Airstrikes Signal Western Desperation in Syria
By Tony Cartalucci
05, 2013 "Information
Clearing House" -"LD"
- - Once
again, Israel is "leaking" information about alleged airstrikes
it claims it has conducted against Syria along the
Lebanese-Syrian border. According to CNN's "Sources:
U.S. believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria,"
it was stated that:
United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike
into Syria, two U.S. officials tell CNN.
Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets
that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to
Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any
effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could
the same flimsy pretext
used in another alleged Israeli attack on Syrian territory
earlier this year.
In reality, the "other terrorists groups" Israel claims to worry
about, are indeed funded and directed by the US, Israel, and
Saudi Arabia as part of a long-standing, documented conspiracy
to overthrow the nations of Iran and Syria.
Reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in
his 2007 New Yorker article, "The
Redirection," it was stated (emphasis added):
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 coöperated 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."
Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful
balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its
role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region:
Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a
political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran:
Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close
to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the
former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and
for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the
Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America
does it, we will be blamed.”"
fact, reveals the true nature of the attacks, a result of US,
Saudi, and Israeli
proxies failing inside of Syria and the desperate need to
carryout military intervention to save them, while leaving
intact whatever remaining legitimacy and plausible deniability
the US holds globally, and Saudi Arabia holds across the Muslim
What Israel's Strike May Really Mean
Indeed, Israel's explanation as to why it struck neighboring
Syria is tenuous at best considering its long, documented
relationship with actually funding and arming the very
"terrorist groups" it fears weapons may fall into the hands of.
In reality, the pressure placed on Syria's borders by both
Israel and its partner, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's
Turkey in the north, is part of a documented plan to relieve
pressure on the Western, Israeli, Saudi-Qatari armed and funded
terrorists currently collapsing inside Syria.
Fortune 500-funded (page 19), US foreign-policy think-tank,
Brookings Institution - which has blueprinted designs for regime
in Libya as well as
both Syria and
Iran - stated this specifically in their report titled, "Assessing
Options for Regime Change."
The Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing
Options for Regime Change (.pdf),"
makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to
protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
Brookings describes how Israeli efforts in the south of Syria,
combined with Turkey's aligning of vast amounts of weapons and
troops along its border to the north, could help effect violent
regime change in Syria:
addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong
knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian
regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base
and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on
or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert
regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture
may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war,
particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its
border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady
diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps
persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order
to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure
could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other
forces were aligned properly." -page
6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings
airstrikes inside Syria go beyond "posturing," and indicate
perhaps a level of desperation in the West who appear to have
elected their chief villain, Israel, to incrementally
just as they had planned in regards to attacking Iran - also
documented by Brookings in a report titled, "Which
Path to Persia?"
In regards to Iran, in Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?"
report, it states specifically (emphasis added):
"Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice
for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably
already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel
might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or
even days, depending on what weather and intelligence
conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would
have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing
regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would
feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation
before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to
implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders
wanted it to happen.
However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes
themselves are really just the start of this policy.
Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear
sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and
they might retaliate against the United States, too (which
might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an
91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
this statement we can gather insight behind both Israel's
irrational belligerent posture throughout its brief history,
as well as its more recent acts of unprovoked aggression against
Syria. Israel's role is to play the "bad guy." As a regional
beachhead for Western corporate-financier interests, it provides
a "foot in the door" to any of the West's many desired
conflicts. By bombing Syria, it hopes to provoke a wider
conflict - an intervention the West has desired and planned for
since it tipped off Syria's violent conflict in 2011.
For Syria and its allies - the goal now must be to deter further
Israeli aggression and avoid wider conflict at all costs. If
NATO's proxy terrorist forces are as weak as they appear -
incapable of tactical or strategic gains, and tapering off into
desperate terrorist attacks, it is only a matter of time before
NATO's campaign grinds to a halt.
As mentioned before, such a failure on NATO's part will be
the beginning of the end for it, and the Western interests that
have been using it as a tool to achieve geopolitical hegemony.
Israel should be expected to commit to increasingly desperate
acts to provoke Syria and Iran - as its leadership represent
directly corporate-financier interests abroad, not the Israeli
people, or their best interests (including peace and even
survival). For the people of Israel, they must realize that
their leadership indeed does not represent them or their best
interests and is able, willing, and even eager
to spend their lives and fortunes in the service of foreign,
corporate-financier interests and global hegemony.
What's your response?
Scroll down to add / read comments
We are testing a
new comment software and would appreciate your opinion.
Please read our
Comment Policy before posting -
Please read our
Comment Policy before posting -
We ask readers to play a proactive role and click
the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when
in your opinion, comments cross the line and become
purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.