Posts Tagged ‘NATO’

CounterPsyOps

by TONY CARTALUCCI | LAND DESTROYER | JUNE 13, 2014

All roads lead to Baghdad and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is following them all, north from Syria and Turkey to south. Reading Western headlines, two fact-deficient narratives have begun gaining traction. The first is that this constitutes a “failure” of US policy in the Middle East, an alibi as to how the US and its NATO partners should in no way be seen as complicit in the current coordinated, massive, immensely funded and heavily armed terror blitzkrieg toward Baghdad. The second is how ISIS appears to have “sprung” from the sand dunes and date trees as a nearly professional military traveling in convoys of matching Toyota trucks without explanation.

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to…

View original post 2,090 more words

Advertisements

CounterPsyOps

As the standoff in the eastern Ukraine deteriorates into violence it’s up to world powers to step in and calm things down. Despite tough talk from Washington, the US, EU, Russia and Ukraine have managed to reach a framework to peace in Geneva. But will it be enough to avert a civil war? Sophie asks the Russian Foreign minister himself — Sergey Lavrov is on Sophie&Co today.

View original post

PN

RT
Mar 17, 2014

While the Crimean referendum tops world media headlines, an attempt at secession is going on in Veneto, Italy, with its major city Venice. But as it is being virtually ignored by media, people in Europe are hardly aware of what’s happening next door. READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/7f5f3n

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

[related: Venice votes in referendum on splitting from Rome]

View original post

Source: GRTV

The West is the Architect of Terrorism in Syria
by grtv

Press TV has conducted an interview with Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal about the issue of the Western proxy war in Syria and the fresh advances being made by the army of the Syrian government in its fight against insurgents backed by the West, Israel and some Persian Gulf states.

The following is an approximate transcript of the interview, which appears on video after a short Press TV interview with retired Lebanese army general, Hisham Jaber.

Press TV: How do you see the situation in Syria? Which side has the upper hand?

Chossudovsky: It appears from the reports that the insurgency has been defeated. This is something we’ve known for quite some time. It’s been a progressive and continuous process.

And we should emphasize that this insurgency is a US-NATO-Israeli-sponsored terrorist operation, which is being defeated. And we should understand that this is a proxy entity of the Western military alliance recruited by NATO and its allies including of course Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

We have a severe opposition and an insurgency, which is largely a Western construct – it’s a fake opposition and the military arm of this entity are the terrorists, which are supported covertly by Western intelligence, supplied and so on.

So the question we have to ask ourselves now, which is of course very crucial: Do we need a peace plan or do we need peace?

Because in essence Syria has achieved the goal of laying the grounds for peace through the defeat of these terrorists.

Press TV: With regards to the plan to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons… Belgium, France and Albania were chosen as host countries.

Firstly, is there any significance as to why these countries; and secondly, what are the side effects of chemical weapons destruction for these host countries?

Chossudovsky: With regards to the chemical weapons issue pertaining to Syria, this has been, on the part of the United States and its allies, it has been a mechanism in a sense to divert attention from the real conflict.

It has been used as a mechanism also to divert attention from the fact that the weapons of mass destruction are held essentially by the Western military alliance and its…ally, Israel, which threatens the entire region.

At the same time, putting aside the chemical weapons issue, we must establish the record of what has happened.

This has been a criminal undertaking of unleashing terrorists against a sovereign State.

We must declare an unconditional moratorium on support to these mercenary forces, [though] the Western military alliance will attempt to rebuild them.

We have to raise the issue of war reparations because essentially this is a criminal war and those responsible for that war must pay reparations. Incidentally the United States has in fact destroyed several countries in the post-World War Two period, starting with Korea, Vietnam, of course Afghanistan and Iraq; they‘ve never paid war reparations.

But here we have a situation where the war criminals should be exposed and indicted under international humanitarian law.

The actors of this undertaking are not the al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists; these are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance. The architects are in Brussels, Washington, London, Ankara, Tel Aviv, Doha and Riyadh.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

pentagon (2)

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” (J.Edgar Hoover,1895-1972.)

Since the fairy tale about weapons of mass destruction that can be launched against Western targets “within forty five minutes” is well past it’s sell by date, the trans-Atlantic hasbara industry has dreamed up a new Grim Reaper for Syria, their latest quarry: chemical weapons.

Stephen Zunes succinct quote that: “ U.S. policy regarding chemical weapons has been so inconsistent and politicized that the United States is in no position to take leadership in response to any use of such weaponry by Syria”(i) hits the chemical warhead on the nose cone.

Never mind Israel’s lethal stockpiles, for ever, seemingly, blind eye territory, as apparently is the United States 5,449 metric tons chemical weapons arsenal, which cannot be disposed of until at least 2021 due to the hazards involved (Japan Times, 12th September 2013.).

However the storm troopers of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) joined the other insurgents in Syria and in under a month: “ … completed the functional destruction of critical equipment for all of its declared chemical weapons production facilities and mixing/filling plants, rendering them inoperable.”(ii)

President Assad, his country, this year alone, being five times an illegal target of Israel’s fearsome destructive power from just across the Golan Heights (iii) stated that his weapons were purely defensive – to use the cold war adage, a balance of terror. All nations have the legal right to self-defence – unless they are majority Muslim, it would seem.

Compared to the might of the countries threatening its destruction, Syria is now, if not quite a sitting duck, certainly a lamer one and must be mindful of the fate of Libya, when pressured and Iraq when forced to disarm.

Coincidentally, President Assad’s assertions are almost exactly those used by the United States regarding chemical weapons – at a time when the U.S.  was certainly at no threat from external forces.

On 28th March 1990, the Los Angeles Times reported that: “The U.S. government is considering forcing two defiant chemical companies to sell the Pentagon a key ingredient for producing nerve gas, Pentagon officials said …”

Further: “The United States has said that it would need chemical weapons to deter the Soviets’ use of chemical weapons during a non-nuclear conflict in Central Europe – a prospect even (the then) Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (termed) ‘extremely remote.’ “

This was five months after the fall of the Berlin Wall (9th November 1989) and fifteen months after then President Gorbachev had committed, at the UN, to cutting Soviet troops by a massive 500,000, including withdrawing significant military presence in eastern Europe.(iv) A hand of reconciliation to the U.S., by any standards, after approaching fifty years of hostilities.

