US military-industrial complex looks to exploit demonstrations to weaken Ahmadinejad’s regime
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, February 21, 2011
While the current global revolt sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa is born out of a universal human cry for freedom, food security and a decent standard of living, it is important to understand that the global elite are waiting in the wings to exploit the chaos as an opportunity to re-order the geopolitical landscape in their image, particularly by exploiting the demonstrations as a vehicle through which to weaken and topple the Iranian government.
The primary reason why the US military-industrial complex and other western nations appear to be supporting revolutions which directly threaten the tenures of dictators loyal to them, Hosni Mubarak being a prime example, is that such consequences are a price worth paying if the number one target of the globalists – Iran – gets toppled in the process.
Prominent neo-con David Frum made this point clear in an article entitled America Can’t Afford to Ignore the Chaos in Bahrain, writing, “Always and ever: Iran is the big play in the Middle East…Every regional decision has to be measured against the test: Is this moving us closer to—or further from—a positive change in the Iranian political system? That test should guide decisions about Bahrain, and about a lot more than Bahrain.”
Similarly, the The New York Times’ David Sanger highlighted the fact that it’s in the interests of the US military-industrial complex to allow the revolutions to spread in order to weaken the stability of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In an interview with National Public Radio, Sanger noted that the Obama administration was looking to exploit the protests to create, “an alternative narrative to Iran that the United States ought to make use of.”
“It is in this context that we should understand why the Obama Administration, literally seven hours after Omar Soliman announced that Hosni Mubarak would step down as Egypt’s President after all, called the White House press corps back in and, as Sanger put it, “all but urged the protestors” in Iran, such as they were, “to get out and do more”. The Administration has clearly decided, as America’s strategic position in the Middle East erodes before our eyes, to “push back” against the Islamic Republic, in multiple ways,” write Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.
Indeed, several top ranking former U.S. military officials have now called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “rescind the 14-year-old designation of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organization, or MEK, as a terrorist group.”
As prominent New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has documented, the US government has already been providing hundreds of millions of dollars to MEK as a means of fomenting instability inside Iran.
“The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, said Hersh. “Then you have what the White House calls the ‘casus belli’, a reason to attack the country. That is the thinking and it is very crazy.”
As former CIA Director Michael Hayden notes, governments in the Middle East “are not dominoes, these are very different regimes,” with the Iranian regime undoubtedly being the most immune to the wave of revolutions currently spreading like wildfire across the region.
That’s why the US military-industrial complex is relying on MEK to become the vanguard of the Iranian opposition movement, because as Retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton, notes, “Iran’s current regime is currently a government that needs to change,” that is, it needs to change from the perspective of the US military-industrial complex, and they will resort to any means, including bankrolling terrorist organizations while framing them as an “opposition movement,” to make it happen.
The true scale and number of revolts now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa preclude any simple explanation that they were all kick-started as a result of US geopolitical manipulation. However, that’s not to say that such revolutions were not actively forseen and prepared for by the same forces now trying to exploit the fallout.
For example, we know that as far back as December 2008, the US Embassy was aware of plans to overthrow Mubarak in 2011 and had begun secretly funding rebel leaders to spearhead the campaign.
From a wider perspective, the fact that the outcome of the financial collapse would be food riots, revolts, revolutions and even civil war was understood years in advance.
As we wrote back in February 2008, six months before the economic collapse, the UN was “Warning of a food shortage crisis and drawing up plans for food rations which will hit even middle-class suburban populations as inflation and economic uncertainty causes the prices of staple food commodities to skyrocket.” This would lead to “food riots,” we warned, simply reporting the statements of UN officials at the time.
Soaring food prices have been cited as one of the primary drivers behind the revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.
In addition, we reported on an April 2007 British Ministry of Defence document which warned of a “mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes.” which now seems to be unfolding in Wisconsin as well as “Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order,” across the world.
The fact that the revolutions we now witness enveloping the Middle East and North Africa will grow and evolve is without doubt, the only question that remains is whether those revolts will simply lead to another form of tyranny, such as the military dictatorship that has taken over Egypt, whether the outcome will provide the opportunity for the global elite to accelerate their new world order, or whether people power will truly triumph and genuine freedom will prosper as a result.
