US Predictably Turns "Iran Deal" into Confrontation

March 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The so-called "Iran Deal" was never meant to serve as a starting point for rapprochement between Washington and Tehran,  but rather as a pretext for greater confrontation.

US President Donald Trump's administration capitalized on developments in Saudi Arabia's losing war in Yemen, as well as a missile test conducted by the Iranian government, to portray Iran as ungrateful for a diplomatic deal the administration's now resigned National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested should never have been made in the first place.

The Guardian's article, "Trump administration 'officially putting Iran on notice', says Michael Flynn," would state:

The Trump administration has said it was �officially putting Iran on notice� in reaction to an Iranian missile test and an attack on a Saudi warship by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen but gave no details about how Washington intended to respond.

And while Flynn's comments before his abrupt resignation sound like the genuine, if not hypocritical stance of Trump presidency, those who have followed the actual brokers of US foreign policy recognize the very familiar script Flynn is reading from - and it is a script written not by the Trump administration, but by unelected corporate-financier funded policy think tanks, years before "President Trump" took office.

Flynn's resignation will have little impact on this policy, since it has been planned, and systematically implemented years before Donald Trump even began his presidential campaign. The fact that Flynn's stance on Iran is reflected by those remaining in Trump's administration is proof enough of this.

Brookings' "Superb Offer" Circa 2009  

The Brookings Institution paper titled, "The Path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran" (.pdf), would explicitly lay out America's regime change conspiracy arrayed against Tehran, stating (emphasis added):

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context�both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer�one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians �brought it on themselves� by refusing a very good deal.

Brookings' "superb offer" was clearly presented to both the public and Tehran in the form of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the "Iran Deal" in 2015. And while Washington attempted to convince the world it sought rapprochement with Tehran, even as it pursued this deal, it poured money, weapons, and even direct military support into the attempted overthrow of Iran's ally, Syria - another prerequisite enumerated by the 2009 Brookings report ahead of war with Iran. 

The deal then, was disingenuous from its inception, its betrayal all but inevitable when Washington felt the political and strategic climate was optimal for portraying Tehran as duplicitous, and justifying a wider confrontation - particularly with both Syria significantly weakened after 6 years of war, and Iran significantly tied up financially and militarily in Syria's fate. 

Trump Battered Saudi Arabia on the Campaign Trail, Defends it on the War Path 

Rhetoric emanating from Trump while campaigning in 2016 for the presidency, heavily revolved around fighting terrorism, and tough-talk with Saudi Arabia. In one infamous message over social media platform Twitter, Trump would proclaim:

Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy�s money. Can�t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016 

Now as president, Trump's stance regards Saudi Arabia as a friend, and is implying wider confrontation with Iran for allegedly arming and training fighters in Yemen who attacked a Saudi warship. The Trump administration and the media at large fail to mention that Saudi Arabia has - for years - been waging full-scale war on Yemen, by air, land, and sea - both directly, and through terrorist proxies - from Saudi territory and international waters, and within and above Yemeni territory itself via land invasion and airstrikes.

The prospect of the US reversing diplomatic rapprochement with Iran over Yemeni forces fighting against Saudi Arabia's extraterritorial military aggression against their nation alone transgresses both international law and the interests of the American people.

However, considering Saudi Arabia's admitted ties to terrorism in Yemen, across the region - particularly in Syria and Iraq in the form of Al Qaeda, its various affiliates, and the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) itself - and around the world, the US declaring Saudi Arabia a "friend and ally" and accusing Iran of "destabilizing behavior across the Middle East," makes it clear that the US either condones Saudi Arabia's state sponsorship of terrorism, or is directly involved in it itself.

Of course, Flynn, previously the director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was aware of the DIA's 2012 memo in which the creation of a "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) was sought after by not only the Persian Gulf monarchies, but also NATO-member Turkey, Europe, and the US itself. So was the rest of the Trump administration.

The memo read: 

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

The DIA memo then explains exactly who this "Salafist principality's" supporters are (and who its true enemies are):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Iran is specifically stated as opposed to "the opposition" which included the then nascent Islamic State, as well as designated terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham).