Given the circumstances, was the US really concerned about the “Soviet threat” or was an un-noticed elephant lurking round the corner? The LA Times article was headed: “Firms Balk at Selling Nerve Gas Element to U.S.: Two chemical companies cite corporate policy and ethics. But the Pentagon may invoke an old law and force them to deliver the compound.”

“The Occidental Chemical Corp., and the Mobay Corp., said company policies forbid sales that would contribute to the proliferation of chemical weapons. Both refused to fill Defense Department orders for thionyl chloride, a widely used industrial and agricultural chemical that is needed to make a lethal nerve agent.

Thus:

“The U.S. government is considering forcing two defiant chemical companies to sell the Pentagon a key ingredient for producing nerve gas …

“Defense officials said the two firms are the only ones in the United States that now commercially produce the chemical agent. The firms’ unwillingness to sell has brought the production of a new generation of U.S. chemical weapons, which began in 1987, to a halt.

“The Army needs 160,000 pounds of the ingredient by June to proceed on schedule, the Pentagon said. Government officials said they can compel the companies to sell the chemical under the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law designed to give the Pentagon first priority on war materiel.”(My emphasis.)

What war did the Pentagon have in mind, since the Administration of the President George H.W. Bush was working: “to negotiate a worldwide ban” on chemical arms production and just four months earlier Bush had also: “proposed to Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev that the superpowers sign an accord at their summit this June that would call for the destruction of 80% of their chemical weapons …”

Yet regarding the purchase of the potentially lethal chemicals: “If the United States invokes the Defense Production Act, the companies will get the message that this is important and that they should reconsider their policies”, said one official.

Occidental Petroleum Corp’s: “Chairman and chief executive officer Armand Hammer (was) a longtime champion of improved U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and has been critical of the pace of U.S. arms control efforts.”

A spokesman for Mobay, subsidiary of  German giant, Bayer: “said the Pentagon approached Mobay with an order for 160,000 pounds of thionyl chloride …” It was needed by June (1990) for use in the production of the nerve agent Sarin, noted the New Scientist (7th April 1990.)

Mobay’s man was robust: “We have told the government . . . that we have no intentions of selling thionyl chloride for these purposes.”

So, to the lurking elephant. It seems it was less about deterring “the Soviets’ …” and more about an Iraq, financially on its knees and fiscally relentlessly undermined and targeted by the U.S. since the end of the Iran-Iraq war (September1980-August1988) in which the U.S. had backed Iraq (and armed both sides.)

During and after a U.S., driven war, devastating both countries, Kuwait, Iraq accused, had been slant drilling in to Iraq’s Rumaila oil fields. In addition, since the end of the war, Kuwait had hugely exceeded OPEC production quotas, costing, Iraq claimed, $14 billion a year, in addition to the $2.4 billion estimated loss from the war period extractions of “some millions of barrels” – additionally “capturing some of Iraq’s customers.”(v)

Saddam Hussein had told a session of the Arab League: “We cannot tolerate this kind of economic warfare. We have reached a state of affairs where we cannot take the pressure.” Whatever else, he was the proudest of men, the admission must have cost him dearly.

That America did not know something was about to give in the near future is unthinkable. The U.S. had flagged Kuwait’s oil tankers with U.S., flags in 1987, to protect the statelet with the world’s fifth largest oil reserves, from Iran – and they remained U.S. flagged. An attack on Kuwait would be an attack on a U.S., protectorate.

Interestingly, some in Washington were sympathetic to Saddam Hussein’s view: “Henry M. Schuler, director of the energy security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that from the Iraqi viewpoint, the Kuwait Government was ‘acting aggressively – it was economic warfare.’ “

”Whether he’s Hitler or not, he has some reason on his side”, Mr. Schuler said, adding that: “American officials needed to appreciate the economic and psychological significance the Rumaila field holds for the Iraqis and why Kuwait’s exploitation of Rumaila, in addition to its high oil output in the 1980′s, was an affront to the Iraqis.

”It’s not just the emotional man in the street in the Arab world who finds the Iraq case appealing,” he said: ”So do many of those who are thinking, intelligent people. If the Iraqi people feel they are the victims of aggression, and that their legitimate claims are being stifled now by American intervention, they will hang in there a lot longer than if that were not the case.”

As recently as 2011, veteran, ten term Congressman Ron Paul talked in Congress on the slant drilling claims pointing out that: “Historian Mark Zepezauer notes that the equipment to slant drill Iraq’s oil illegally was bought from (US National Security Advisor to President George H.W. Bush) Brent Scowcroft’s old company. Kuwait was pumping out around $14-billion worth of oil from beneath Iraqi territory … Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it’s certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast.”(vi) (Emphasis mine.)

However, it was not just Kuwait targeting Iraq’s frail finances, as Brian Becker wrote in a detailed account (vii.) The U.S., betrayal of their ally in the regional ravages of the Iran-Iraq war, was total:

“Having weakened Iran, the goal was then to weaken Iraq and make sure that it could not develop as a regional power capable of challenging U.S. domination. After the war ended, U.S. policy toward Iraq shifted, becoming increasingly hostile. The way it shifted is quite revealing; bearing all the signs of a well-planned conspiracy.

“The cease-fire between Iran and Iraq began on August 20, 1988. On September 8, 1988, Iraqi Foreign Minister Sa’dun Hammadi was to meet with U.S. Secretary of State George Schulz. The Iraqis had every reason to expect a warm welcome in Washington and to begin an era of closer co-operation on trade and industrial development.”

In the event, two hours before the meeting, without warning to Hammadi,  State Department spokesman Charles Redman called a press conference charging that: “The U.S. Government is convinced that Iraq has used chemical weapons … against Kurdish guerillas. We don’t know the extent to which chemical weapons have been used but any use in this context is abhorrent and unjustifiable.We expressed our strong concern to the Iraqi Government which is well aware of our position that the use of chemical weapons is totally unjustifiable and unacceptable.”

“Redman did not allude to any evidence at all” and further mislead, since seemingly the Iraqi government was not informed of the charges.

When Hammadi arrived at the State Department for his meeting with Schulz, he was besieged by the media asking about the massacre and unable to give coherent answers. Bewildered, he repeatedly asked the journalists the basis for their questions.

The meeting with Schulz was a dismal: “with Iraq’s expectations of U.S. assistance in rebuilding after the Iran-Iraq war dashed.”

“Within twenty-four hours of Redman’s press release, the Senate voted unanimously to impose economic sanctions on Iraq which would cancel sales of food and technology.

