US and British Troops sent to Yemen

Yemeni southern separatists inspect the site of UAE airstrikes near Aden, Yemen, August 30, 2019. (Photo by AP)

Source: Press TV

US, British troops in Aden, more to arrive in Yemen strategic areas: Reports

The Emirati-backed separatists in southern Yemen say hundreds of US and British forces have arrived in the port city of Aden as the first batch of a large military force that Washington and London seek to deploy to the Arab country’s resource-rich areas under the guise of fighting terrorism.

According to Fadi al-Murshidi, media official of the so-called Southern Transitional Council (STC), some 450 US and British soldiers arrived in Aden, al-Masa press reported.

Murshidi said that Washington and London — staunch backers of the Saudi regime’s war on Yemen — plan to deploy 3,000 troops in Aden, al-Anad base in Lahj province, Socotra Island in the Arabian Sea, Hadhramaut, Mahrah and Shabwah provinces, under the pretext of combating terrorism.

Local media reported that a US force consisted of 110 soldiers reinforced by 10 Black Hawk aircraft, 30 Harvey armored vehicles, four Patriot air defense systems and an integrated field operations room had reached the coast of Balhaf in the oil-producing Shabwa province.

Two US warships docked at Balhaf, Yemen’s main liquefied natural gas (LNG) export port, according to southern local media.

Military experts say Washington's intensified moves in Yemen’s southern provinces are aimed at preparing for a possible military intervention and establishment of military bases in the country.

Some analysts say the moves indicate Washington’s intention to plunder the country’s oil resources.

The presence of US forces in Yemen comes as Washington has begun withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and apparently plans to transfer them to another territory rich in natural resources.

Both the UAE-backed separatists and the militants loyal to the former Saudi-allied Yemeni government serve the Riyadh-led coalition, which has been engaged, since 2015, in a bloody military campaign against Yemen aimed at reinstating ex-president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who resigned in 2014 and later fled to the Saudi capital.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have purchased billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the United States, France and the United Kingdom in the war on Yemen.

Despite all the firm support from the West, the Saudi regime and its coalition allies have achieved none of the long-drawn-out war’s objectives thanks to stiff resistance by Yemen’s armed forces — led by the Houthi Ansarullah movement.

The reported American and British deployment comes as Yemen’s armed forces — led by the Houthi Ansarullah movement — have been making more gains against pro-Saudi militants on several fronts.

Angered by the gains, the Saudi-led coalition has stepped up its airstrikes against civilian targets in different area of Yemen.

Turkey’s Invasion of Syria

Source: Press TV - Mideastream Episode 23 (2019 Oct 15)

Host: Marwa Osman

The Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria is likely to result in a high number of casualties in the near term with significant instability in the region in the longer term.

Press TV’s Lebanese-American Journalist Serena Shim was killed in Turkey in 2014 for revealing the truth regarding the relationship between Turkey and Daesh.

Given that Turkish intelligence threatened Serena, according to her testimony, and that Turkey is notorious world-wide for its imprisonment and murder of journalists, the US State Department’s and MSM’s lack of concern is incriminating in itself.

------------------------------ 

US military has plans to bomb and send forces in Syria: Washington Post

 

Scores of people, mostly civilians, were rushed to hospitals in Aleppo following the terrorist chemical attack on March 19, 2013.

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/25/295139/us-has-plans-to-bomb-syria-report/

The US military has prepared plans ranging from aerial bombings to deploying troops to “seize [chemical] weapons sites” inside Syria but has reservations against such moves, fearing a political backlash to the US intervention as well as lack of coordination with its regional allies.

“If we had to go in tomorrow, I’d say we aren’t ready,” said an unnamed Obama administration official “involved in the preparations for securing Syria’s chemical weapons” quoted in a Washington Post report on Monday.

“One thing we want to avoid is having one group securing the sites and another group bombing them,” added the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Following reports of a chemical attack near the Syrian major city of Aleppo by foreign-sponsored terrorist gangs trying to overthrow the government of President Bashar Al-Assad, US President Barack Obama said he had directed his “teams” to “find out precisely whether or not this red line was crossed,” the report adds, suggesting an American effort to blame the attack on the Syrian government.

The Obama administration “has sent thousands of protective suits and more than 150 military personnel to help train special forces teams” near Syria’s border with Jordan, where it claims “the largest” chemical arms depots are located, the report adds, citing US and Middle Eastern officials.

Pointing to efforts by the American military to work with “regional allies” to prepare responses “if events require seizing [Syrian] weapons sites, the report does not, however, mention any specific allies and whether the Israeli regime would also be involved in the potential scheme.

More aggressive US military options, according to the report, involve “a plan to destroy Assad’s air force to prevent it from using aerial munitions.”

It further cites American officials as looking into the possibility “to destroy much of Assad’s chemical arsenal,” but fearing that “dispersing chemicals” could cause widespread casualties, they would have to send in “highly trained operatives” to place and detonate explosives at the sites, rather than bombarding them.

The development comes as the US-sponsored anti-Damascus coalition group was reported on a verge of collapse following the resignation of its top leader, Moaz al-Khatib, after a Syrian-born US citizen was appointed a prime minister of a so-called interim government.

CIA aids Arab kingdoms, Turkey in huge surge of arms shift to Syria rebels

 

A member of an anti-Damascus foreign-backed gang with weapons illicitly shipped supplied through a CIA-led network (file photo)

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/25/295121/cia-aids-vast-arms-shift-to-syria-rebels/

US spy agency CIA has played a major role in locating weapon sources and coordinating a huge surge of arms shipments to foreign-backed militants in Syria by governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan.

From “offices at secret locations,” American intelligence agents have aided the US-backed Arab kingdoms “shop for weapons,” including a major Saudi arms purchase from Croatia, and have even determined which terror gang or commander should receive the weapons as they arrive, The New York Times reports Monday, citing American officials that spoke on condition of anonymity.

The scale of shipments was “very large,” with Turkish government exercising oversight over much of the operation, “affixing transponders to trucks ferrying the military goods through Turkey” to monitor shipments as reach Syria by land, the report adds, citing “officials familiar with the (weapons) pipeline and an arms-trafficking investigator who assembled data on the cargo planes involved.”

“A conservative estimate of the payload of these flights would be 3,500 tons of military equipment,” said an illicit arms transfers monitor, Hugh Griffiths, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, as quoted in the report.

“The intensity and frequency of these flights are suggestive of a well-planned and coordinated clandestine military logistics operation,” Griffiths added.

The shipment of weapons from Qatar and Saudi Arabia climbed drastically in late fall as Turkish government allowed the pace of arms airlifts for anti-Damascus terror gangs to accelerate.

