Michael Stackman's opinion piece in The New York Times addressed the importance of a Mubark's replacement to be someone who would continue the same policies towards Israel and Washington. 

 

With this in mind, in 2008, young, 'civil society' Egyptians met with former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice who called the young Egyptian activists the "hope for the future of Egypt".  The "hope of Egypt" also met the US National Security Advisor and prominent Congressional member. These meetings were organized by The Freedom House (see link here).  The Freedom House, an outfit which calls itself "independent" but receives 80% of its funding from the US government, including the National Endowment for Democracy -- a CIA front -- claimed to provide "advanced training on civic mobilization, strategic thinking, new media, advocacy and outreach".  

In 2010, Freedom House boasted of teaching new media tools to Egypt's "hope". 

Freedom House had reason to boast.  2010 was a crucial year to decide and settle on Mubarak's successor as time was of the essence given Mubarak's health and terminal illness.  In April 2010, the pro-Israeli Jerusalem Post ventured that former IAEA Chief, Egyptian-born Mohammad El baradei would "add excitement to Egyptian politics."  He did.   Mr. El-Baradei served on the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group funded by Carnegie, Soros, and Ford (Ford Foundation was a conduit for CIA funds during the Cold War – Saunders 2000[i]) where he rubbed shoulders with colleagues Shimon Peres, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal,  Richard Armitage,  Zbigniew Brzezinski, etc.

Morsi’s election not only interrupted Washington’s efforts to replace Mubarak in spite of his close cooperation with Washington (specifically in cutting ties with Syria).   Morsi presented Washington with many challenges.  Not only was he reported to have called “Jews descendants of pigs and apes”,  but his election into office was warmly welcomed not only by HAMAS, but also by the U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who called Morsi "the choice of the great people of Egypt" while one of his senior aides, Saeb Erekat, said the democratic vote for Morsi "meant the Palestinian cause was the Number One priority for all Egyptians".   Washington was not in the business of making Palestinians jubilant, or contradicting Israel’s demands. .

Regardless,  Morsi dug in deeper.    Soon after taking office, Morsi forced NGO’s out of Egypt, raising the ire of Freedom House (NGOs were referred to as force-multipliers by Colin Powell, and have been instrumental in executing US policies around the globe).   Additionally, Morsi forced out powerful military figures in order to reclaim the military power the army had seized.  As Juan Cole put it, ‘a coup against the generals’.  Israel called the move "Instability in Egypt to threaten Israel," and "Muslim Brotherhood on our doorstep."  However,  Morsi made the mistake of appointing Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi as military chief – a man with close ties to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.   

 Perhaps his most serious offense was his opposition to a dam which both Israel and Saudi Arabia favored as they had plans to divert water from the Nile.  In 2012, it was reported that Saudi Arabia had claimed a stake in the Nile.   Israel’s ambitions went much further back. 

First initiated by Theodore Herzl in 1903, the diversion plan was dropped due to British and Egyptian opposition to it only to be picked up again in the 1970s.  At that time, Israeli’s idea was to convince Egypt to divert Nile water to Israel.  In 1978, President Anwar Sadat “declared in Haifa to the Israeli public that he would transfer Nile water to the Negev. Shortly afterward, in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sadat promised that Nile water would go to Jerusalem.  During Mubarak’s presidency, published reports indicated that Israeli experts were helping Ethiopia to plan 40 dams along the Blue Nile.”[ii]

 On May 30, 2013, The Times of Israel reported that the construction on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (on the Blue Nile) had sparked a major diplomatic crisis with Egypt.  The article also reported (citing Al-Arabiya) that Major General Mohammed Ali Bilal, the deputy chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces, had said Egypt was not in a position to confront the project (countries).  “The only solution lies in the US intervening to convince Ethiopia to alleviate the impact of the dam on Egypt.”  No such solutions from the U.S.

 On June 3^rd,  Morsi met with his cabinet to discuss the dam and its implications.  Cabinet members were surprised to learn that the meeting was aired live.   During the meeting, a cabinet member said: “Imagine what 80 million of us would do to Israel and America if our water was turned off”.  Morsi contended that “We have very serious measures to protect every drop of Nile water.” The day prior to Morsi’s ouster, on July 2^nd, Fox News reported that work on the dam was “proceeding apace”, with plans to finish the project in 2017.