Whilst the genocidal and ecocidal U.N. blockade on Iraq from August 1990 is remembered, this previous U.S. stab in the back to a former ally on its financial knees is forgotten.

Thus, in addition to Kuwait’s alleged fiscal sabotage was, from September 9th, 1988: “… a two year record that amounts to economic harassment of Iraq by the American State Department, media, and Congress.”

However, after the chemical weapons announcement, the near daily rhetoric regarding Saddam from Washington and Whitehall was that: “he gasses his own people”, “uses chemical weapons against his own people.” And the drums of war beat ever louder.

In fact: “US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons … As an envoy from President Reagan … he had a secret meeting with (Saddam) and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran … a Senate committee investigating the relationship between the U.S. and Iraq discovered that in the mid-1980s – following the Rumsfeld visit – dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq under licence from the Commerce Department. (Emphasis mine.)

“They included anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme … ‘ The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.’ “ (viii)

Pressure on Iraq accelerating, the U.S.-U.K., and “coalition” was handed another propaganda coup, when, on 15th March 1990, Iraq executed Farzad Bazoft, an Iranian born freelance journalist with a desk at London’s Observer newspaper.

After a massive explosion as al-Iskaderia military complex, south of Baghdad, Bazoft had persuaded Daphne Parrish, a British nurse, working in Baghdad, to take him to the perimeter of the site of the explosion. There he took photographs and two containers of soil samples. He attempted to leave Baghdad the following day, but was arrested, with the samples and photographs at Baghdad airport.

Iraq was again the Western media and governments’ mega demon. But an Iranian acting as he did, after the appalling eight year war would surely have led any country, in such circumstances to act similarly. Witness U.S. paranoia after the tragedy of losing three buildings. Daphne Parrish’s book: “Prisoner in Baghdad” gives the lie to any claims of Bazoft’s innocence.

Just two weeks later America was demanding the chemicals for weapons “by June.” On 25th July 1990, at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, America’s Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie assured Saddam Hussein: “We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.(ix) “ On 2nd August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The response was the reduction of Iraq to a “pre-industrial age”, as threatened by James Baker, in the forty two day blitz from January 17th 1991. On February 15, in the preamble to cease-fire proposal, Saddam Hussein said “The years 1988 and 1989 saw sustained campaigns in the press and other media and by other officials in the United States and other nations to pave the way for the fulfillment of vicious aims (i.e., war.)

Had there been one more “vicious aim” though? Was the urging, indeed the threatening demands for chemical weapons ingredients been because the plan had been to use them and blame Iraq? Is it possible there was a plan to even sacrifice their own troops in a ploy that would have likely had U.N., backing invasion and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s government had it been thought to have used such appalling weapons?

In the event, the chemical companies stood firm and: “left without the supply of thionyl chloride necessary to meet the production deadline, five weeks later the Bush administration ‘offered’ to halt binary production during chemical disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union.”(x)

The: “conclusion is that the US chemical industry’s refusal to produce necessary precursor chemicals, left the Bush administration with no other option than to fully commit to chemical disarmament.”

In the event, the chemical – and radiological – weapons the U.S., used were in up to 750 tons of depleted uranium weaponry.

We will have to wait for another trove of documents to be “liberated” from the U.S., Administration to affirm whether the theory regarding the pressure for the chemical weapons is correct. However, given the propaganda parallels in media, from governments with the current situation with Syria and the near certainty that chemical horrors are being used by the Western backed insurgents and blamed on President Assad’s policies, the all is well worth bearing in mind.

As Brian Becker concluded regarding Saddam’s accusations:

“The Washington Post’s story on the cease-fire proposal of February 15, 1991 was titled simply: ‘Baghdad’s Conspiracy Theory of Recent History.’ Some conspiracies theories just happen to be true.”

Notes

i. http://fpif.org/the_us_and_chemical_weapons_no_leg_to_stand_on/

ii.http://www.opcw.org/news/article/syria-completes-destruction-activities-to-render-inoperable-chemical-weapons-production-facilities-a/

iii. http://www.infowars.com/israel-attacks-syria-again/

iv. http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-07/news/mn-1054_1_world-leaders

v.http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-the-oilfield-lying-below-the-iraq-kuwait-dispute.html?src=pm

vi. http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-enters-evidence-of-bush-war-crimes-in-congressional-record/

vii. http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm

viii.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz2kRCo4p5S

 ix  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/april.html

 x. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/chemical-weapons-us_b_3945933.html

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Dandelion Salad

by Rick Rozoff
Writer, Dandelion Salad
Stop NATO
November 8, 2013

John Robles
Voice of Russia
Recorded November 5, 2013

The head of the US National Security Agency is also the head of the US/NATO Cyber Command, a tool of war designed to wage war in what the architects call the “Fourth Space”. This in effect means every time you get on-line you are potentially entering a war zone. The recent events surrounding the attempted military aggression against Syria that was stopped by Russia’s adept diplomatic efforts and the granting of asylum to Edward Snowden have shown that the days of US domination of the world are coming to an end.

View original post 2,463 more words

PN

RT
August 26, 2013

Two years on from the fall of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, the euphoria of the revolution has all but gone. Today, armed militias and Islamists rule much of the country fighting over territory, smuggling routes, and shares of dwindling oil revenue. To top that off, a desperate government is quietly re-activating Colonel Gaddafi’s feared surveillance apparatus, using it to hunt down dissenters. RT’s Paula Slier reports on the sobering anniversary.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

View original post

Dandelion Salad

by Finian Cunningham
Writer, Dandelion Salad
East Africa
Crossposted from PressTV
May 2, 2013

A failed coup in the North African country of Chad this week is just another repercussion from the wave of Western state-sponsored violence and destabilization, stretching from Central Asia, through the Middle East and across Africa.

The Chadian regime of President Idriss Deby said it had thwarted a coup attempt after it arrested an unknown number of army personnel and at least one opposition politician.

View original post 1,667 more words

Since the beginning of the year [2009] the United States and NATO have repeatedly indicated in both word and deed their intention to lay claim to and extend their military presence in what they refer to as the High North: The Arctic Circle and the waters connecting with it, the Barents and the Norwegian Seas, as well as the Baltic.

Washington issued National Security Presidential Directive 66 on January 12, 2009 which includes the bellicose claim that “The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region [which] include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations.” [1] Later in the same month the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] held a two-day Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North in the capital of Iceland attended by the bloc’s secretary general and its top military commanders.