Simultaneously, the report notes, Jordanian cargo aircraft, acting as front for the kingdom’s military, were flying in a major Saudi weapons purchase from Croatia to foreign-backed gangs operating in southern Syria, forming “a cataract of weaponry,” as described by a former US official briefed on the US-facilitated illicit arms transfers.

Qatar, using it Al Udeid Air Base, which serves as “a hub for American military logistics in the Middle East,” has been “an active arms supplier,” the daily underlines, citing US and other Western officials as well as commanders of anti-Damascus gangs in Syria, “so much so that the United States became concerned about some of the Islamist groups that Qatar has armed.”

The report further cites air traffic control data as showing that Jordanian cargo planes “made a combined 36 round-trip flights between Amman and Croatia from December through February” in addition to five flights between Amman and Turkey this January.

While regular Qatari arms airlifts continued, the Royal Saudi Air Force “began a busy schedule too,” the daily adds, “making at least 30 C-130 flights” into Turkey’s Esenboga air base from mid-February to early March of this year.

American officials, the report insists, “have confirmed that senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the [arms] shipments,” further saying that previous CIA Director David Petraeus “had been instrumental in helping to get this aviation network [of illicit arms shipments] moving and had prodded various countries to work together on it.”

Even as the Obama administration has publicly claimed that it only offers “nonlethal” aid to the gangs trying to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, “the involvement of the CIA in the arms shipments… has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war,” the report emphasizes.

The daily also suggests efforts by the US and its Arab allies for “drawing Turkey and Jordan actively into the war” they have waged on Syria, hoping to “provoke” Iran into the conflict as well.

The development comes as recent press reports have cited Israeli military leaders as claiming with the Syrian military “falling apart,” the Zionist forces are in a position to “focus” their efforts on Lebanon.

This is while US media outlets have widely reported that in his surprise visit to Iraq, American Secretary of State has pressured the nation’s leaders to limit Iranian flights into Syria, while vowing “revitalized” ties with the country they occupied for over seven years, leaving behind what has been widely regarded as a trail of death, destruction, abuse and still ongoing political interference.

The Islamic Republic has expressed full support for the government of President Assad in Syria while urging peaceful resolution of the nation’s crisis among Syrians and without any foreign intervention.

Iran has further maintained that the current Syrian unrest has been incited and financed by the chief backer of the Israeli regime, the US, and largely corrupt Arab kingdoms in the Persian Gulf that have been kept in power with American military backing.

 

US seeks to expand assassination drone attacks to Syria: Report

Update: March 16th, 1:58 PM EST

A US assassination drone (file Photo)

Source: Press TV

The CIA is considering a secret contingency plan to expand the US assassination drone strikes to Syria, former and current American officials say.

The officials said the Counter terrorism Center, which runs CIA’s drone operations in Pakistan and Yemen, has recently tasked some of its agents to collect further intelligence on the situation in Syria, the Los Angeles Times reported on Friday.

The targeting officers, who are based at CIA headquarters in Langley, have formed a unit with US intelligence agents in Iraq, to examine purported threats against "the US’ interests in Syria," the report said.

The unit is closely working with Saudi, Jordanian and other regional spy services, according to the report.

The CIA and the White House have declined to comment on the issue.

According to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, between 2,627 and 3,457 people have been killed by US drones in Pakistan alone since 2004.

Some former CIA officials expressed skepticism about the nature of Washington’s new contingency plan, saying no evidence substantiates existential threats against the US’ interests in Syria.

The news comes on the same day as the summit of EU leaders in Brussels failed to reach an agreement on lifting the body's arms embargo on Syria to facilitate the flow of weapons to militants.

Although the US publicly claims that its role in Syria is merely limited to providing food and medical supplies to the anti-government militants, Croatian newspaper Jutarnji List revealed on March 7 that the US has coordinated weapons shipments from Croatia to the militants in Syria.

According to the report, 3,000 tons of weapons in 75 planeloads have been transferred from Zagreb to the militants in Syria via Jordan and Turkey. The weapons were reportedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the request of the US.

What if China Invaded America!

Source Video:

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Ron Paul was cheated but he is not the only “NO WAR” candidate left. Vote wisely America or there will no longer be an America after the election…

CREDITS:
Voice and Music was done by Jeremy Hoop
Video animation was done by Nicholas Bozman and MysteryBox.

Mystery Box US

http://mysterybox.us

Original text:

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

Mali: US Africa Command (AFRICOM) Prepares for Another “Humanitarian” Military Intervention?

 

By: Patrick Henningsen

http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/12/africom-is-a-go-obama-prepares-a-new-intervention-in-mali-using-somalia-as-his-model/

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/applying-the-somalia-model-us-africa-command-africom-prepares-for-humanitarianmilitary-intervention-in-mali/5308015

Obama has been carrying the AFRICOM ball down the field after the directive was launched under George W. Bush in 2007. Washington DC, led by African Secretary, Jonnie Carson, speaks to its public at a level deserving of an uninformed, Helen Keller-esque populace, claiming that Somalia was ‘a big success’ because Washington spooks spent $500 million backing an “African Proxy Force” that allegedly “drove out al Qaida” in that country. And it is no coincidence that massive untapped oil reserves in the Puntland region in northeastern Somalia were recently announced in early 2012.

Just as Washington’s corporate interests are hidden behind ‘humanitarian interventions’, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron will run the same facade. Last February he hosted an international conference on Somalia, where he pledged more aid, financial help and measures “to fight terrorism” in Somalia. Cameron does not tell you that those so-called terrorist forces are funded and supported, and ultimately steered – by the western intelligence agencies – whereby they control all sides of the local conflict. Note they are using the same recycled narrative in Mali now, fighting “Islamic extremists” there – promoting freedom and democracy in the region etc.

Mali’s vast potential wealth lies in mining, agricultural commodities, and oil - and these proven reserves are not currently exploited. Interestingly enough, Ghana and Mali together account for 5.8% of total world gold production. These assets are the true focus of US and UK interests in Africa – not humanitarian concerns.

 

The 2012 Somalia Oil Conference was a mere pre-negotiation meeting to discuss how oil assets would be divided up between the US, UK and other remaining energy players – demonstrating what is the real agenda with AFRICOM. Obama supporters will naturally give this President a free pass on Africa because he is of part African descent, not realizing that he is running the exact same agenda as his Republican predecessor. What corporate agents like Jonnie Carson does not tell electorate plebs is that the US has recently infested itself in Libya, Uganda, Somalia, North Sudan and elsewhere, and now has its eyes set on Mali. The initial goal of US domination of Africa is outlined in the AFRICOM documents, and names the eviction of China from the continent as task number one.

Africa Pulse spells it out: “Strong economic growth in the past decade among African countries rich in oil and minerals has failed to make a significant dent on their poverty levels, according to a World Bank report.”

