US-Israel Wage War on Iran in Syria
By Tony Cartalucci
April 05, 2015 "ICH"
- The ongoing conflict in Syria has always been a proxy conflict aimed at Iran,
as well as nearby Russia, and more distant China. As far back as 2007, two-time
Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh warned in his 9-page New Yorker report “The
Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the
war on terrorism?,” that a region-wide sectarian war was being engineered by
the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel – all of whom were working in concert even in
2007, to build the foundation of a sectarian militant army.
The report would cite various
serving and former US officials who warned that the extremists the West was
backing were “preparing for cataclysmic conflict.”
In retrospect, considering the
emergence of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), Hersh’s warning has turned
out to be prophetic. The destabilization of Syria and Lebanon were noted in
particular as prerequisites for a coming war with Iran. Confirming this would be
the lengthy policy treatise published by the Brookings Institution in 2009
titled, “Which Path to Persia?”
In it, it is openly discussed that regime change for the purpose
of establishing regional hegemony is the only goal of the United States and its
regional partners, with attempts to frame the conflict with Iran as an issue of
“national security” and “global stability” serving as mere canards.
Throughout the document, US
policymakers admit that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are
merely one of several pretexts being used to foster political subversion from
within and justify war from beyond Iran’s borders.
More importantly, Brookings
details explicitly how the US will wage war on Iran, through Israel, in order to
maintain plausible deniability. It states specifically under a chapter titled, “Allowing
or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that:
…the most salient
advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the
possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves
true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation
or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military
operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay
Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining
many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).
Various diplomatic postures are
discussed in consideration of the best formula to mitigate complicity amid a
“unilateral” Israeli strike on Iran. Of course, and as the report notes,
US-Israeli foreign policy is unified with Israel’s defenses a product of vast
and continuous US support. Anything Israel does, therefore, no matter the
political or diplomatic facade constructed, it does with America’s full backing
– hence the inclusion of “encouraging” in the title of the chapter.
Today, an alleged “fallout”
between the US and Israel has been grabbing headlines. Beyond the most
superficial of political commentary, there have been no real manifestations of
this “fallout.” Israel is still receiving immense aid both military and
political from the United States, and Israeli foreign policy is still one with
The purpose of the feigned
“fallout” is to produce room between the US and Israel, so that possible
upcoming “unilateral” actions taken by Israel can be disavowed by a “cold” US.
The BBC’s article, “Netanyahu
row with Obama administration deepens,” reported that:
A row between the US and
Benjamin Netanyahu has deepened, with the Israeli leader accusing America
and others of “giving up” on trying to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
The US secretary of state questioned Mr Netanyahu’s judgement on the issue.
This is precisely the political
charade implied by the Brookings Institution in their 2009 report as being
necessary before any so-called “unilateral” action by Israel could be taken. In
reality there is no row, simply a need for establishing plausible deniability
ahead of an egregious act of unwarranted, unjust military aggression.
The War on Syria: Containing Iran
Before, During, and After Airstrikes
Such theatrics are but one troubling sign that aggression toward
Iran is still very much in the cards, that current negotiations are but a
smokescreen for preparations to strike Iran anyway regardless of what concession
it is willing to make, and that such aggression may take place once the US and
its regional partners believe Syria has been reduced to its weakest state
possible – if outright regime change is seen as impossible.
Brookings states clearly that:
As the conclusion
discusses, an air campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites would likely have to
be coupled with a containment strategy—before, during, and especially after
the strikes. Containment would be necessary to hinder Iran from
reconstituting its nuclear program, prevent it from retaliating against the
United States and its allies, and to deal with Iran’s support for violent
extremist groups and other anti-status quo activities.
Admittedly, part of that
containment strategy have been attempts to destroy Syria and Lebanon – where the
majority of Iran’s regional support is based and where Iran would marshal
support from in the immediate aftermath of an unprovoked attack on its territory
by US-Israeli aggression.
In addition to propping up
terrorists across the region to attack Iran’s allies abroad, the Brookings
report dedicated an entire chapter to “Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting
Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups.” Here, Brookings talks about backing
the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the
Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) – the latter being a verified terrorist
organization, previously listed by the US State Department as such, and guilty
of killing not only Iranian civilians throughout decades of terrorism, but also
US military personal and US civilian contractors.
For those who have difficulties
believing the US would back Al Qaeda terrorists for the purpose of overthrowing
the governments of Libya, Egypt, and Syria, they need only look at overt and
continuous support for MEK terrorists in a bid to overthrow the government of
Iran to uncover the reality of Washington’s willingness to sponsor terrorism.
Brookings would openly admit that:
…even if U.S. support for
an insurgency failed to produce the overthrow of the regime, it could still
place Tehran under considerable pressure, which might either prevent the
regime from making mischief abroad or persuade it to make concessions on
issues of importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and
support to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban). Indeed, Washington might
decide that this second objective is a more compelling rationale for
supporting an insurgency than the (much less likely) goal of actually
overthrowing the regime.
Brookings describes in exceptional detail how the US would
organize its proxy terrorists. It would claim:
Insurgencies take a long
time to succeed, when they succeed at all. It takes time for insurgents to
identify leaders and recruit personnel, establish bases and gather
equipment, and learn tactics and proficiency with weapons. It takes even
longer to win popular support, erode the morale of the government’s armed
forces, and then undermine the government’s legitimacy.
It would also claim:
The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) could take care of most of the supplies and training for these
groups, as it has for decades all over the world. However, Washington would
need to decide whether to provide the groups with direct military
And finally, it would admit:
To protect neighboring
countries providing sanctuary to the insurgents. Any insurgency against the
Iranian regime would need a safe haven and conduit for arms and other
supplies through one or more of Iran’s neighbors.
This precise strategy has been
implemented regarding Syria. Material support for terrorists operating in Syria
has been provided for years by the West, with the West’s vast media monopolies
providing rhetoric to undermine the legitimacy of the Syrian government, and
US-created sanctuaries outside of Syria (primarily in Turkey and Jordan) for
terrorists to to seek safe havens in and through which a
torrent of arms, cash, equipment, and fighters flow.
When understanding that the war in
Syria is but a lead up to a larger conflict with Iran – with a literal signed
confession created by US policymakers clearly serving as the foundation for
several years of American foreign policy across the Middle East – one begins to
understand the urgent imperative incumbent upon those who, for the sake of their
own self-preservation, are tasked with stopping it.
Russian and Chinese efforts to
obstruct US designs in Syria are about more than selfish regional interests,
they are a matter of self-preservation, stopping the conflict in Syria from
spilling into Iran next, southern Russia afterwards, and eventually enveloping
western China as well.
That the US has committed itself
to fueling chaos in Syria despite the unlikelihood of actually overthrowing the
government in Damascus, costing tens of thousands of innocent people their
lives, illustrates the callousness of US foreign policy, highlighting that
Western sponsorship of terrorism around the world constitutes perhaps the most
egregious, continuous, and most horrifically demonstrable threat to global peace
and stability in our age.
As the US and Israel conduct their latest diplomatic charade, a
harbinger of even more chaos to come, those concerned must read the policy
papers of the West and understand the true nature of their methodology if ever
they hope to expose it and stop it.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and
writer, especially for the online magazine“New