In a display of surreal deception, the Trump administration attempts to portray themselves as "fighting terror" while edging closer to confrontation with Iran currently fighting it region-wide. The US does this in defense of Saudi Arabia, admitted by the US itself as sponsoring terrorism region-wide.

President Trump's hypocrisy defies explanation unless the Brookings Institution paper is brought back to light, and current events put into the context of the conspiracy and continuity of agenda the paper represents.

The US media has attempted to portray President Trump's hypocrisy toward Saudi Arabia as a personal and business-related conflict of interest. The US media apparently expects the public to believe it is just a coincidence the Trump administration is continuing decades of US foreign policy and a truly duplicitous relationship with Riyadh that has transcended multiple presidencies, left and right, Republican and Democrat, including the recently departed Obama administration.

To understand the geopolitical trajectory of global events, particularly in regards to US-Iranian relations, observers, analysts, and the general public alike would serve themselves well to read US policy papers instead of entertaining theories from the US media, or speeches and statements from the Trump administration.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine�New Eastern Outlook�.   

National Security Adviser General McMaster: The War Complex' Resident Parrot

February 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.

The New York Times in their article, "Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser," would report:

President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.

In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will - verbatim - repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise - and have devised for decades - US-European foreign policy.

What General McMaster Represents

In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies - funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel - General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks.

The talk, published on CSIS' YouTube channel in May of 2016, features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of "invading Ukraine" and China of  "challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power." When describing China's "challenging" of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea - quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.

General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to "US interest" abroad - not US national security itself - by challenging the post World War 2 international order - an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.


He predictably lists North Korea and Iran as threats to the US as well, despite neither nation attacking the US nor possessing a desire or capability to do so. He accuses Iran in particular of "fighting a proxy war against us since 1979," referring to when Iranians finally, successfully overthrew the US-installed and buttressed brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979.

General McMaster accuses Iran of "building militias" beyond the control of Middle Eastern governments to both support them but also to use as leverage against them - not unlike what the US has done both through occupation forces deployed across the region and state sponsored terror groups armed, funded, trained, and directed by the US and its Persian Gulf allies everywhere from North Africa to the Middle Eastern nations of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.  

During his 2016, McMaster then moved on to address the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS). He presents a slide of ISIS' territorial holdings clearly depicting supply lines running directly out of NATO-member Turkey, leading deep into Syria and Iraq, with a lesser line emanating out of US-ally Jordan. He makes no mention of the source of ISIS' fighting capacity, depicting the conflict in the similarly cartoonish manner US-European media presents it to the general public.

General McMaster presents to his audience a defense strategy based on "deterrence by denial, and deterrence at the frontier to ratchet up the cost [for] potential adversaries at the frontier," referring to regions of the planet thousands of miles from US shores where the US seeks to either maintain or reassert it power and influence, or to project its power into regions hitherto independent of Wall Street and Washington's influence.

Seamless Continuity of Agenda 

President Trump's pick of General McMaster as National Security Adviser ensures that national security remains dominated by the corporate-financier funded think tanks that have devised, determined, and dominated US foreign policy for decades. Policy papers General McMaster repeatedly cites in every talk he gives, at one corporate-financier funded think tank after another, are the products of these very think tanks.

That General McMaster identifies Russia, China, and Iran as "threats" to the United States, not because they seek to harm the US within its territory or within any logical proximal sphere of influence, but simply for attempting to secure their own respective proximal spheres of influence from systematic and overt US subversion, influence, and encirclement, means a continuation of the destructive global spanning warfare seen under the administrations of numerous other presidents, including Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, and even Carter.

While the United States poses as a "democratic" nation, driven by the interests of its people, it is apparent that special interests on Wall Street and in Washington have a singular agenda that transcends both the presidents the people "elect," and the policies they believe they elected these presidents to carry out. That President Trump's supporters labor under the delusion that he will roll back US aggression and regime change worldwide, only to put in place General McMaster as his National Security Adviser - a man who openly and repeatedly supports the pursuit of American global hegemony - indicates that yet again the people have been deceived and that this singular agenda will move forward unabated.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.  