This coordinated initiative has been covered in a previous article in this series [2] and plans by the West to encroach on Arctic territory and confront Russia in the western region of the ocean have been addressed in another. [3]

Over the past month efforts by NATO member states, individually and collectively, to increase their military presence and warfighting ability in the High North have accelerated dramatically.

Sweden: NATO’s Testing Ground And Battleground

The alarming and aggressive campaign is exemplified by the ongoing 10-day Loyal Arrow 2009 NATO military exercises being conducted in Sweden, described by a major American daily newspaper as “A NATO rapid-reaction force…on a war footing in Swedish Lapland” which consists of “Ten countries, 2,000 troops, a strike aircraft carrier, and 50 fighter jets –  including the US Air Force’s F-15 Eagle…participating in war games near contested Arctic territories.”

The same source reflects that “Choosing this place for war games reflects the growing strategic importance of the Arctic, which is estimated to contain a quarter of the Earth’s oil and gas….” [4]

A NATO website offers these details:

“Ten NATO and non-NATO nations will participate in the live flying exercise LAW 09 in Sweden from 8 to 18 June 2009. Some 50 fast jets, which will be based at Norrbotten Wing, Sweden will participate in the exercise. The aim of the exercise is to train units and selected parts of the NATO Response Force Joint Force Air Component Headquarters in the coordination and conduct of air operations. Additionally, NATO Airborne Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft, as well as other transport aircraft and helicopters, will support the exercise. Some of the participating units will be flying in from bases in Norway and Finland.

“The exercise is based upon a fictitious scenario. Within this scenario, elements of the NATO Response Force (NRF)…will be deployed to a theatre of operations. The NRF was created to provide the Alliance with an effective tool to face the new security threats of the 21st century. It is a rapidly deployable, multinational and joint force with modern equipment able to carry out the full range of Alliance missions whenever and wherever needed, as tasked by the North Atlantic Council.

“About 800-900 troops from Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey and the United States as well as NATO’s airborne early warning component will participate.” [5]

Read the full report via the Centre for research on Globalization.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

NATO turns into IOTO as it spread to the East

With the prodding of the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) appears to be making another long-leap to the east. Already extending its influence in the Mediterranean and North Africa through the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Middle East through the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, NATO now looks set to extend its North Atlantic Charter well into the Indian Ocean. The «North Atlantic» Treaty Organization may one day be expanded to be called NATO- «IOTO», or the NATO – Indian Ocean Treaty Organization.

The United States has just been admitted to the Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) as a «dialogue partner». In essence, the United States has received the same type of membership in the thirteen-year old Indian Ocean regional bloc as NATO has afforded to countries like Australia and Japan. There is little doubt that NATO and Washington see American associate status in IOR-ARC as a vehicle for bringing more nations to the East into the NATO fold. The United States joins NATO nations France, Britain, and NATO «global partners» Japan, Pakistan, and Egypt as an associate partner of the IOR-ARC.

India, which has served as chair of IOR-ARC since 2011, will turn over the chair to Australia in 2013. Under India’s chairmanship, the United States became a dialogue partner, and with close U.S. military ally Australia in charge from 2013-2015, IOC-ARC cooperation with NATO can be expected to grow even closer. The other IOR-ARC dialogue partner is China, and the politics behind America’s entry into Indian Ocean regional bloc politics can only be seen as a further attempt by Washington and its allies to resurrect the old George F. Kennan Cold War-era anti-Soviet «containment» policy and apply it to China.

By island-hopping through the Indian Ocean, NATO can eventually use the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN’s) regional forum, in which NATO members Canada, the United States, and NATO members in the European Union, as well as U.S. NATO global partner allies Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea, have dialogue partner status, to extend NATO’s reach from the Indian Ocean into the Asia-Pacific region. It is clear that NATO intends to become a global security bloc that would see the world in two-dimensional «NATO versus anyone else» terms.

Currently there are 28 members of NATO. Other nations in Europe waiting in the wings for full membership are Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Adding NATO global partners Iraq, Afghanistan, and Mongolia to the Mediterranean Dialogue countries of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and perhaps, soon, Libya and the ICI countries of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, and the true «road map» of NATO expansion comes into sharper focus.

IOR-AOC partner status will give the United States the diplomatic offices to convince the group to align itself with NATO, just as a joint Turkish-American initiative convinced the Gulf Cooperation Council countries of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE to sign up for the ICI.

With Australia at the helm of the IOR-ARC from 2013 to 2015 and considering the fact that the Australian Labor Party of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Liberal-National Coalition of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott outdo each other in following the dictates of Washington, NATO will be in a commanding position to bring IOR-ARC nations into the western alliance’s firm grip. The easiest nations to convince will be those having an existing military relationship with the United States and/or Britain: Kenya, Oman, Seychelles, Mauritius, Thailand, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Nations where France has influence, Madagascar and Comoros, will quickly fall into line.

Indonesia, India, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Mozambique will see the economic benefits of cooperating with NATO. That will leave Malaysia, South Africa, and more interestingly, Iran, left out of the equation. However, NATO’s propaganda arm, which cleverly disguises its operations and those of the Central Intelligence Agency through the financing of non-governmental organizations associated with George Soros’s Open Society Institute, has trained its sights on the governments of Malaysia, South Africa, and Iran. The goal is to replace the governments of the three nations with more subservient regimes that will follow Washington’s and NATO’s orders.

It is clear that Washington is relying on the Gillard government in Canberra to extend NATO’s and America’s military influence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. After attending the NATO Summit in Chicago in May 2012, Gillard agreed to a major presence of U.S. naval and air bases in Darwin and Perth, as well as the establishment of a drone base on the Australian-administered Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Indian Ocean. There have been suggestions that Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was ousted in a parliamentary coup organized by the CIA and its Australian counterparts because Rudd was not keen on Australia’s closer military ties with the United States and NATO. Rudd reportedly favored a more independent and Asia-oriented foreign policy. If Rudd was a victim of a «perfectly-democratic» CIA coup, he would not have been the first victim. Independent-minded Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was deposed in a CIA-initiated constitutional coup in 1975. Whitlam was replaced by Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser, who, like Gillard, was more in synch with Washington’s wishes.