It seems the only “serious measure” undertaken was the ouster of Morsi.  With him gone, the military engaged, and the poring in of Saudi money, the dam project will proceed unhindered;  blood-diluted Nile water will flow to the enemies of the Egyptian in sink with a current of jubilation by the crowds who ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’.

---

[1] During the early years of the Cold War, American spies in Cairo  "engaged in an operation to show Soviet ungodliness"  by circulating anti-Islamic literature and attributing it to the Soviets.   When the nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to become America’s man in Egypt, CIA looked for a "religious spellbinder" who could tip the scales of Arab opinion and "divert the growing stream of anti-American hostility."  The intent was to “groom a messiah who would start out in Egypt, and then spread his word to Africans and perhaps other Third World peoples” in order to “immunize them against false prophets," namely Nasser[1]. Although no ‘messiah’ was groomed, the CIA did co-opt leaders of the Islamic revival movement known as the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood and “the seeds of a  furtive relationship between the CIA and the Ikhwan were planted.”  In the years ahead, the agency would become a de facto accomplice of the Muslim Brotherhood and its “terrorist” activities[1].  

---

[i] Frances Stonor Saunders. The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts

and Letters. New York: New Press 2000

[ii] “Will Nile water go to Israel? North Sinai pipelines and the politics of scarcity”, Middle East Policy  (Sep 1997): 113-124.

 

Where Does 22 million come from?

Whoever claimed there were 22 million signatures gathered to recall Morsy?  Why did the media repeat if without verifying. 

 

The made up number is intended to justify the army's actions.  Lets get this clear - regardless of how one feels about Morsy and Moslem Brotherhood and their policies, one must look at the bigger picture. 

 

According to Asia News, reporting from Egypt, the goal was for 15 million signatures by June 30th.  They gathered just over 7.5 million.  But two days earlier, June 28th,  WAshington Post claimed they had reached 22 million - and of course, it catches like wildfire http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-28/world/40255650_1_cairo-supporters-tahrir-square

 

I hope more prominent news services look into this and bring it to light.  This military coup was stupidly called "democratic coup" - what an oxymoron!

 

Here is the Asia News article

 

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Young-Egyptians-rekindle-revolution-by-collecting-more-than-7-million-signatures-against-the-Morsi-government-28063.html

 

05/30/2013 13:29
EGYPT
Young Egyptians rekindle revolution by collecting more than 7 million signatures against the Morsi government
Recall campaign aims for 15 million signatures by 30 June. Calling themselves "rebels", organisers see their initiative as an alternative to street demonstrations. Their move raises concerns in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Cairo (AsiaNews/Agencies) - A new movement of young Egyptians successfully collected 7,540,535 signatures to demand an end to the government of Mohamed Morsi and the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood over Egypt.
Organised by a "rebel" group, the campaign began on 1 May with the aim of 15 million signatures by 30 June, which marks the first anniversary since Egypt's first Islamist president took office.
In one month, movement promoters travelled the length and breadth of the country, collecting signatures door to door, on buses, in restaurants and offices as well as on the internet. Once completed, the petition will be handed over to Prosecutor General Talaat Abdullah.
Along with the collection of signatures, young people are also preparing a protest march of at least one million people that will march on 30 June from Tahrir Square to the presidential palace located in the district of Heliopolis.
"Whoever wants the revolution to prevail must rebel," said Mohamed Abdel-Aziz, one of the movement's organisers.
The young man calls for a new peaceful uprising demanding jobs, freedom and respect for justice, something that no longer exists in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Let 30 June be a decisive day for the revolution," he added.
The success of the rebels' campaign scares the Egyptian president. According to national media, support for the Muslim Brotherhood leader dropped by at least 20 percentage points from the 50 per cent he won in the 2012 presidential election.
On 25 May, at a press conference during Morsi's visit to Ethiopia, a reporter asked the president about the drop in support and the rise of the new movement.
"Some people say I barely got 52 percent of the vote in [last year's] presidential election," Morsi said, "but legally and constitutionally, I am the legitimate president."