US Betrays Iran Deal as Predicted - Edges Closer to War

February 2, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - As the world remains mesmerized by the antics of US President Donald Trump, his national security adviser Michael Flynn brazenly linked Iran to Yemeni fighters who attacked a Saudi warship, as well as cited an Iranian missile test as grounds to reverse course on US rapprochement with Tehran, concluding that Iran was "put on notice."

Flynn would state:

In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region.

Flynn, who was head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) when a memo was published acknowledging the West, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf monarchs sought the rise of what was at the time called a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria - precisely where the Islamic [Salafist] State [principality] now occupies, is surely aware that America's "friends and allies in the region" include state sponsors of terrorism, including the state sponsors of the Islamic State itself.

As Flynn furiously flipped through the pages of his statement, he was signifying the predictable betrayal of the so-called "Iran deal," meant before it was even introduced the public - as early as 2009 - to serve as a pretext not for peace, but for war with Iran.

US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.

In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a "superb offer" would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner portraying Iran as ungrateful:

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context�both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer�one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians �brought it on themselves� by refusing a very good deal.

The so-called "Iran deal," introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this "superb offer," with Flynn's accusations serving as the "turn down" ahead of the "sorrowful" war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with.

In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:

Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened ... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.

Flynn's statement is particularly surreal - considering Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh - if only symbolically - in response to Saudi Arabia's aggression - Flynn still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia's warship constitutes justification for putting Iran "on notice."

Claiming that Iran is "sponsoring terrorism" throughout the region, when it is currently a major member of the coalition fighting the DIA's "Salafist principality" in both Iraq and Syria is also surreal.

Another prerequisite mentioned in the 2009 Brookings document was the need to move Syria out of the way. It appears that the US' attempts at regime change in Syria have reached their final conclusion, failing overall, but weakening Syria significantly in the process. War on Iran - a nation taxed greatly in fighting US, European, and Persian Gulf-backed terrorist organization in Syria - may be perceived now as more preferable than before the 2011 conflict began.

Meanwhile, the political climate in the West has been so expertly manipulated that the public is either so distracted with identity politics that they are unaware and unconcerned with the prospect of war with Iran, or so hysterical over "Islam" that any nation perceived as being Muslim is seen as justifiably a target of US military aggression - regardless of how divergent any of these alternate realities are from actual reality.

Flynn's statement encapsulates a documented conspiracy drafted under President Bush, implemented under President Obama, and finally coming into full fruition under President Trump, once again illustrating the continuity of agenda that transcends party politics, presidencies, and political rhetoric - driven by immense corporate-financier special interests, not the will of the American public. 

Syria's War Was Only Ever the Beginning

January 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - With the liberation of the city of Aleppo in northern Syria, it appears that the Syrian government in Damascus is on its way to ending the highly destructive conflict now ongoing for nearly 6 years.

But to assume the Syrian conflict is on the verge of resolution is to assume the Syrian conflict was fought in a geopolitical vacuum, disconnected from regional, even global agendas.

In fact, the proxy war the West waged on Syria was considered for the years before it began, during its planning and preparation stages, as only a prerequisite for war with Iran and a greater global conflict to prevent the reemergence of Russia and the rise of China.

US Hegemony Seeks to Eliminate Rising Superpowers 

At the close of the Cold War, the US sought to establish and maintain itself as the world's sole superpower.

US Army General Wesley Clark, in a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, "A Time to Lead," would reveal this post-Cold War agenda by relating a conversation he had as early as 1991 with then US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (emphasis added):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

Revealed in General Clark's statement is a clear, singular agenda, beginning after the Cold War, and evident with Desert Storm, the conflict in the Balkans, the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq as well as the overall expansion of US military power projection predicated upon the "War on Terror" following the attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001.

America's "regime change" spree included not only the above mentioned wars, but also a series of so-called "color revolutions" across Eastern Europe. This includes Otpor!'s activities between 1998-2004 in Serbia, the 2003 "Rose Revolution" in Georgia, and the 2004-2005 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine.