To be fair, Fraser, who is now 82, was one of the first Australian leaders who came out against the U.S. base expansion in Australia. In 2009, Fraser left the Liberal Party, criticizing its leader, Abbott, as a «conservative» and not a «liberal». Earlier, Fraser’s denunciation of Bush’s war policies, earned him the wrath of neo-cons in the Liberal Party, one of whom called the former prime minister a «frothing-at-the-mouth leftie» who supported Islamic fundamentalists. The criticism was similar to other knee-jerk character assassinations launched against anyone who disagreed with the neo-con, Israel-genuflecting, globalized NATO crowd. Whitlam, who is 96, patched things up with Fraser long ago. In 1996, they united to support Australia breaking its ties with the British crown and becoming a republic. Both were keenly aware that it was the Queen’s appointed Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, a longtime CIA asset, who engineered Whitlam’s ouster in 1975.

Expansion of NATO into a global military pact has its roots in the George W. Bush administration and, specifically, in a 2006 proposal floated by Bush’s ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder. Writing in the Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs, Daalder proffered a neo-conservative dream: a «Global NATO» bringing into full membership South Africa, Japan, Brazil, and Australia. Arch-neocon publisher Rupert Murdoch has made no secret of his desire for his home country of Australia to become a full member of NATO. Many leading Zionists in the United States, Canada, and Britain have called for full NATO membership for Israel. Other neo-cons see a NATO with Singapore, New Zealand, South Korea, and India as full members.

The Mediterranean, ICI, and IOR-ARC moves by the United States are laying the groundwork for global NATO expansion. There is one development that could stand in NATO’s way: the fragmentation of NATO members from within, The possibilities of an independent Scotland splitting from England, an independent Quebec separating from Canada, and arising from the potentially failed states of Belgium, Spain, and Italy, independent Flanders, Catalonia, and Venice, may be the internal cancer that finally metastasizes into a disease that kills off NATO, once and for all.
 

Republished with persmission via Strategic-Culture.org

http://rt.com/news/us-troops-turkey-patriot-345/ A group of 27 US troops has arrived in Turkey to operate NATO Patriot surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries. At least six of those will be deployed along the country’s border with Syria. ­The troops arrived in the southeastern province of Gaziantep on Thursday and were taken to a local hotel by Turkish security forces, local media reported. Their first task will be to survey the sites where the Patriot missiles are to be deployed, after they are fully delivered. The US, Germany and the Netherlands agreed to supply the SAM systems after Turkey made the request to its NATO allies. Ankara said it needed the weapons to protect itself from a possible attack from Syria. The six Patriot batteries are to be deployed near the cities of Adana, Gaziantep and Kahramanmaras, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in December. The batteries will be operated by troops of their respective countries: The US and Germany are sending about 400 troops each, while the Netherlands will have around 360 soldiers manning their Patriot SAMs. Read the full report via RT.com

PN

PressTV
December 27, 2012

An analyst says NATO is preparing for a “military intervention in Syria” in the New Year with a major US fleet now off the Syrian coast in the Mediterranean and Patriot missiles being installed in the country. The comment comes as a senior Israeli official says the United States is gearing up for a possible military intervention in Syria to prevent Syria’s alleged chemical weapons from being used against civilians or falling into wrong hands. Israel’s Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon told Israel Radio on Thursday that Israeli officials were in close touch with their American counterparts about the latest developments in Syria.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Ken Stone with the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War from Hamilton to further discuss the issue at hand.

Follow our Facebook on: https://www.facebook.com/presstvchannel
Follow our Twitter on: http://twitter.com/presstv
Follow our Tumblr on: http://presstvchannel.tumblr.com

View original post

The Extinction Protocol

November 12, 2012SYRIANATO will defend alliance member Turkey, which struck back after mortar rounds fired from Syria landed inside its border, the alliance’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a meeting in Prague on Monday. “NATO as an organization will do what it takes to protect and defend Turkey, our ally. We have more plans in place to make sure that we can protect and defend Turkey and hopefully that way also deter so that attacks on Turkey will not take place,” he said. Rasmussen also welcomed a weekend agreement by Syrian opposition groups to put aside differences and form a new coalition. A Syrian fighter jet on Monday bombed an area near the Turkish border, causing several casualties, officials and witnesses said. An Associated Press video journalist saw the plane bomb an area around the Syrian town of Ras al-Ayn, some 10 meters (yards)…

View original post 943 more words

Add your thoughts here… (optional)

Israel’s Airstrike on Khartoum: Part of a Broader US-NATO-Israel Military Agenda

israelus

by Mohammad Reza Haji-Karim Jabbari

The recent attack on a weapons production plant in Ash Shajara area of Sudan’s capital city, Khartoum, on October 24, can have many reasons. However, irrespective of those reasons, this attack cannot be analyzed separate from the large-scale and main strategy of the United States and Israel in the Middle East and North Africa. This means that the aforesaid operation has been certainly part of the big puzzle of the United States’ and Israel’s strategy in these regions. Meanwhile, any analysis of the attack should first focus on the conditions under which the airstrike has taken place because those conditions will show us whether it has been a unique operation or not?

1. The Israeli airstrike against Sudan followed an earlier operation by the Lebanese Hezbollah in which an Iran-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) penetrated deep inside Israel. Many reports have been published on that operation, but the gist of all of them is that the operation greatly scared the inhabitants of Israel. On the one hand, it was a deterrent operation which aimed to change Israel’s calculations with regard to launching any possible attack in the Middle East region, and also posed a serious challenge to rumors about Israel’s attack on Iran. Therefore, the Israeli leaders needed to not only boost the morale and spirit of their people, but had to do the same for their military commanders as well. As a result, they had to launch an operation which would prove the upper hand of the Israeli forces both in military terms and in terms of intelligence and espionage in order to boost their people’s morale. The attack on weapons production facility in Sudan could be analyzed from this viewpoint.

2. There is also another large-scale aspect to this attack. Following the recent developments in the Middle East and in the light of the Arab Spring and the Islamic Awakening, Israel actually intended to test regional countries and reassess its regional standing in view of the aforesaid developments. This means that by conducting such a military operation, which amounted to a blatant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and also by carrying out the operation against an Arab and Islamic country, Israel intended to know what changes have been made to decision-making systems of these countries in the wake of the Arab Spring and what possible reactions these countries may show to Israel’s military operation. Unfortunately, the Arab League only showed a very feeble reaction by issuing a simple statement and this issue may embolden the Israeli regime to continue such attacks.