The events in Egypt of late have captured the attention of the world as many thousands of Egyptians take to the streets both in opposition to and favor of the current regime. We watch from a distance hoping that events do not spiral further into violence which will destroy lives and threaten the livelihoods of average Egyptians caught up in the political turmoil. I hope that Egyptians are able to work toward a more free and just society. Unfortunately, much of the blame for the unrest in Egypt and the resulting instability in the region rests with U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades. The U.S. government has sent more than $60 billion to the Egyptian regime since the Camp David accords in 1978 to purchase stability, including more security for the state of Israel.
We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy. Not only has that stability fallen to pieces, with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel. We are both worse off for the decades of the intervention in Egypt’s internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase or rent friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic. Already we see evidence that while the U.S. historically propped up the Egyptian regime, we also provided assistance to groups opposed to the regime. So we have lost the credibility to claim today that we support the self-determination of the Egyptian people. Our double dealing has not endeared us to the Egyptians who now seek to reclaim their independence and national dignity.
Diplomacy via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas, but the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home, so how can we justify to the underemployed and unemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.
American media and talking heads repeatedly pose the same loaded questions. Should the administration encourage the Egyptian president to remain or to resign? Should the U.S. ensure Mohamed ElBaradei or current Vice President Omar Suleiman succeed current president Mubarak? The best answer to these questions is that we should just do nothing, as Eisenhower did in 1956. We should leave Egypt for Egyptians to figure out.
Some may claim that this is isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We should enthusiastically engage in trade, allow travel between countries, but we should stay out of their internal affairs. We are in fact more isolated from Egypt now than ever because the regime we propped up appears to be falling. We have isolated ourselves from the Egyptian people by propping up their government as we isolate ourselves from the Tunisians, Israelis, and other recipients of foreign aid. Their resentment of our interventionist foreign policy makes us less safe because we lose our authority to conduct meaningful diplomacy when unpopular regimes fall overseas. We also radicalize those who resented our support for past regimes.
Let us hope for a more prosperous and peaceful era for the Egyptians and let us learn the lessons of our 30 year Egyptian mistake.
Sarah Palin has turned away from the juvenile forums of Facebook and Twitter, at least for a
“We have to know what makes America exceptional today more than ever because it is under assault today more than ever,” the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee writes in the excerpt released Saturday.
“I can’t think of a sadder prospect for Todd and me than our spending our sunset years telling our grandson, Tripp, and our grandchildren yet to come about what it was like in America when we were strong and proud and free,” she adds. “But maybe I can think of a sadder prospect: Tripp and our other grandchildren spending their whole lives working to pay off the irresponsible debt we have accumulated and are about to leave to them.”
‘Under assault today more than ever?’ C’mon, Sarah, you don’t mean to tell me that you still believe in the whole “terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because of our prosperity, religion, and that we are the brightest beacon of freedom” thing, do you?
‘Strong and proud and free?’ You would be including George W. Bush as an opponent to that very same thing, wouldn’t you? I mean, after all, his malicious lies to the American people over Iraq. His insistent “stay the course” when evidence was telling us to avoid the iceberg, the war crimes of torture, etc. As an opponent to freedom you would be including President Bush’s National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 in that, wouldn’t you?
Just as a short tutorial – because we know you don’t like to read books – here’s a basic rundown: in the event that a matter of national security or cataclysmic event, the president has the power to bring all three branches of the federal government under his power, and it will take place of the nations regular government.
Not very Constitutional. Not very much of the resemblance of “freedom”. And, to me, not very much in the direction of the “Amer’can Way”. By the way, to the casual reader, Directive 51 still sits on the President’s desk, no matter who the President is. I suggest you click on the link and read the other topics.
Debt? I couldn’t agree more. But aside from being a political sniper for Fox News, not even a full term governor, and Sean Hannities BFF, how do you plan to handle the debt? Why don’t we start with the failed foreign policy that you support? To be completely truthful, our interventionist foreign policy does not make up all of our nation’s debt, but it contributes to a good chunk, and its a damn good place to start cutting.
Now I am a registered voter, Ms. Palin, so tell me, do you snipe politicians based on the fact of “party”, or do you hate the seed of corruption all the way around? Because if it is the latter, then you wouldn’t have run with one of the most corrupt, ignorant politicians in 2008.