Those involved in these US-backed regime change operations, both within the US State Department and American private industry (the corporate media and IT giants like Facebook and Google), as well as "activists" from each respective nation, would begin in 2008 to train opposition leaders from across the Arab World ahead of the 2011 US-engineered "Arab Spring."

Image: Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the "Alliance of Youth Movements." Many of these "activists" with US money and equipment would return to their native countries to help overthrow their respective governments. 

The US State Department itself, in a 2008 press release, would admit to organizing a "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit," admitting:

This Alliance of Youth Movements had organic beginnings in the sense that already, youth movements from around the world that were utilizing online, mobile and digital media were interacting to discuss best practices. The State Department acted as a facilitator to help provide some structure to this trend by partnering with entities like Facebook, Howcast, Google, MTV, and Columbia Law School.  

Discussed throughout the dialogue featured in the press release were the very tactics used to serve as cover for inevitably violent regime change operations from Egypt and Libya to Syria and Yemen. A look at attendance of the US State Department's "Alliance of Youth Movement Summits" reveals many of the groups that spearheaded protests upon returning home to the Middle East including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt.

Eventually, the New York Times in an article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," would admit:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

The goal of both direct military intervention and US-engineered "color revolutions" was to fulfill precisely what General Clark claimed US policymakers sought since the end of the Cold War - the elimination of states operating independently that might eventually rival American global hegemony.
Syria Just Another Stop Along the Way 

The destruction of Iraq, the 2006 Israeli war on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and continuous efforts to isolate and topple the government in Tehran, were all part of this singular agenda. Throughout US policy papers stretching back for years, it was admitted that the key to ultimately toppling Iran was the destruction of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the elimination of Syria as an Iranian ally.

In 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article "The Redirection: Is the Administration�s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," would reveal (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co�perated with Saudi Arabia�s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

In 2009, US corporate-financier sponsored geopolitical policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a 170 page report titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), in which it proposes several options, including having Israel attack Iran on Washington's behalf. The report states (emphasis added):

...the Israelis may want U.S. help with a variety of things. Israel may be more willing to bear the risks of Iranian retaliation and international opprobrium than the United States is, but it is not invulnerable and may request certain commitments from the United States before it is ready to strike. For instance, the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus.

It is clear that no "peace deal" would be struck, and instead, the wholesale destruction of Syria would be orchestrated. Many of the proposals presented in the Brookings report in regards to triggering conflict and regime change in Iran were instead used on Syria.

With the US-led destruction of Libya in 2011 through the use of Al Qaeda-linked militants, and the transformation of the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi into a logistical springboard to Turkey's border with Syria, the proxy invasion of Syria began amid already ongoing clashes in the nation's urban centers.

By 2012, militants flooded over the Turkish-Syrian border, and invaded the city of Aleppo. The destructive war that followed has ravaged the nation, drawn in Syria's allies - Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia, and may have sufficiently weakened the coalition ahead of the conflict's expansion eastward into Iran and even southern Russia.

Look Who's in Office, Just in Time for War with Iran...

President-elect Donald Trump has surrounded himself with not only pro-Israeli hardliners like David Friedman, but also a circle who have - for years - advocated war with Iran including Breitbart News' Stephen Bannon and retired US Marine Corps General James Mattis.

A similar circle of policymakers would undoubtedly have accompanied 2016 US presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton into office as well had she won the election - her time as US Secretary of State being consumed with the destruction of Libya and Syria, prerequisites for this very conflict.

In essence, Washington is positioning itself for a wider confrontation with Iran just as its proxy war in Syria appears to have run its full course - and it would have begun positioning itself for this coming war regardless of who won the 2016 US presidential election.

In all likelihood, US policymakers envisioned Syria falling much faster and for a lesser cost. With Russia basing a significant military presence in the nation, and with Syria's military distilled down to a highly effective, experienced fighting force, and with Iranian and Hezbollah forces having gained experience fighting a regional conflict, moving the conflict into Iran will be no easy task.

It is perhaps because of this, that President-elect Trump has been presented as a potential "ally" of Russia, and accusations of Russia "hacking" American elections are being used to chill the alternative media under the guise of combating "fake news." With the alternative media muzzled, would it be difficult for US policymakers to once again engineer a large provocation - as Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?" report recommended - to justify expanding Syria's conflict and America's involvement in it, into Iranian territory?