In other words, the Anglo-American imperialists would like to eliminate competition for Africa’s bountiful resources, continuing a centuries-old policy of raping the Dark Continent and leaving nothing but perpetual internal strife and poverty behind.

America’s Secret War in Africa

By: Julie Lévesque

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-secret-war-in-africa/5307958

The U.S. secret warfare is alive and well. In addition to its military command in Africa (AFRICOM), America has been deploying special forces all over the continent according to an AP article from October 2, 2012:

Small teams of special operations forces arrived at American embassies throughout North Africa in the months before militants launched the fiery attack that killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya. The soldiers’ mission: Set up a network that could quickly strike a terrorist target or rescue a hostage. (Kimberly Dozier, White House widens covert ops presence in North Africa, AP, October 2, 2012.)

The U.S. is spreading its clandestine army all over Africa. As reported by Nile Bowie back in April, the goal is to balkanize the African continent:

At an AFRICOM Conference held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller openly declared the guiding principle of AFRICOM is to protect “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market”, before citing China’s increasing presence in the region as challenging to American interests [36].

In 2007, US State Department advisor Dr. J. Peter Pham commented on AFRICOM’s strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” (Nile Bowie, COVERT OPS IN NIGERIA: Fertile Ground for US Sponsored Balkanization, Global Research, April 11, 2012.)

The “War on Terror” fraud serves to cover up the destabilization of Africa with a view to taking control of its resources. The Balkans were destabilized for the same purpose in the 1990’s:

In Liar’s Poker The Great Powers, Yugoslavia and the Wars of the Future, Michel Collon explains how the Balkans were destabilized “to control oil pipeline routes, dominate Eastern Europe as well as weaken and get a hand over Russia” as well as” insure [the establishment of US] military bases [in Eastern Europe and the Balkans].” (Michel Collon, Liar’s Poker The Great Powers, Yugoslavia and the Wars of the Future, Editions Aden, 1998, p. 129.)

A similar process, over a large geographic region, is occurring in the Middle-East:

“Syria, Iran and Iraq signed an agreement for a gas pipeline in July 2011, which plans to link the Iranian South Pars field – the world’s largest – to Syria and therefore to the Mediterranean Sea. Another important oil field was discovered near Homs in Syria, which could become an alternative hub of energy corridors in opposition to those passing through Turkey and other routes controlled by U.S. and European companies” (Manlio Dinucci, L’art de la guerre. Syrie : l’Otan vise le gazoduc, October9, 2012)

America’s clandestine army will resort to drone warfare to assert control over the African resources. Although the U.S. and its allies have financially and materially supported Al-Qaida-linked mercenaries to topple the Libyan government and are operating in the same fashion in Syria, we are told that the “counter terror effort indicates that the administration has been worried for some time about a growing threat posed by Al Qaeda and its offshoots in North Africa.” (Dozier, op.cit.)

Although the Pentagon assures that “[t]here are no plans at this stage for unilateral U.S. military operations”, the article states quite to the contrary that a unilateral drone warfare is what awaits Africans:

Delta Force group will form the backbone of a military task force responsible for combating al-Qaida and other terrorist groups across the region with an arsenal that includes drones. But first, it will work to win acceptance by helping North African nations build their own special operations and counter terror units. (Ibid.)

The hypocritical discourse that follows indicates in which African states the“free flow of natural resources to the global market” and “access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources” will be protected under the “War on Terror” pretext:

The Obama administration has been concerned about the growing power and influence of al-Qaida offshoots in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and North Africa. Only the Yemeni branch has tried to attack American territory directly so far, with a series of thwarted bomb plots aimed at U.S.-bound aircraft. A Navy SEAL task force set up in 2009 has used a combination of raids and drone strikes to fight militants in Yemen and Somalia, working together with the CIA and local forces.

The new task force would work in much the same way to combat al-Qaida’s North African affiliates, which are growing in numbers and are awash in weapons from post-revolutionary Libya’s looted stockpiles. They are well-funded by a criminal network trafficking in drugs and hostages.

Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM, and Nigerian-based extremist sect Boko Haram are arguably the two largest and most dangerous affiliates.

The top State Department official for African affairs said Tuesday that the militants in Mali “must be dealt with through security and military means.” (Ibid.)

And even though we are told there are “no plans at this stage for unilateral U.S. military operations”, Johnnie Carson, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs seems to contradict this claim:

“any military action up there must indeed be well planned, well organized, well resourced and well thought through” and, how thoughtful, “be agreed upon by those who are going to be most affected by it.” (Ibid.)

Millions of Indians protest foreign competition to mom-and-pop shops

 

Demonstrators from the Samajwadi Party, a regional political party, shout slogans after they stopped a passenger train during a protest against price hikes in fuel and foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail, near Allahabad railway station September 20, 2012 (Reuters / Jitendra Prakash)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/india-strike-retail-reform-550/

India is going through a nationwide strike on Thursday, as shopkeepers, traders and workers protest a governmental reform allowing foreign retail giants into the domestic market. Activists fear the move would leave millions bankrupt.

­The day-long strike and protests were called by opposition parties and trade unions after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the planned reform last week.

Protesters blocked railroads in Kolkata in West Bengal state, squatting on the tracks, a regional official told AFP. Thousands of police were deployed to prevent possible violence. Bihar state in north India saw train and bus stations occupied by activists, leaving thousands of passengers stranded.

Bangalore, the capital of the southern state of Karnataka, was completely shut down. The state has strong support of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is one of the major backers of the strike. India’s largest cities, including New Delhi, are bracing for large protest rallies.

According to the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) forecast, some 50 million people may participate in the action in some way. The protest was triggered by government’s plan to allow international companies like Walmart and Tesco trade directly with customers. Currently they can only own shares in retail businesses jointly with domestic companies and sell only to smaller retailers.

The move is aimed to bring foreign investment into the slowing Indian economy, but critics say it will expose small stores, called kiranas, and other retail-related small businesses to crushing international competition.

Kiranas are an important part of Indian culture, with some dubbing the country spurring world-highest shop density “a nation of shopkeepers”. There are an estimated 50 million such shops across the country, and 220 million people depend on them for their livelihoods, CAIT says.

There are fears that exposure of the market to better-organized internationals would drive kiranas out of business, as they would not be able to offer competitive prices.

"If these big guys storm in and wreck what I've fostered for decades, then my family and I will have to resort to a different business," kirana owner Goel, told Reuters.

People skeptical about the protest say opposition politicians are trying to capitalize on people’s fears and the real impact of the reform would not be as bad as they picture it. The shops would have the strength of advantageous placement in residential areas and customer loyalty won over decades.

"The traditional kirana stores and outlets in India have been able to compete very successfully with modern retail for a very long time," said a study released by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Their presence in the midst of a residential area is a big advantage."