3. To carry out the operation, Israel needed to cross the Saudi Arabian airspace or that of Egypt. Have those countries been informed in advance? Had Saudi Arabia been especially pre-warned of the attack in view of the policy that Riyadh has been following in the Persian Gulf region and the entire Middle East? In both cases, Saudi Arabia’s responsibility will not be reduced. If the attack had been carried out in coordination with Saudi Arabia, it can be considered a really catastrophic development for the Arab world and the entire Islamic world as well. If it had taken place without Saudi Arabia knowing anything about it, then it would follow that the American military advisors who are in charge of management and training of very advanced military equipment in Saudi Arabia do not provide such information to Saudi Arabian government. In fact, Saudi Arabia’s hands are totally closed for dealing with such issues as its government does not know what is going on within its borders. In both cases, Saudi Arabia should be held to account for this incident. On the other hand, the weak statement that the Arab League has issued, which has been naturally under the influence of Saudi Arabia, clearly proves that Saudi Arabia is not willing to come under pressure for this issue. Either Riyadh wants to prevent the attack from emerging as an acute issue in the Arab world, or it is not willing to support Sudan as an Islamic country which is also part of the resistance front in the Middle East and North Africa.

4. As everybody knows, the United States and Israel have started joint military drills since last week. The drills are, per se, unprecedented in the history of Tel Aviv’s relations with Washington. A total of 1,000 American troops have already arrived in Israel while another 1,000 Israeli troops are also taking part in the maneuvers. According to some reports, 2,500 American forces have been also posted in various parts of the Mediterranean region and elsewhere in Europe. The main goal of the maneuvers is to test the readiness of Israel’s missile defense system. Therefore, the operation inside Sudan has been carried out simultaneous with the joint military drills by the United States and Israel.

5. This operation has been carried out after certain developments in the besieged Gaza Strip. Israel restarted its aerial attacks on Gaza last week after which Tel Aviv accepted a cease-fire mediated by the government of Egypt. A few days later, Egypt sent its new ambassador to Israel who presented his credentials to the Israeli President Shimon Peres along with a letter from the Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi which conveyed a half poetical, half reconciliatory message. These conditions have been certainly influential in emboldening Israel to carry out the attack.

6. This operation has greatly reduced defensive abilities of Sudan at a time that the government in Khartoum needs all its ammunitions and defensive capacity to repel possible attacks from South Sudan. The country’s defense capacities have been attacked on such baseless grounds as the plant belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s armed forces, or under other ridiculous pretexts including that Sudan has been possibly using the demolished facility to build a nuclear bomb. However, the main goal was nothing but to undermine and weaken Sudan’s defense capacities.

7. Israel has embarked on a limited military operation in order to make up for the humiliation it suffered due to Hezbollah drone operation and at a time that despite intense rhetoric about attacking Iran, it lacks the practical ability to do so. In this way, Israel will be able to claim that it has dealt a blow to the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas as well as Iran. The operation, however, was in fact a compensation for the humiliation that has greatly undermined military and security prestige of Israel.
8. By attacking Sudan, Israel wants to show that it is aware of every political and military movement in the region and will lose no time to react to them. Israel had already carried out limited operations in Sudan in 2009 and 2011. In 2009, it attacked a convoy of trucks in Sudan which Israeli officials claimed to have been smuggling arms into Gaza Strip to be used by Hamas.

In 2011 and under the same pretext, Israel attacked another vehicle. On the other hand, the United States attacked a pharmaceutical factory called Al-Shifa (The Cure) near Khartoum in 1998 and razed it to the ground. The American officials claimed that the plant was going to be used to build chemical bombs. Later investigations refuted that allegation. Therefore, the military attacks carried out by the United States and Israel against Sudan prove that the Americans are undoubtedly providing intelligence to Israel and are thus implied in Israel’s attacks on the Arab country. Even the Sudanese Defense Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein has noted that some elements in Sudan’s military forces have possibly played a part in providing the Israelis with intelligence relevant to the attacks.

Therefore, it is clear that a host of regional, international and domestic factors in Israel have prompted Tel Aviv to take such a step. As for domestic factors, Israel is trying to repair its tarnished military prestige through the attack. On the regional scale, Tel Aviv is trying to show that it is still capable of conducting intelligence and military operations at any point in the Middle East and North Africa. When it comes to international level, Israel is trying to prove that although such operations amount to the violation of international law, Israel does not consider itself bound to any limits when its security is at stake. However, a closer look at the operation clearly shows that due to its small scale and the lame excuse used to launch it, the operation actually indicates that Israel is currently in a weak position and this point has not been overlooked by the global community.

The point which should be borne in mind here is that the mainstream Western media such as the daily Guardian in Britain and the Washington Post in the United States have tried to connect the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, and finally Iran to this operation. This measure has been taken in order to discredit Iran’s allies in the region while there has been not a single shred of evidence to prove that Iran has had any role in what was going on inside Yarmouk weapons production plant in Sudan. Nobody has been so far able to produce such evidence and it seems that incriminating Iran is mostly an excuse and a cover for what Israel has done. A close review of the remarks made by the Sudanese officials is enough to show that the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has clearly stated that the main goal of the Israeli operation was to weaken the defense abilities of Sudan as a country which is supporting Hamas. He continued by warning the Israeli regime that such hopeless measures will not prevent Sudan from supporting the cause of Palestine. On the other hand, Sudan’s minister of media has pointed to various issues stipulating that Sudan will never give up its position on the issue of Palestine, noting that his country had been attacked due to Sudan’s support for Palestine. The permanent representative of Sudan to the United Nations also stated that the aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Sudan will not remain limited to his country, but will jeopardize peace and security throughout the entire region.

Of course, the Israeli officials have noted that recent attacks on Israel from Gaza have not been carried out by Hamas, but have been actually launched by Iran. Israel has not officially claimed responsibility for attacking Sudan, but no Israeli official has rejected the remarks made by Sudanese officials either. Therefore, it seems that Israel is trying to show that it is still capable of conducting operations on regional scale. The officials of Sudan have announced that they were actually planning to move Yarmouk plant from Khartoum to another region, but the Israelis had got wind of Sudan’s decision beforehand and embarked on the preemptive attack.
On the whole, Israel wants to use this very limited and actually blind operation to buy new regional credit. This is why when asked whether this operation has been carried out by Israel or not, Major General Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s diplomatic security bureau, noted that the operation aimed to boost the morale of the Israeli army. He claimed that the Israeli air force is the most prestigious among air forces of the world and has proven this more than once. The emphasis he put on the Israeli air forces was the most remarkable point in his remarks. The strange point, however, is that Sudanese officials made no effort to incriminate South Sudan for the attack while South Sudan is the main beneficiary if Sudan’s defense capacities are compromised. On the contrary, officials in Khartoum noted that recent agreements they had reached with South Sudan have infuriated Israel and the United States.