It should also be noted that systematically - throughout the Syrian conflict - Israel has attacked Hezbollah infrastructure throughout Lebanon and Syria. Israeli policymakers are likely attempting to maintain a buffer zone between themselves and those who would retaliate in the wake of US-backed Israeli attack on Iran - just as Brookings proposed in 2009.

Elections Won't Beat US Hegemony, Only a Multipolar Balance of Power 

US special interests, since the end of the Cold War, have been consumed with confronting and eliminating any threat to their perceived global hegemony. As retired US Army General Wesley Clark warned for years, the US is pursuing a singular agenda since the 1990's, one indifferent to who is in the White House and what rhetoric is being used to sell the myriad of wars and "color revolutions" required to incrementally achieve and maintain global hegemony.

As Russia and China reintroduce a global balance of power, checking US aggression and rolling back US hegemony to a more proportional, multipolar role upon the world stage, the US has increasingly reacted with direct confrontations with both Moscow and Beijing as well as an increasingly violent campaign of proxy wars and regime change operations worldwide.

The illusion that a presidential election could derail this singular, decades-long agenda is a dangerous one. In reality, the only obstacle between US special interests and achieving global hegemony are competing centers of power. These include nation-states like Russia and China, or grassroots movements like the alternative media, alternative and disruptive economic models, and political movements built on the power and influence such movements achieve. Such alternatives can undermine the unwarranted power and influence currently enjoyed by the US and the corporate-financier monopolies that dominate its political landscape.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.�   

For Washington, Destroying Syria is a Bipartisan Agenda

November 19, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - With a new president coming into office, hopes for a break in the Syrian conflict are abound. However, these hopes are likely misplaced. Recent US designs for the destruction of Syria began unfolding, not during the administration of US President Barack Obama, but in fact during the presidency of George Bush, and were merely continued, and clearly expanded upon under President Obama.

Pundits and policymakers on both the "left" and "right" of the Western political spectrum have made arguments for continued, even expanded US war with Syria, simply behind the smokescreen of varying partisan narratives. In the end, however, the Middle Eastern nation's overthrow - and failing that - its incremental and systematic division and destruction, remains Washington's ultimate endgame.

President-Elect Trump's Surrounded by Eager Warmongers  

President-elect Donald Trump's campaign for the past 2 years or so has been openly guided by elements of Washington's political establishment often referred to as Neo-Conservatives. This includes former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director during the Bill Clinton administration, James Woolsey, an avid supporter of US war with Iran who served as Trump's adviser on national security, defense and intelligence, Politico would report.

Together with Woolsey, Trump has either invited in or courted other members of the so-called Neo-Conservative establishment including former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

Joining them is media personality Steven Bannon of Breitbart News, the establishment's "right cover" retrenched within what is otherwise the independent and increasingly influential alternative media.

Woolsey, Bolton, Giuliani, and Gingrich have all lobbied for years as advocates for war with Iran, including lobbying directly for US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) as a means of propping up a capable, armed, and fanatical proxy with which to indirectly wage war on Iran, much as the US is currently using Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and proxy groups like Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) to wage proxy war on Syria.

Syria's Destruction Plotted Under Bush, Carried Out Under Obama, a Prerequisite for War with Iran...  

In fact, war with Syria has been long determined by US policymakers as an essential prerequisite before waging war on Iran. Syria's inclusion within the Bush-era "Axis of Evil" was in fact announced by Trump-ally John Bolton under the Bush administration in 2002.


The BBC in a 2002 article titled, "US Expands 'Axis of Evil,'" would report that:

The United States has added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the nations it claims are deliberately seeking to obtain chemical or biological weapons.

In a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. 

He also warned that the US would take action.

And the US would indeed take action, utterly destroying Libya and setting itself upon Syria, only not during Bush's eight-year term in office, but under his successor's administration, beginning in 2011.