The Indian government so far remained steadfast in proceeding with the reform.

 

Demonstrators from the Samajwadi Party, a regional political party, shout slogans as they gather around an effigy on a railway track during a protest against price hikes in fuel and foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail, near Allahabad railway station September 20, 2012 (Reuters / Jitendra Prakash)

Dempsey Backs Away from Obama’s Threat to Intervene in Syria

 

By: John Glaser

http://antiwar.com/

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/dempsey-backs-away-from-obamas-threat-to-intervene-in-syria/

The top general of America’s military last week backed away from President Obama’s threats to intervene militarily in Syria against the Assad regime, warning that the worst-case scenario would be some kind of failed state in the embattled country.

Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff General Martin Dempsey stressed while on a trip to London that direct military action in Syria, even simply no-fly zones, might be beyond the US and NATO’s capabilities and counter to their interests.

Last week President Obama warned that his “calculation” to refrain from direct military intervention in Syria “could change” if Syria’s chemical or biological weapons begin “moving around or being utilized,” describing the WMD issue as a “red line” that would prompt direct military action, like setting up safe zones, no-fly zones, or worse.

But Dempsey explained it wouldn’t be that easy. He said frequent comparison of the Syrian situation with that in Libya, where a “no-fly zone” was imposed following a United Nations resolution, is at best a source of “amusement.”

General Dempsey warned that possible safe zones for refugees were not being considered for inside Syria, cautioning that imposing them could open the path to a breakout of war.

“If you chose to establish [a safe zone/no-fly zone] you would assume the responsibility for protecting it. If you are tasked to protect it you have to look at those who might seek to attack it or to influence it and that could take you, depending on weapons systems, it could take you to a limited no-fly zone it could take you to the point of having to interdict air and ballistic missile systems,” he said.

As far as forcibly ousting the Assad regime, Dempsey said, such a move would be far too destabilizing. He said a failed state in Syria would be the worst-case scenario and warned against allowing armed extreme jihadists and rebels with ties to al-Qaeda to increase their influence and expand control in a post-Assad Syria.

 

US-led sanctions on Iran, invasion of a nation’s rights: Analyst

US President Barack Obama (R) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (file photo)

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/06/254799/iran-bans-invasion-of-a-nation-rights/

A prominent political analyst says illegal US-engineered sanctions against Iran, which have been in place almost since the Islamic Republic's inception, constitute, “an invasion of a nation’s rights.”

“It is transpiring gradually that a country does not need to wage a military war against another nation in an effort to paralyze it and that imposing brutal sanctions or tightening them can be well tantamount to an act of war,” Dr. Ismail Salami wrote in an article published on the Press TV website.

“The US war against Iran has already started,” Salami said, proceeding to catalogue the US hostilities toward the Iranians in the mold of sanctions ever since the early 1980s when the Islamic Republic was in the grip of the Iraqi war.

“Washington has long been making unflagging efforts to push Iran to the farthest margins of political and economic isolation even when Iran was not working on its nuclear energy program,” the Iranian author stressed.

Last week, the US House of Representatives repeated a Senate action in voting for additional illegal sanctions against Iran. The congressional action, pushed by the influential American pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, intends to further punish all banks, insurance firms and shipping lines involved in Iran’s oil exports.

The so-called compromise bill would supposedly build on the oil trade sanctions signed into law by US President Barack Obama back in late December, expanding penalties on foreign firms that conduct business with Iran’s national oil company and tanker fleet. It intends to make it more difficult for the Islamic Republic to receive payments for the sale of its petroleum products.

Dr. Salami said the West has yet to realize that Iran “is not a country solely dependent on oil resources. Rather, it has at its disposal myriad natural resources to rely on.”

“Ergo, blocking Iran’s oil flow to other countries will not be so damaging to the country as the West imagines. On the contrary, such an act will surely prove irreversibly damaging to world economy; the oil prices will rocket up beyond control; the global economic security will be caught up in an unmanageable whirlpool and the rest of the world including the US and Europe will have to suffer immensely for this strategic folly.”

Many prominent international lawyers, including Franklin Lamb and Francis Boyle, contend that Iran is entitled to file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice against the US, France, the UK and their allies, on behalf of all Iranian citizens being harmed by illegal and political economic sanctions.

“To a critical mind, the sanctions are to be seen as a metaphorical declaration of war on Iran,” Dr. Salami said, “Albeit the US and its allies will be the ones who will suffer most.”

Towards A "Soft Invasion"? The Launching of a "Humanitarian War" against Syria

By: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Source: Global Research

The Obama administration, in liaison with London, Paris, Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters in Brussels, is mulling over various military "intervention options" directed against Syria, including the conduct of both naval and air operations in support of "opposition" rebel forces on the ground.

The US and its impervious British ally are on a "humanitarian war footing".

Allied forces including intelligence operatives and special forces have reinforced their presence on the ground in support of the opposition's "Free Syrian Army" (FSA). The British Ministry of Defense is reported to be "drawing up contingency plans in case the UK decides to deploy troops to the volatile region".

Naval and air force deployments have already been announced by the British Ministry of Defense. According to London's news tabloids, quoting "authoritative" military sources; "...The escalating civil war [in Syria] made it increasingly likely that the West would be forced to step in. " ( Daily Mail, July 24, 2012)

An Iraq-style "shock and awe" bombing campaign is, for practical reasons, not being contemplated: "defence analysts warned that a force of at least 300,000 troops would be needed to carry out a full-scale intervention [in Syria]. Even then, this would face fierce resistance. ..." (Ibid)

Rather than carrying out an all out Blitzkrieg, the US-NATO-Israel military alliance has chosen to intervene under the diabolical R2P frame of "humanitarian warfare". Modelled on Libya, the follow broad stages are envisaged:

A US-NATO backed insurgency integrated by death squads is launched under the disguise of a "protest movement" (mid-March 2011 in Daraa)

British, French, Qatari and Turkish Special Forces are on the ground in Syria, advising and training the rebels as well as overseeing special operations. Mercenaries hired by private security companies are also involved in supporting rebels forces

The killings of innocent civilians by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are deliberately carried out as part of a covert intelligence operation. (See SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria, global Rsearch, May 2012)

The Syrian government is then blamed for the resulting atrocities. Media disinformation is geared towards demonizing the Syrian government. Public opinion is led into endorsing a military intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Responding to public outrage, US-NATO is then "forced to step in" under a Humanitarian "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) mandate. Media propaganda goes into high gear. "The International Community" comes to the rescue of the Syrian people."

Warships and fighter jets are then deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean. These actions are coordinated with logistical support to the rebels and Special forces on the ground.