The Arab League has been also playing a very significant role in recent regional developments. In the case of Libya, the Arab League allowed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to launch military operations against the government of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The Arab League also planned to do the same in the case of Syria, but Russia and China effectively vetoed a draft resolution for military attack on Syria at the United Nations Security Council, thus foiling the Arab League’s plan. In the cases of Yemen and Bahrain, however, Saudi Arabia has been taking any unilateral measures it deems necessary to suppress popular protests in those countries. The Arab League, meanwhile, has not only refrained from making any protest to Saudi Arabia’s interventions in Yemen and Bahrain, but has also indirectly supported Riyadh’s interventionist policy.

This clearly proves that the Arab League has become a plaything in the hands of Saudi Arabia and is complying with Saudi Arabia’s policies at a time that a member state, that is, Sudan, has become target of such a large-scale military invasion. Although the invasion has been carried out by the Zionist regime of Israel, the Arab League, under the Saudi Arabia’s influence, has so far shown no serious reaction. Such double standards will certainly be detrimental to solidarity among the Arab League members in medium and long terms. Unfortunately, the international community sees the political developments in the Arab world from the viewpoint of the Arab League. Such double-standard policies have made it easy for Israel to continue its aggressive and invasive policies against a number of important regional countries even after the downfall of regional dictators without being faced with any serious protest from international community.

Mohammad Reza Haji-Karim Jabbari is Iran’s Former Ambassador to Ivory Coast 
Source: Iranian Diplomacy (IRD) http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/

Translated By: Iran Review.Org

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

PN

108morris108
October 22, 2012

The Historical Background of the 3rd Balkan War (Yugoslav War)

Srebinica was an infowars media spectacle

Strong Iranian Serb relations

Russian Troops in Belgrade is what stopped NATO

NATO bases used for transporting Afghani Opium

Serbia was part of the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires
and has an affinity to Constantinople

Several Byzantine Emperors were Serbian

Inluding Dioclesian, and Constantines I and 8

Serbian empire in the Medieval Period:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Greater_Serbia.png

View original post

Dandelion Salad

by Finian Cunningham and Mark Robertson
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
East Africa
Crossposted from www.presstv.com
September 21, 2012

The NATO powers and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya want you to think that all 5.6 million Libyans are happy that NATO and its proxy terrorists destroyed Libya, whose standard of living had been Africa’s highest under Gaddafi.

They want you to think that NATO brought “freedom and democracy” to Libya, not chaos and death.

They want you to think that there is no Green Resistance to the NATO imperialists or NATO’s Islamist allies in Benghazi.

View original post 4,090 more words

CounterPsyOps

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

People often ask me why the West doesn’t attempt a Libya-style intervention in Syria. After all, things are going so well in Libya. Oil production is up. But oil production is merely a mirage, as is security in Libya, which was doomed from the day one PG (post-Gaddafi) because of the way it was “liberated”.

On Wednesday, US envoy to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed along with three other American diplomats in a rocket attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

What about the oil, that global elixir? Well, the violence will not bode well for Libya’s production ambitions, coming at a time when the country looked prepared for a boost in output and was banking on this for economic growth.

Security was already dubious at best, and now international oil companies will be more reluctant than ever. Those that are already there—Germany’s Wintershall AG…

View original post 532 more words

NATO Expansion: Threat to World Peace | Global Research.

NATO Expansion: Threat to World Peace

Review of Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s Book

US Attempting to Pull former Soviet Allies into NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is undertaking a dangerous and provocative global expansion that threatens the peace of the world, a distinguished Canadian geopolitical analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes in a new book.

By the time Nato started its war on Libya in March, 2011, it was conducting operations in the Atlantic, Arctic and Indian oceans, the Mediterranean and Red seas, and the Gulf of Aden, as well as in countries on four continents that included Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia, Nazemroaya says.

As part of these adventures, the US and its Nato allies have lowered “a new iron curtain” from the Baltic to the Aegean “to castrate and contain the European core of Russia and its allies in Eastern Europe,” Nazemroaya writes. He points out that Sergey Markov, co-chair of the National Strategic Council of Russia, described the 2008 war between Georgia and South Ossetia as being, in effect, “a US attack on Russia.”

However, “Nato expansion is not just limited to Europe, but is in pursuit of a worldwide capability to expand Washington’s empire under a global confederacy,” writes distinguished Canadian sociologist Nazemroaya in The Globalization of Nato (Clarity Press). He warns the expansion will eventually lead “to East Asia and the borders of the Chinese where the US has been waging a shadow war to box China in and checkmate it.”

“The US and Nato have literally authorized themselves to go to war anywhere in the world,” Nazemroaya continues. The 2010 Strategic Concept of Nato, which was drafted by a committee chaired by Madeleine Albright and vice-chaired by former Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer, “also asserts the legitimacy of whatever actions Nato members take to secure energy sources as the US and Nato look towards securing all the world’s energy hubs.”

Besides expanding its area of operations, since the end of the Cold War, Nato’s nuclear strike posture has become more aggressive. “Within Nato and among US allies a consensus has long been established to legitimise and normalize the idea of using nuclear weapons in conventional wars,” Nazemroaya says. “This consensus also aims to pave the way for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against targets like Russia, China, and Iran.”

Most of the world’s countries, he points out, argue the US and its Nato allies have violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), because the Pentagon has a Nato nuclear weapons sharing program. In addition, “Through its continued construction of nuclear weapons the US is the chief violator of the NPT and the chief cause for the development of Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons,” Nazemroaya writes.

He observes that Russia, too, is re-arming itself with nuclear weapons and has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world because Moscow strongly believes its nukes “are what have stood in the way of US attempts to pummel Russia.” What’s more, Russia has copied the adoption of the US/ Nato pre-emptive nuclear attack doctrine.

He goes on to say, “Washington has made it categorically clear that it could attack Iran and North Korea with nukes.” Nazemroaya notes the Obama administration says it will not honor NPT’s provisions barring a nuclear attack on certain non-nuclear states, “meaning Iran and North Korea.” Obama says those two countries aren’t complying with the NPT.

“This was a fallacious claim,” Nazemroaya continues, as in the case of the Iranians, the IAEA “has repeatedly reported that it has not found any evidence that Tehran has a nuclear weapons program and is in breach of NPT.” And North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003.