And while the US proxy war with Syria began in 2011 under Obama, the stage was already being set as early as 2007 under Bush. In Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration�s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," it would be explicitly stated that (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co�perated with Saudi Arabia�s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh, in his 9-page report, would enumerate how financial, political, and material support was already benefiting extremist organizations associated with this expanding conspiracy, organizations that would soon be directly involved in the 2011 Syrian conflict including the Muslim Brotherhood and armed militant groups aligned with Al Qaeda.

US corporate-financier funded policy think tanks including the Brookings Institution as early as 2009 would also reveal that either the coercion or overthrow of the Syrian government, as well as the neutralization of Hezbollah would be essential prerequisites to the eventual attack on and overthrow of the Iranian government, as stated in their extensively detailed report, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran."

Trump's Transition Includes Reboot of Syrian-Iranian "Axis of Evil" Narrative 

It should be noted that Trump's political allies among Washington's Neo-Conservative clique, have been lobbying for MEK terrorists as recently as July of this year. In Paris, France, Bolton, Gingrich, and Giuliani were shoulder-to-shoulder with the Saudi Royal Family calling for "regime change" in Tehran.



Noting that the elimination of Syria and Hezbollah are essential prerequisites for this "regime change," should pique concern regarding the incoming administration of President-elect Trump. With Russia's steadfast intervention in Syria upon Damascus' request, and with the positive outcome of the Syrian conflict for Moscow key to Russian national security, it is unlikely that genuine rapprochement between the US and Russia can actually be made.

The hope of Trump allying the United States with Russia should be interpreted as a political ploy not unlike the now obviously disingenuous "reset" Hillary Clinton herself presided over as US Secretary of State in 2009. As Secretary Clinton posed for pictures with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov holding an emergency stop button with "reset" written on it, US policymakers were already deeply involved in the planning of not only political unrest within Russia itself through the use of US-funded opposition groups, but planning fully on the liquidation of Russia's traditional allies throughout the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA), Eastern Europe, and Central Asia via the upcoming "Arab Spring" conflagration.

With Trump now incoming as US president, the Western media is attempting to capitalize on campaign promises made by Trump himself regarding "safe zones" in Syria and the exploitation of the refugee crisis triggered by US interventions across the MENA region.

A CNN article written by conservative media personality Sarah "SE" Cupp titled, "Syria: The issue we can't ignore anymore," repackages Obama-era talking points to dovetail with Trump's campaign promises. Tellingly, the op-ed states (emphasis added):

Trump has made clear during the course of the election that he would not take in any Syrian refugees. While that's not the position I wish he would take, I can live with this, because keeping refugees out matters to him, and presumably his many supporters. And ultimately, the humane and practical solution is to secure a safe zone within Syria so that other countries, including ours, do not have a refugee crisis in the first place. Indeed, one of the most straightforward things we can do -- and the most significant -- is to give Syrians a safe way to return home. It's also something Trump and a Republican-led Congress could agree on.

However, "safe zones" are not a new idea. They also have nothing to do with addressing the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Syria. They were introduced by the very engineers of the Syrian conflict among US foreign policy circles, and were designed not to help end the war or protect refugees, but to "bleed Syria" to death as a functioning nation state by intentionally protracting fighting for as long as possible.

As early as 2012, the Brookings Institution in a document titled, "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change," US policymakers would openly declare their intentions to create such "safe zones" stating:

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan�s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The document would then openly admit that - failing to overthrow the Syrian government - bleeding the nation would be an acceptable alternative, claiming (emphasis added):

The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.

If it seems that Trump's campaign speeches, his campaign and transition team, as well as his prospective presidential administration seem fully arrayed to preserve a continuity of agenda that has so far, clearly transcended both the 8 year term of Bush and Obama's subsequent 8 years in office, that's because it is.

Russian "optimism" regarding America's incoming president is likely nothing more than a diplomatic gesture of goodwill. And just as Foreign Minister Lavrov humored Secretary Clinton's "reset" charade, fully anticipating treachery, Russia and its Syrian allies must prepare fully for American treachery once again - from an administration carrying the distinct DNA of the very policy circles that added Syria to the "Axis of Evil" in the first place, and has since then worked ceaselessly to undermine it and its allies for well over a decade.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.� 

Iran Bans Pokemon Go Over Security Concerns

August 8, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Iran has for now, banned Pokemon Go over security concerns. 