The final objective is "regime change" leading to the "break-up of the country" along sectarian lines and/or the installation of an "Islamist-dominated or influenced regime" modelled on Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

War plans in relation to Syria are integrated with those pertaining to Iran. The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. The broader implications of US-NATO intervention are military escalation and the possible unleashing of a regional war extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, in which China and Russia could be directly or indirectly involved.

Stages 1 through 4 have already been implemented.

Stage 5 has been announced.

Stage 6 involving the deployment of British and French warships to the Eastern Mediterranean is slated to be launched, according to the British Ministry of Defense, in "later Summer". (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO War on Syria: Western Naval Forces Confront Russia Off the Syrian Coastline? Global Research, July 26, 2012.

Phase 7, namely "regime change" --which constitutes the end game of humanitarian warfare-- has been announced on numerous occasions by Washington. In the words of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, referring to President Bashar Al Assad: "It's no longer a question of whether he's coming to an end, it's when."

The End Game: Destabilizing the Secular State, Installing "Political Islam"

The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security (RUSI), a London based think-tank, with close links to both Britain's Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon. has intimated that "some sort of western [military] intervention in Syria is looking increasingly likely... " What RUSI has in mind in its Syria Crisis Briefing entitled A Collision Course for Intervention, is what might be described as "A Soft Invasion" leading either to a "break-up of the country" along sectarian lines and/or the installation of an "Islamist-dominated or influenced regime" modelled on Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Several "scenarios" involving "clandestine" intelligence operations are put forth. The unspoken objective of these military and intelligence options is to destabilize the secular State and implement, through military means, the transition towards a post Assad "Islamist-dominated or influenced regime" modelled on Qatar and Saudi Arabia:

"A better insight is needed on the activities and relationships of Al-Qa’ida and other Syrian and international Salafist jihadists that are now entering the country in increasing numbers. The floodgates are likely to open even further as international jihadists are emboldened by signs of significant opposition progress against the regime. Such elements have the support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and would undoubtedly have a role in Syria following the collapse of Assad. The scope of their involvement would need to be factored into intervention planning. (Ibid, p. 9, emphasis added)

While recognizing that the rebel fighters are outright terrorists involved in the killing of civilians, the RUSI Briefing, invoking tactical and intelligence considerations, suggests that allied forces should `nonetheless support the terrorists. (i.e. the terrorist brigades have been supported by the US led coalition from the very outset of the insurgency in mid-March 2011. Special Forces have integrated the insurgency):

"What military, political and security challenges would they [the jihadists] then present in the country, to the region and to the West? Issues include the possibility of an Islamist-dominated or influenced regime inheriting sophisticated weaponry, including anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile systems and chemical and biological weapons that could be transferred into the hands of international terrorists. At the tactical level, intelligence would be needed to identify the most effective groups, and how best to support them. It would also be essential to know how they operate, and whether support might assist them to massacre rivals or carry out indiscriminate attacks against civilians, something we have already witnessed among Syrian opposition groups." (RUSI - SYRIA CRISIS BRIEFING: A Collision Course for Intervention, London July 2012, emphasis added, p. 9 )

The foregoing acknowledgment confirms the US-NATO's resolve to use "Political Islam" --including the deployment of CIA-MI6 supported Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups -- to pursue their hegemonic ambitions in Syria.

Covert operations by Western intelligence in support of "opposition" terrorist entities are launched to weaken the secular state, foment sectarian violence and create social divisions. We will recall that in Libya, the "pro-democracy" rebels were led by Al Qaeda affiliated paramilitary brigades under the supervision of NATO Special Forces. The much-vaunted "Liberation" of Tripoli was carried out by former members of the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

Military Options and Actions. Towards a "Soft Invasion"?

Several concrete military options --which largely reflect ongoing Pentagon-NATO thinking on the matter-- are contemplated in the RUSI Syria Crisis Briefing. All these options are based on a scenario of "regime change" requiring the intervention of allied forces in Syrian territory. What is contemplated is a "Soft Invasion" modelled on Libya under an R2P humanitarian mandate rather than an all out "shock and awe" Blitzkrieg.

The RUSI Briefing, however, confirms that continued and effective support to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels will eventually require the use of "air power in the form of fighter jets and sea, land and air launched missile systems" combined with the influx of Special Forces and the landing of "elite airborne and amphibious infantry" (Ibid, p 16.)

This transition towards concrete naval and air power support to the rebels is no doubt also motivated by the setbacks of the insurgency (including substantial rebel losses) following the backlash by government forces in the wake of the July 18 terror attack against the National Security headquarters in Damascus, which led to the death of the Minister of Defense General Daoud Rajha and two other senior members of the country's national defense team.

Various overlapping military actions are envisaged, to be carried out sequentially both prior and in the wake of the proposed "regime change":

"The top-of-the-range option, destruction of the Syrian armed forces through an Iraq-style ‘shock and awe’ invasion, could undoubtedly be achieved by a US-led coalition. As with all other forms of intervention, however, handling the aftermath would be far less predictable, and could draw coalition forces into a long-running and bloody quagmire. At present that option can be excluded as a realistic possibility. ... There is no doubt that the substantial neutralisation of Syria’s air defence infrastructure could be achieved by a US-led air operation. But it would require a major, sustained and extremely costly campaign including Special Forces deployed on the ground to assist targeting. ...

The remaining intervention options fall broadly into three sometimes overlapping categories. ... The first category is military enforcement action to reduce or end the violence in Syria, ... to prevent Assad’s forces from attacking the civilian population by direct [military] action. [RUSI ignores the fact that the killings are committed by the FSA rather than by government forces, M.C.].

The second is seeking to bring about regime change by a combination of support for opposition forces and direct military action. The second category might apply in the aftermath of regime collapse. The objective would be to support a post-Assad government by helping to stabilise the country and protect the population against inter-factional violence and retribution. ... A stabilisation force would be deployed at the request of the new government. In any intervention scenario there might be a need to either destroy or secure Syria’s chemical weapons, if they were about to be used, transferred or otherwise made insecure. This would require such specialised and potentially substantial combat forces, it is likely to be a mission that only the US could execute. [Reminiscent of Iraq's WMD, the pretext of Syria's chemical weapons is being used to justify a more muscled military intervention, M.C.]

The third category is humanitarian relief – bringing in supplies and medical aid to besieged populations. .... This form of intervention, which would most likely be conducted under the auspices of the UN, would require aid agencies such as the International Red Crescent as well as armed military forces including air power, again perhaps based on a NATO coalition. Humanitarian relief might be needed before or after a change of regime. (See RUSI - SYRIA CRISIS BRIEFING: A Collision Course for Intervention, London July 2012, emphasis added, p.9-10 )

"Humanitarian relief" is often used as a pretext to send in combat units. Special forces and intelligence ops are frequently dispatched in under an NGO cover.