 

 

 

Interview wiht RT on the Military Coup against Egypt's Morsy

Coup in Egypt

Syria: The Faces Behind The Terror

In her extraordinarily bold and direct speech addressed to the Irish Parliament, Clare Daly (TD, Dublin North) called Obama a “war criminal” and “hypocrite of the century”.  In describing the fawned reception of Obama in Ireland akin to pimping and prostituting of that nation,  Ms. Daly hit the nail on the head.   Sadly, America dwarfs Ireland and elsewhere in the undignified category of prostitution – the 29 standing ovations from Congress in May 2011 for war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu attests to this tragic fact.  

While Daly was quite right in censuring Obama for his criminal policies, including aiding terrorists in Syria, it is worthwhile noting that Obama is merely a willing instrument; the  faces and factors behind his handlers and the policies merit greater scrutiny and exposure. 

Backing and arming the so-called Syrian opposition distracts from the threat posed by Israel and its’s expansionist agenda by internalizing the enemy in order to weak the State.    As former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin  told the audience at the  Israel Policy Forum in February 2013:  “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating.  We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an AlQaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army."

 Perpetuating adversaries to kill each other is a time-tested tactic – one which was used during the bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war;  a war which according to Leon Wieseltier[i] was a  “distraction” when Israeli boots were on the ground in Southern Lebanon.   In that war,  the United States was providing arms and intelligence to both sides.    When asked what the logic was in aiding both sides in the bloody war, a former official replied: “You had to have been there”[ii].   But why Syria?

The Need for Water

The primary goal of the early Zionist leadership was to control and secure the region’s waters.   At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Chaim Weizmann declared that ‘it was of vital importance not only to secure all water resources feeding the country, but to control them at the sources – and the development of these waters became the primary aim of the Yishuv as a whole[iii].    This policy remained in place. As Israel’s third Prime Minister Levi Eshkol put it, water was “the blood flowing through the arteries of the nation”.

As previously stated (HERE and HERE), the chaos we witness in Syria today has been in the making for years with the aid and backing of Israel-firsters in order to accommodate Israel’s agenda – expansion and control of regional water supplies while weakening its adversary/ies.

Israel faced one of its worst droughts in 1990-91.  A second more serious drought in 1998, forced it to turn to water rich Turkey.  Turkey and Israel engaged in serious negotiations starting in May 2000 to import 50 billion cubic meters of fresh water from Turkey using tanker ships, but using tankers was not cost effective for the transport of water.  Alternate plans were suggested.

In September 2000,  the same year that young Bashar-al Assad succeeded his father as President of Syria, a strategy paper entitled “The Geopolitics of Water” by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) opined that "Since extensive water planning proposals will necessitate the establishment of pipelines and energy grids stretching across borders, a political and military structure that can ensure the safety and security of the carriers will be the prerequisite to effective water sharing” ….. “But an effective regional system would require political-military cooperation against Syria”. 

How to achieve this?

 Israeli-Firsters to the rescue

 Media mogul Haim Saban became involved in politics in the mid 1990’s with a view to support Israel.  Saban professes that his greatest concern is the “protection” of Israel.   At a conference in Israel, Saban described his method of influencing American politics : ‘Make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets’. (Saban penned an opinion piece in The New York Times in support of President Obama in his 2012 re-election bid). 

 It was no surprised therefore that in 2002, Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  Saban Center would play an important role in propping up Syrian opposition (as it did in fermenting unrest post-2009 Iran elections with their June 2009 publication titled: "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran"^[1]).  

 In 2006,  Time Magazine revealed that that the US had been agitating, funding, and supporting "opposition" in Syria.  According to the Time,  the U.S.  was  "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."  

It is worthwhile mentioning here that America’s support of the so-called  “opposition” which includes criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters to effect regime change underscores America’s stark hypocrisy.   According to  18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (Cornell Law), advocating the overthrow of the government, ‘organizing or help or attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence’ bears serious consequences including fines and prison sentence of up to 20 years.

What is most revealing about the abovementioned Time Magazine piece of 2006 is that America’s efforts to aid the opposition and undermine Assad were run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF).   Abdulhamid was a visiting Fellow at the Saban Center (2004-2006) before moving on to the Neocon-run National Defense of Democracies.  

When in  2008, Israel-firster Dennis Ross met with the "opposition" to discuss "Syria in Transition", Saban’s fellow - Amar Abdullhamid  was present.   In February 2009, Dennis Ross joined the Obama Administration team.  In April  2009, the US funded, London-based Baraada TV started its anti-Assad propaganda into Syria (The epicenter of the uprisings' was Baraada over water distribution).  Baraada  TV’s  chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development headed by Anas al-Abdah who was in attendance at the 2008 meeting with Dennis Ross. 