Sarah Palin has tapped into the disgruntled American syndrome and has grown monetarily fatter because of it. Americans would be stupid to buy her books.
Or as Philip Giraldi says, “Sarah Palin doesn’t know anything about foreign policy.”
I seriously hope that Sarah Palin put a lot more thought into this book and used other forms of taking notes instead of her hand.
As an after thought, Sarah Palin’s Republican’s – or Teapublicans, whatever you want to call them – blocked unemployment benefits for Americans in the name of “balancing the budget”. This reminds me of the aftermath of September 11, 2001 when then-President Bush legislated for unemployment benifits and the Republicans went with him. Can you say friggin’ hypocritical?
I’ve got an idea: How about stop sending money to corrupt foreign governments? Work outside in instead of inside out, and in the process shamming Americans out of a livelihood. What a way to kick a person in the go-nads in the middle of the Holiday season?
I am proud to say that I voted for this guy in 2008 – Chuck Baldwin for the Constitution Party. Also, I am proud to say that I didn’t sell out my beliefs, morals, and convictions to vote for McCain-Palin in the name of keeping “Obama out of office.”
By McCain’s admission he was in “lockstep” with President Bush (he said he had voted with the President about ninety-five percent of the time), and the American people saw this as an extention of “stay the course.” But, in all reality, the American people have all the blame on our shoulders for the state of this nation.
By Chuck Baldwin
Among the scariest words ever heard are, “We are from the federal government, and we are here to help you.” Shiver me timbers, matey! When you hear those words, pick up your peg leg and RUN, because you are about to get hammered. And that is exactly what is fixing to happen to the American people when the new Obama national healthcare law is fully implemented: we are going to get hammered.
Anyone who believes that the federal government can manage anything efficiently is 8 years old, rationally challenged, or in the business of profiting from the federal government’s inefficiency. The only thing the federal government can do with precision is destroy things (and people). That is the one thing the feds can do with complete and total proficiency. Our first and greatest President, George Washington, understood this reality. He said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Amen.
A recent AP report should serve as another illustration as to the folly of trusting the federal government with the supervision and care of anything beyond those narrowly limited responsibilities defined in the US Constitution. The July 27, 2010, report said, “A U.S. audit has found that the Pentagon cannot account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraq reconstruction money, spotlighting Iraqi complaints that there is little to show for the massive funds pumped into their cash-strapped, war-ravaged nation.”
The report went on to say, “The Pentagon has repeatedly come under fire for apparent mismanagement of the reconstruction effortï¿½as have Iraqi officials themselves.
“Seven years after the U.S.-led invasion, electricity service is spotty, with generation capacity falling far short of demand. Fuel shortages are common and unemployment remains high, a testament to the country’s inability to create new jobs or attract foreign investors.
“Complaints surfaced from the start of the war in 2003, when soldiers failed to secure banks, armories and other facilities against looters. Since then the allegations have only multiplied, including investigations of fraud, awarding of contracts without the required government bidding process and allowing contractors to charge exorbitant fees with little oversight, or oversight that came too late.”
See the report at:
Did you get that? “THE PENTAGON CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR OVER 95 PERCENT OF $9.1 BILLION IN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION MONEY.” But this is the same federal government that says it can manage America’s multibillion-dollar healthcare system efficiently and with less cost. GAG!
Another report that caught my eye was this one dated August 12, 2010, and carried on My Way News. The report said, “The $700 billion U.S. bailout program launched in response to the global economic meltdown had a far greater impact overseas than other countries’ financial rescue plans did on the U.S., according to a new report from a congressional watchdog.
“Billions of dollars in U.S. rescue funds wound up in big banks in France, Germany and other nations. That was probably inevitable because of the structure of the Treasury Department’s program, the Congressional Oversight Panel says in a new report issued Thursday.
“The U.S. program aimed to stabilize the financial system by injecting money into as many banks as possible, including those with substantial operations overseas. Most other countries, by contrast, focused their efforts more narrowly on banks in their nations that usually lacked major U.S. operations.”