Concrete US-NATO Military Actions

Does the RUSI Briefing reflect the current outlook of US-NATO military planning in relation to Syria?

What concrete military and intelligence actions have been taken by the Western military alliance in the wake of the Chinese and Russian vetoes in the United Nations Security Council?

The deployment of a powerful naval armada of French and British warships is already envisaged for deployment at an unstipulated date "later in the Summer". (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO War on Syria: Western Naval Forces Confront Russia Off the Syrian Coastline?, Global Research, July 26, 2012)

The British Ministry of Defense, however, has intimated that Royal Navy deployments to the Middle East could only only be activated 'after" the London Olympic games. Two of Britain's largest warships, the HMS Bullwark and the HMS Illustrious have been assigned, at tremendous cost to British tax payers, to "ensuring the security" of the London Olympics. HMS Bulwark is stationed in Weymouth Bay for the duration of the games. HMS Illustrious is "currently sitting on the Thames in central London". (Ibid)

These planned naval operations are carefully coordinated with stepped up allied support to the "Free Syrian Army", integrated by foreign jihadist mercenaries trained in Qatar, Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Western military alliance.

Will the US-NATO alliance launch an all out air operation?

Syria's air defense capabilities, according to reports, are based on Russia's advanced S-300 system? (Unconfirmed reports point to the cancellation of delivery by Russia, following pressure from Israel, of the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system to Syria) (See Israel convinces Russia to cancel Syrian S-300 missile deal: official, Xinhua, June 28, 2012) Reports also suggest the installation of an advanced Russian radar system. (See Report: Russia Sent Syria Advanced S-300 Missiles, Israel National News, November 24, 2011).

The Role of Special Forces

In the months ahead, allied forces will no doubt focus on disabling the country's military capabilities including its air defense, communications systems, through a combination of covert operations, cyber-warfare and US-NATO sponsored SFA terror attacks.

"The Free Syrian Army" rebels are NATO's foot soldiers. FSA commanders, many of whom are part of Al Qaeda affiliated entities, are in permanent liaison with British and French Special Forces inside Syria. The RUSI report recommends that the rebels should be supported through the "deployment into the country of Special Forces advisers with air support on call:

"Advisers working alongside rebel commanders, perhaps accompanied by small units of Special Forces troops, could be tactically and strategically decisive, as it proved in both Afghanistan in 2001 and in Libya in 2011. (RUSI, op cit, p. 10)

Special Forces have been on the ground in Syria since the outset of the insurgency. Reports also confirm the role of private security companies including former Blackwater mercenaries in the training of the FSA rebels. In what is described as "America's War Under the Table", Special forces on the ground are in permanent liaison with allied military and intelligence.

The Influx of Mercenary Jihadist Fighters

In the wame of the UN Security council deadlock, a speeding up in the recruitment and training of mercenary jihadist fighters is unfolding.

According to a British Army source, British Special Forces (SAS) are now training Syrian "rebels" in Iraq "in military tactics, weapons handling and communications systems". The report also confirms that advanced military command training is being conducted in Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Western military alliance:

"British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels." Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012

"More than 300 [Syrian rebels] have passed through a base just inside the Iraq border, while a command course is run in Saudi Arabia.

Groups of 50 rebels at a time are being trained by two private security firms employing former Special Forces personnel. “Our role is purely instructional teaching tactics, techniques and procedures,” said a former SAS member.

... “If we can teach them how to take cover, to shoot and avoid being spotted by snipers it will hopefully help.” ( Daily Mail, July 22, 2012)

The Role of Turkey and Israel

Turkey's military high command has been in liaison with NATO headquarters since August 2011 pertaining to the active recruitment of thousands of Islamist "freedom fighters", reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA's jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

"Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011, emphasis added)

The recent influx of foreign fighters on a significant scale suggests that this diabolical Mujahideen recruitment program developed more than a year ago, has come to fruition.

Turkey is also supporting Muslim Brotherhood fighters in Northern Syria. As part of of its support to SFA rebels, "Turkey has set up a secret base with allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to direct vital military and communications aid to Syria’s rebels from a city near the border" Exclusive: Secret Turkish nerve center leads aid to Syria rebels | Reuters, July 27, 2012).

Israel's role in supporting the rebels, largely characterised by covert intel ops, has been "discrete" but nonetheless significant. From the very outset, Mossad has supported radical Salafist terrorist groups, which became active in Southern Syria at the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March. Reports suggest that financing for the Salafi insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia. (See Syrian army closes in on Damascus suburbs, The Irish Times, May 10, 2011).

While channelling covert support to the SFA, Israel is also supporting Syrian Kurdish separatists in North Syria. The Kurdish (KNC) opposition group has close links to the Kurdish Regional Government of Massoud Barzani in northern Iraq, which is directly supported by Israel.

The Kurdish separatist agenda is slated to be used by Washington and Tel Aviv to seek the break up of Syria along ethnic and religious lines-- into several separate and "independent" political entities. It is worth noting that Washington has also facilitated the dispatch of Kurdish Syrian "opposition militants" to Kosovo in May to participate in training sessions using the "terrorist expertise" of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). (See Michel Chossudovsky, Hidden US-Israeli Military Agenda: "Break Syria into Pieces", Global Research, June 2012).

The not so hidden US-Israeli military agenda is to "Break Syria into Pieces", with a view to supporting Israeli expansionism. (The Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2012).

Confrontation with Russia

What can we expect in the months ahead:

1) a naval deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean, the military objective of which has not been clearly defined by allied forces.

2) a greater influx of foreign fighters and death squads into Syria and the conduct of of carefully targeted terrorist attacks in coordination with US-NATO.

3) an escalation in the deployment of allied special forces including mercenaries from private security companies on contract to Western intelligence.

The objective, under the “Damascus Volcano and Syrian Earthquake." operation, ultimately consisted in extending the SFA terror attacks to Syria's capital, under the supervision of Western Special Forces and intelligence operatives on the ground. (See Thierry Meyssan, The battle of Damascus has begun, Voltaire Net, July 19, 2012). This option of targeting Damascus has failed. The rebels have also been pushed back in heavy fighting in Syria's second largest city Aleppo.

3) The weakening of Russia's role in Syria --including its functions under the bilateral military cooperation agreement with Damascus-- is also part of the US-NATO military-intelligence agenda. This could result in terrorist attacks directed against Russian nationals living in Syria.

A terror attack against Russia's naval base in Tartus was announced less than 2 weeks week following the Security Council face-off, no doubt order by US-NATO, with a view to threatening Russia.