Note to Readers and Publishers

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

NATO secretly authorizes Syrian attack 

 
By Gordon Duff 

 
 
 

No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.”

On Monday, August 27, 2012, in a meeting in Brussels, NATO military leaders in consultation with “telephonic liaison” with officers of military forces in several former Soviet Republics, major African states, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states came to a combined decision to act against Syria.

Two issues were on the agenda:

1. How climate change in Greenland will effect geopolitics, immigration and military affairs for the EU

2. Syria and the potential for Russian and Chinese intervention.

3. Iran was not an official agenda item but it is an unspoken conclusion that, if China and/or Russia stand aside for interference by NATO in Syria’s internal affairs, this will be seen as an authorization for incursions into Iran, a systematic “Balkanization” based on a prescribed formula of “manufactured and simulated internal political and social strife.”

No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.

News stories throughout North America and Europe earlier in the day were filled with reports of mass killings by the Syrian Army and the presence of Iranian troops in Syria. True or not, these stories represent a pre-staging for the NATO conference.

The critical reporting issue involves rhetoric. We moved, yesterday, from discussions of “fighting” to “systematic execution of hundreds of civilians.”

No video nor photos were included to verify neither claims nor sources given other than reports from “rebel forces.”

Recent consultation with friends in the Pentagon as to Syria’s air defense system indicated that the US has, in place, a play to destroy the command and control capability of Syria’s system.

The problems are twofold:
1. Russian technicians man the Syrian system

2. The S300P2 system Syria uses is extremely “robust”

An additional political consideration is a simple one, there is no UN authorization. Both Russia and China have vetoed even sanctions against Syria much less authorized an attack.

Thus, there is no existing authority capable of justifying an attack.

In an interview this week at the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) conference in Tehran, attended by 120 member states, a huge defeat for NATO interests in the area, this interview yielded some substantive and surprising facts.

Press TV: Certain powers have been trying to isolate Iran, actually, by not holding such a conference at such a high ranking level. As you said, this all has failed.

Now tell us about all the sanctions against Iran which have propagated against Iran, that Iran should be isolated, but as you said it’s all been failed. What is really important is that the agenda of the 688-point draft document which talked about, as you call and urge all countries to make the world free from any nuclear weapons.

You were a senior expert in the IAEA as an inspector. Tell us about that and also with the particular focus on Israel which has not yet signed up to the NPT.

Abu Shadi: I oppose strongly any kind of accusation on any state based on intelligence information. All the accusations given to the nuclear program in Iran is based only on intelligence information. There is no single proof that Iran is deviating from its commitment from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I am very surprised that the Security Council took four decisions, sanctions against Iran just because of rumors that the intelligence source may think there is something.

I think this policy should be changed. The Security Council and its way of veto, and its limited number only to the big powers should be changed. I think that will also be one of the points to be addressed in this conference. I believe strongly that that situation, which is actually politically influenced by the West, should be changed.

With respect to your second part about the NPT, in fact, almost all the states in the world respects the Non-Proliferation [Treaty] except the five weaponized states, which they should reduce their weapons which didn’t happen up until today, and the three or four states which did not sign the NPT including Israel. Israel is the only state in the Middle East who did not sign the NPT.

None of the Western countries who are accusing not only Iran but before also Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Egypt, did not consider any accusation to what the Israelis are doing. I believe this bias in the international organization should be stopped.

Shadi makes some particularly interesting points and raises some concerns few had noticed. His most damning statement, of course, is that the Security Council, a carryover from a war 70 years ago, certainly a demonstration of oligarchic rule at the United Nations, has been directed at Iran.

In particular, he notes that the council’s unilateral and undemocratic decisions, followed by nations, China and Russia, who defended Syria, were aimed at Iran but backed by no presentation of facts or even qualified intelligence assessments. In fact, since Colin Powell’s humiliating WMD presentation before the UN, no “American fact” has been taken seriously nor is likely to.

CNN quotes a top Powell aid:

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state’s presentation to the United Nations on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was “the lowest point” in his life.

“I wish I had not been involved in it,” says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. “I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.”

Actual risks and ramifications

Top intelligence analysts in private consultation fear a larger Middle East war. “Russia and China won’t stand back, not with the US planning a unilateral move on Africa and its resources. It’s like 1947 again with Truman and the Marshall plan, encirclement, but a war over, not just resources but a world war against what has now seen as the real threat, what Americans call the “middle class.”

Thus, taking Syria without taking Iran is “not in the cards.” Here I return to the words of H. G. Wells, in his War of the Worlds. His grasp in this fiction well over a century old reflects on our times in a curious and wonderfully literate manner:

“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.

Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.

The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers, and hardened their hearts. And looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of…

And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The Martians seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety–their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours–and to have carried out their preparations with a well-nigh perfect unanimity.”

Martians, this is how NATO and Israel look on the world, as expressed through the prose of Wells. Their gaze “cool and unsympathetic,” as drone warfare and their plans, calculated acts of false flag terror, kidnappings, assassinations, the abomination of mythical news reporting.

The end of the road, this path of “hubris” could well be world war, least of all fuel price increases that collapse the currencies and economies.

Talking of death is nothing as we are now pre-staged to look on life as nothing, all victims are “militants” if you want them dead or “collateral damage” when you err.

Iran’s position chairing NAM makes them a harder target. The general criticism by many NAM members, the dictatorial rule of the United Nations by the Security Council, has not prevented the Syrian conflict from becoming a threat to world peace.

For Iran, their choice seems, on the surface, to be in aiding Syria, negotiations, using oil leverage with India, China and others and predicting how the west is plotting.

If Iran falls, it will be only another domino.

 

CounterPsyOps

20120902-050627.jpg

China says a political dialogue is the only solution to the ongoing crisis in Syria as Russia calls it “naïve” for the West to expect Syrian leader to withdraw his troops from conflict-ridden cities.

In a telephone conversation with the new UN Arab League special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi urged the international community to seek a political solution to Syria crisis and vowed that his country would continue cooperation with the international community over the issue.

The Chinese top diplomat reiterated that his country has been deeply concerned about the humanitarian conditions in Syria, saying Beijing expected Brahimi to play an active role in resolving the Syria crisis.

The UN Arab League envoy, for his part, attached great importance to China’s role in putting an end to the ongoing crisis in Syria.

View original post 210 more words