I’m sure everyone is glad to hear this, Amen? Aren’t you happy to learn that your hard-earned tax dollars “had a far greater impact overseas” than in the United States? In other words, ladies and gentlemen, big foreign banks (and internationally-owned banks) were the primary beneficiaries of the taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts.
The report went on to say, “But the report says that if the U.S. had gotten more data on which foreign banks would benefit the most, the government might have been able to ask those countries to share some of the cost.
“‘There were no data about where this money was going,’ panel chair Elizabeth Warren said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. ‘The American people have a right to know where the money went.'”
See the report at:
Dear Reader, are you getting this? “IF THE U.S. HAD GOTTEN MORE DATA . . . THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ASK THOSE COUNTRIES TO SHARE SOME OF THE COST”? Holy slimeballs, Batman! This is the same government that is collecting nearly 2 billion pieces of electronic correspondence (emails, text messages, cellular calls, phone calls, etc.) EVERY DAY from virtually EVERY CITIZEN in the country. This is the same government that wants to electronically take our clothes off and look at every square inch of our naked bodies every time we get on a commercial airliner. But this same government was not able to obtain the data necessary to determine which foreign banks were going to receive billions of taxpayer bailout dollars? And, “There were NO DATA ABOUT WHERE THIS MONEY WAS GOING”?
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, who are the morons here? These government politicians and bureaucrats (who are either the most inept, incompetent fools to ever live, or the most deceptive, duplicitous con artists on the planet), or We the People for putting up with these nincompoops?
At this point, I invite readers to listen to this brief archived audio sound bite from former President Ronald Reagan (one of my favorite quotes) at:
For those of you who are reading a hard copy of this column and not an online edition, and, therefore, are unable to link to the audio above, the file quotes Reagan as saying, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Do I hear an “Amen” out there?
How, in the name of common sense, can anyone (or any State) be willing to forfeit to the federal government one additional cent or even an ounce more authority knowing that every dollar it grabs and every authority it garners is used only to increase the size of the shackles that it puts around our necks?
And you want THEM to manage healthcare?
When asked in 2008 if going into Iraq was a “mistake” and “worth it” all GOP contenders said it was not, save but one – Ron Paul. As time passes more and more light is being shed on the build-up to the Iraqi Freedom conflict. This light exposes the fact that the American people were sold a fictitious war.
Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, and any source saying to the contray is grossly exageratted. G.W.Bush’s campaign platform in 2000 of a humble foreign policy was nothing more than a malicious lie.
At the time of 2003, Iraq was bankrupt. They owed billions to foreign banks and countries, one of them the United States via the Federal Reserve. This is a little known fact, but in 2004 the United States was able to gather together these loaning nations to forgive Iraqi debt. There’s just one catch: Iraq must forfeit its right to a sovereign economy to outside influences. Thusly, was born Iraq’s central bank.
So one has to wonder, was the numerous lies about Iraq sold to the world so U.S. and other nations could collect on the debt? If you do enough research on the Fed and follow the money, you may very well arrive at the same conclusion.
Another point I’d like to make is this: after 9/11 the Bush Administration went rampent with the term “terrorism”. Resistance in the Middle East are terrorists. Did anyone really think that this would be a cake walk? There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before invasion, but our involvement gave them the incentive to fight. North Korea and Venezuela are “terrorist” nations.
You ask Sean Hannity who was to blame for September 11, 2001 and he will say Bill Clinton. Despite the proven incompetance of government, he still clings to the belief that ousting Hussein was the right and moral thing to do.
With such a vague term and a worthless Homeland Security terrorist threat system, Bush administration officials were able to numb the mind and confound our understanding.
Iraq and Afghanistan are quagmires and have no real objective. Staying in country based on the fearmongering method of what government will take shape is the worst policy ever created.
I laugh when I read Ann Coulter’s famous “we should kill their leaders and convert them to christianity” quote because it is so erroneous, I have to grasp at air to try to find the logic.
There many great things about America but never should they be forced upon the world by weapons of war. Its impossible to think that through occupation liberty can be born and cherished. Only through a complete withdraw can liberty have the chance to grow.
I hope that with the recent Wikileaks documents debate for the first time since Vietnam is utilized, and politicians in Congress come to an epiphany that the continued Bush doctrine has hurt more than helped.