Following the arrival of Russia's naval flotilla of ten warships stationed off the Syrian coast, an FSA spokesman confirmed (July 26) their intention to attack Russia's naval base in Tartus:

"We have a warning for the Russian forces: if they will send any more weapons that kill our families and the Syrian people we will hit them hard inside Syria," said Louay al-Mokdad, a logistical coordinator for the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

"Informers inside the regime are telling that us that there is a big weapons' shipment arriving at Tartous in the next two weeks. We don't want to attack the port, we are not terrorists, but if they keep acting like this we will have no choice."

The FSA has formed a 'Naval brigade', made up of defectors from the Syrian navy, which operates close to Tartous. "Many of our men used to work in the port of Tartous and they know it well," said Captain Walid, a former officer in the Syrian Navy. "We are watching very closely the movements of the Russians."

"We can easily destroy the port. If we hit the weapons' stores with anti-tank missiles or another weapon it would trigger a devastating explosion," said an FSA representative. "Or we can attack the ships directly." (Syrian rebels threaten to attack Russian naval base - World - DNA, July 26, 2012)

Were Russia's naval base to be attacked, this would, in all likelihood, be undertaken under the supervision of allied special forces and intelligence operatives.

While Russia has the required military capabilities to effectively defend its Tartus naval base, an attack on Russia's naval base would constitute an act of provocation, which could set the stage for a more visible involvement of Russian forces inside Syria. Such a course could potentially also lead to a direct confrontation between Russian forces and Western special forces and mercenaries operating within rebel ranks.

According to the RUSI Syria Crisis Briefing quoted above: "Anticipating Russian action and counter action would have to be a major factor in any Western [military] intervention plan [in Syria]. The Russians are certainly capable of bold and unexpected moves..." (RUSI, op cit, p. 5).

The World at a Dangerous Crossroads

An all out "humanitarian war" against Syria is on the drawing board of the Pentagon, which, if carried out, could lead the World into a regional war extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the heartland of Central Asia.

A sophisticated and all encompassing propaganda program supports war in the name of World peace and global security.

The underlying scenario of Worldwide conflict goes far beyond the diabolical design of Orwell's 1984.

The Ministry of Truth upholds war as a peace-making undertaking by twisting realities upside down.

In turn, the lies and fabrications of the mainstream media are presented with various innuendos in a complex web of deceit.

In a cynical twist, documented atrocities against Syrian civilians committed by the West's "opposition" are now being acknowledged (rather than blamed on government forces) as "unavoidable" in the painful transition towards to "democracy".

The broader consequences of "the Big Lie" are obfuscated.

Global humanitarian warfare becomes a consensus which nobody can challenge.

The war on Syria is part of an integrated Worldwide military agenda. The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. Iran, Russia, China and North Korea are also being threatened.

With the deployment of the Franco-British naval armada later this Summer, Western warships in the Eastern Mediterranean would be contiguous to those deployed by Russia, which is conducting its own war games, leading to a potential "Cold War style confrontation" between Russian and Western naval forces. See Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO War on Syria: Western Naval Forces Confront Russia Off the Syrian Coastline?, Global Research, July 26, 2012).

A war on Syria, which would inevitably involve Israel and Turkey, could constitute the spark towards a regional war directed against Iran, in which Russia and China could be (directly or indirectly) involved.

It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.

A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation.

Spread the word. Forward this article far and wide.

It is essential that people in the UK, France and the US prevent "the late Summer" naval WMD deployment to the Eastern Mediterraean from occurring.

The British Ministry of Defense has announced that several British warships are required "to ensure the security" of the Olympic Games. HMS Bulwark is stationed in Weymouth Bay for the duration of the games. HMS Illustrious is "currently sitting on the Thames in central London". The deployment of British warships including HMS Bulwark and HMS Illustrious to the Middle East is envisaged "after" the Olympic Games.

Prevent the warships from leaving port.

Turkey holds military exercise near Syrian border

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/01/253887/turkey-holds-military-exercise-near-border/

The Turkish army has staged tank exercises near its border with Syria days after it reinforced its border troops with tanks, missile launchers and armored combat vehicles.

According to Turkish sources, some 25 tanks took part in the exercises in the Nusaybin district of Mardin Province, just 2 kilometers away from the Syrian border, on Wednesday.

The maneuvers, conducted by the Mardin 70th Mechanized Brigade, aim at testing the tanks' speed and maneuverability.

The exercises were overseen by local commanders and are expected to continue for a couple of days.

Ankara has repeatedly expressed concerns about reports that a Kurdish group linked to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) is exerting control in the Kurdish areas of northern Syria and near the Turkish border.

Turkey has warned that it will attack PKK positions in Syria if the group launches attacks against Turkey from the Arab state. Ankara has carried out several military operations against the PKK camps in Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region.

Turkey is accused of supplying armed groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with military and communication equipment.

Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, has also set up a secret base near its border with Syria to send military supplies to anti-Syria groups.

"It's the Turks who are militarily controlling it (the base). Turkey is the main coordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom," Reuters quoted a Doha-based source as saying adding that Qatar has a key role in directing operations at the base with Qatari military intelligence and state security officials involved.

The US intelligence is also believed to be involved in the secret anti-Syria "nerve center" and that they are working through middlemen.

Syria has been the scene of violence by armed groups since March 2011. The violence has claimed the lives of hundreds of people, including many security forces.

Damascus blames “outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorist groups” for the unrest, asserting that it is being orchestrated from abroad.

Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia

By: F. William Engdahl

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32019

Since reassuming his post as Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin has lost no minute in addressing the most urgent geopolitical threats to Russia internationally. Not surprisingly, at the center of his agenda is the explosive situation in the Middle East, above all Syria. Here Putin is engaging every imaginable means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation into what easily could become another “world war by miscalculation.” His activities in recent weeks involve active personal diplomacy with Syria’s government as well as the so-called opposition “Syrian National Council.” It involves intense diplomacy with Erdogan’s Turkey regime. It involves closed door diplomacy with Obama. It involves direct diplomacy with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Syria itself, contrary to what most western media portray, is a long-standing multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant secular state with an Alawite Muslim President Bashar Al-Assad, married to a Sunni wife. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam which doesn’t force their women to wear head scarves and are liberal by Sunni standards, especially in the fundamentalist places like Saudi Arabia where women are forbidden to even hold a driver’s license. The overall Syrian population is a diverse mix of Alawites, Druze and Kurds, Sunnis, and Armenian Orthodox Christians. Were the minority regime of Al-Assad to fall, experts estimate that, like in Egypt, the murky Sunni (as in Saudi Arabia) Muslim Brotherhood organization would emerge as the dominant organized political force, something certainly not welcome in Tel Aviv and certainly not in either Russia or China.1

According to an informed assessment by Gajendra Singh, retired Indian diplomat with decades of service in the Middle East and a deep familiarity with the ethnic mix inside Syria, were the minority Alawite regime of Al-Assad to fall, the country would rapidly descend into a bloodbath that would make estimates of 17,000 killed to date a mere prelude. Singh estimates, “A defeat of Assad led regime will lead to slaughter of Alawites, Shias, Christians, even Kurds and Druzes. In all, 20 % of a population of 20 Million.”2

That would be some 4 million Syrians. That ought to be food for thought for those in the West cheering on a murky dubious opposition “Syrian National Council” that is dominated by the ominous Muslim Brotherhood, and an armed opposition “Free Syrian Army” that has been reported even by the New York Times as rife with factional armed splits. Moreover the conflict were it to descend into a Libya-like internal bloodbath, would spill over across the Syrian border into Turkey. Syrian coastal area has a significant Alawite population and a large number of Alawites live in the adjoining Turkish provinces of Hatay and Antakya.