 It came as no surprise that John McCain who was a member of the  Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) formed to rid Iraq of Saddam Hossein, and a cheerleader for the Libya intervention, the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak, for bombing Iran, and so on…..visited Syrian “opposition” (via Turkey) in order to encourage more bloodshed.  And expectedly, he was de-briefed -- not at the White House, but at the Saban Center!  

Soon after McCain’s presentation at the Saban Center, the White House disputed UN’s account and claimed that that Syria had crossed the ‘red line’ and used chemical weapons.

 It is not the intention of this article to exclude the plethora of other individuals, think tanks, forums, and media pundits who have institutionalized Israel’s policies and promoted them as ‘America’s  interests’; these are too numerous to mention here.   However, a notable other Israel supporter must be named.

The Evangelical Factor

While various groups in Washington perpetuate and support Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies -- at a cost to America, non have the zeal and the zest of the Evangelicals who support Israel to death.   According to the dispensational model, a time of turmoil lies ahead, but believers will be "raptured" away before it begins. This period of tribulation will culminate in the final battle at Armageddon, a valley northwest of Jerusalem.   

The close association between American evangelicals and Israel has been a clear goal of Israeli politicians, especially those in the Likud party.    According to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of AJC, “the evangelical community is the largest and fastest-growing bloc of pro-Jewish sentiment in this country”[iv].   Israel and Jewish  organizations continue to  rely on the support of Evangelicals to justify Israel’s occupation of Arab land even as  Christian Zionists zest for evangelizing Jews remains a point of tension.  

For example, within days of the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon (with a green light from Reagan), full-page ads appeared in leading papers requesting Evangelical support for the invasion[v].  In 1998, when Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, he met with Jerry Falwell and numerous fundamentalist Christians before meeting with President Clinton.  Similarly, as recently as April 2013, Pat Robertson warned that brokering  peace between Israel and Palestine would bring  punishment on America.   

 It has been alleged that funds raised in America by right wing Christians is funneled to West Bank settlements.  The mayor of Ariel on the West Bank had estimated that two thirds of all Jewish settlements were funded by Christian Zionists.[vi]

 Building for Armageddon?

 While Evangelicals (not all) are rupture-ready and encourage Israel’s expansionist agenda, Israeli politicians are not yet Armageddon-ready; at least, not yet.

In March 2013, Business Inside revealed that the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars building bunkers in Israel due to be completed 900 days from February 13, 2013.     The project called Site 911 “will have five levels buried underground and six additional outbuildings on the above grounds, within the perimeter. At about 127,000 square feet, the first three floors will house classrooms, an auditorium, and a laboratory — all wedged behind shock resistant doors — with radiation protection and massive security.  Only one gate will allow workers entrance and exit during the project and that will be guarded by only Israelis”.

 Each door of the facility will have a detailed description of the mezuzahs written in “in-erasable ink”.

This should be heartwarming news to Americans whose taxes are spent on such projects while the bridges at home are crumbling. 

 The future

The political establishment and the media has pimped out the nation.  The list of conflicts awaiting us is long and bloody.  Syria will not be the last conflict.   This has been a brief and incomplete overview of what drives our nation, and where we are headed, the handlers and the willing instruments (in the words of Clare Daly, pimps and prostitutes).  We continue to sink our head in sand and hope for a hero – for ‘something to happen’.   There is only one hope for the future, and the only one power that can alter this destructive path:   “We, The People”.

---

[1] Chapter 6 reads: “The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt US funding for promoting democracy in Iran). US economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership......”

 

---

[i] Wieseltier, Leon, “Israel meets Iran in Lebanon; The Wrong War”, The New Republic, Apr 8, 1985

[ii] Stephen R. Shalom, The United States and Iran-Iraq War,   citing Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," New York Times, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.

 

[iii] Jan Selby, “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East; The Other Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

 

[iv] Donald Wagner,  “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, The Christian Century, Nov. 4, 1998).

 

[v] Donald Wagner,  “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”,  ibid

[vi] Colin Shindler, “Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship”, Israeli Studies, March 31, 2000