The BBC in their article, "Pokemon Go banned by Iranian authorities over 'security'," would report that:

Authorities in Iran have banned the Pokemon Go app because of unspecified "security concerns". 

The decision was taken by the High Council of Virtual Spaces, the official body overseeing online activity. 

Iran follows a number of other countries in expressing its worries over security related to the game.

While the BBC offers no insight into what security concerns Iran specifically had, PC Magazine offered a few theories in its article, "Iran is First Country to Ban Pokemon Go," which reported:

We have our guesses, though. Pokemon Go can encourage players to get creative with their sleuthing at all hours of the night, which can prove troublesome. Trespassing concerns are prevalent, too�so much so, there's even a class-action lawsuit in the works in the United States centered on that very issue.

It's also possible that Iran wants to stop the "Pokemon effect" of tens (if not hundreds) of people all hanging out in the same area for hours at a time, or even the few cases where Pokemon Go players are robbed or assaulted when walking around Pokestops in particular areas.

The disruptive ability of the game to create and manipulate large groups of people on the streests, and other concerns regarding malware and permissions required by the application, couple together with the fact that the game's developer, Niantic, has a somewhat nefarious pedigree.

Pokemon Go's US State Department-Google Upbringing 

Niantic is headed by John Hanke, a former US State Department employee and a former employee of Google. His time at Google included overseeing Google Maps and Google Earth  at a time when the tech-giant was working together with the US State Department to assist protesters and militant groups during the opening stages of 2011's Arab Spring. It would be revealed by the London Guardian's article, "Syria: is it possible to rename streets on Google Maps?," that:

In their struggle to free Syria from the clutches of President Bashar al-Assad, anti-government activists have embarked on a project to wipe him off the map. Literally. On Google Maps, major Damascus thoroughfares named after the Assad family have appeared renamed after heroes of the uprising. The Arab Spring has form in this regard. When anti-Gadaffi rebels tore into Tripoli last August, the name of the city's main square on the mapping service changed overnight � from "Green Square", the name given to it by the erstwhile dictator, to "Martyr's Square", its former title. 

The internet giant's mapping service has a history of weighing in on political disputes. 

In other words, the US State Department, using Google's applications, would augment military operations on the ground in real time through location-based information warfare.

Other aspects of the Google-US State Department collaboration were also revealed during this time, including an application proposed by Jared Cohen of Google (formally of the US State Department) to track alleged defections across Syria's government and military in real-time to panic the rest of the nation into folding under the US-backed uprising.

The UK Independent in its article, "Google planned to help Syrian rebels bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim," would report that:

An interactive tool created by Google was designed to encourage Syrian rebels and help bring down the Assad regime, Hillary Clinton's leaked emails have reportedly revealed. 

By tracking and mapping defections within the Syrian leadership, it was reportedly designed to encourage more people to defect and 'give confidence' to the rebel opposition.

Considering the role the US State Department and Google played in setting the stage for the now ongoing war ravaging Syria to this day in which Iran is currently assisting the Syrian government, it is not difficult to see why Tehran would have reservations regarding a Google-US State Department-connected application like Pokemon Go being widely used within its borders. 

The application can literally create a small mob virtually anywhere at anytime by simply populating virtual Pokemon characters at any given location. There is even a feature to specifically lure users to a particular area. While Niantic has claimed this is a means for businesses to attract customers, political campaigners in the US have already used it to lure players to political rallies.

(A Pokemon Go instant-mob.) 

Iran, a nation the US has openly targeted in the past with organised uprising, is unlikely to want an application operating within its borders, created by a former US State Department employee with connections to Google, that is capable of generating crowds anywhere at any given time. Even as a means to throw off security forces, it would serve as a valuable tool to those seeking to subvert peace and stability.

Considering the price Syria is now paying for allowing foreign-backed elements to upend social order and stability there, Iran's decision seems fairly reasonable and justified.

Conversely, Iran, and other nations, would be much better served by developing their own augmented reality, location-based applications, where their use and abuse would be directly controlled by the people using them, within the nation they are being used.

 The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.