To sort out fact from fiction inside Syria is daunting as media are limited and opposition spokesmen have been repeatedly caught lying about events. In one recent instance, a UK journalist claimed he was deliberately led into a potential death trap by rebel opposition forces to score propaganda against the Damascus regime. The UK Channel 4 News's chief correspondent, Alex Thomson, told AP that Syrian rebels set him up to die in no man's land near the Lebanese border, saying they wanted to use his death at the hands of government forces to score propaganda points.3 And in one brazen example of political manipulation, BBC was recently caught publishing a photograph it claimed was of a massacre at Al-Houla on 25 May 2012, in which 108 persons are known to have died including 49 children. It turned out the picture had been taken by Italian photo journalist, Marco Di Lauro in Iraq in 2003.4

The stakes in this geopolitical chess game are nothing less than survival first of Syria as a sovereign nation, whatever its flaws and defects. More, it ultimately involves the survival of Iran, Russia and China as sovereign nations together with the other BRIC states Brazil, India and South Africa. Longer term, it involves the matter of survival of civilization as we know it and avoidance of a world war that would decimate the world population not by tens of millions as seventy years ago but likely this time by billions.

The Syria stakes for Moscow

Russia’s Putin has drawn a deep hard line in the sand around the survival of Al-Assad and Syria as a stable state. Few ask why Russia is warning of possible world war if Washington persists to demand immediate regime change in Syria as Hillary Clinton is doing. It is not because Russia is intent on advancing its own imperialist agenda in the Middle East. It’s in little shape militarily and economically to do so even if it had wanted. Rather, it is about preserving port rights to Russia’s only Mediterranean naval port at Tartus, the only remaining Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot. In event of a showdown with NATO the base becomes strategic to Russia.

Yet there is more at stake for Russia. Putin and Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have made clear were NATO and the USA to launch military action against Assad’s Syria, the consequences would be staggering. Reliable sources in Damascus have reported the presence of at least 100,000 Russian “technical advisers” in the country. That’s a lot, and a Russian freighter carrying rebuilt Russian Mi-25 attack helicopters is reportedly bound for Syria, while several days earlier a Russian naval flotilla sailed for Tartus led by the Russian destroyer, Admiral Chabanenko.

An earlier attempt to send the rebuilt helicopters back to Syria which had earlier purchased them, was blocked in June off Scotland’s coast when it sailed under a non-Russian freighter flag. Now Moscow has made clear it will tolerate no interference in its traffic with Damascus. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, announced that “The fleet will be sent on task to guarantee the safety of our ships, to prevent anyone interfering with them in the event of a blockade. I remind you there are no limits,” he soberly added.5 In so many words, what Moscow is announcing is that it is willing to face a 21^st Century version of the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis if NATO foolishly persists in pressing regime change in Damascus.

As it has openly emerged that the so-called democratic opposition in Syria is being dominated by the shadowy Muslim Brotherhood, hardly an organization renowned for multi-ethnic democratic tendencies, a victory for a US-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria, Moscow also believes, would unleash a wave of Muslim-led destabilizations across Central Asia into republics of the former Soviet Union. China is also extremely sensitive about such a danger, only recently confronted with bloody riots of Muslim organization in its oil-rich Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Province, quietly sponsored by the US Government.6

Russia has joined firmly with China since both nations fell into a catastrophic trap over abstaining in the UN Security Council from vetoing the US Resolution. That US resolution opened the door to NATO destruction of not only Mohammar Ghaddafi, but of Libya itself as a functioning country. This author has spoken personally in Moscow and in Beijing since the Libya debacle asking well-informed persons in both places how in effect they could have been so short-sighted on Libya. They both clearly have since concluded that further advance of Washington’s agenda for what George W. Bush called the Greater Middle East Project is diametrically opposed to the national interest of both China and Russia, hence the iron opposition to the NATO agenda in Syria for regime change. To date Russia and China, Permanent veto members of the UN Security Council, have three times exercised their veto over new US-sponsored sanctions against Syria, the latest on July 19.

Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insist on a strict adherence to the proposed peace plan of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Unlike what Washington prefers to generously read into it, the Six Point Annan Plan calls for no regime change, rather for a negotiated settlement and end to the fighting on both sides, a ceasefire.

Washington’s Janus-faced duplicity

Aligned on the side of violent regime change in Syria are a bizarre coalition that includes, in addition to Washington and its European “vassal states” (as Zbigniew Brzezinski called European NATO members),7 most prominently Saudi Arabia, hardly a regime anyone would accuse of being a paragon of democracy. Another lead role against Damascus is being played by Qatar, home to US military as well as the blatantly pro-NATO propaganda channel Al-Jazeera. In addition, the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is providing training and space to prepare armed mercenaries and others to flow over the border into neighboring Syria.

An attempt by the Erdogan government to send a Turkish Phantom air force fighter jet into Syrian airspace flying provocatively low, apparently in order to incite a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident to fan flames of NATO intervention a la Libya two weeks ago, fell flat when Turkey's general staff issued a statement saying: "No traces of explosives or flammable products were found on the debris recovered from the sea." Erdogan was forced to shift his line to cover face, no longer using the phrase, "shot down by Syria" and instead referring to "our plane that Syria claimed to have destroyed."8 NATO has established a command and control center in Iskenderun, in Turkey’s Hatay province, near the Syrian border months ago to organize, train and arm the “anything but” Free Syrian Army.9 The Obama Administration, not wanting a full Syria war before US elections in November, reportedly also told Erdogan to “cool it” for now.

Most westerners who take their knowledge of world affairs religiously from the pages of the Washington Post or CNN or BBC are convinced the Syrian mess is a clear cut case of “good guys” (the so-named Syrian National Council and its rag-tag makeshift “Free Syrian Army”) versus the “bad guys” (the Al-Assad dictatorship with its armed forces). For more than a year western media has run footage, some as noted, not even filmed in Syria, claiming that innocent, unarmed opposition civilian pro-democracy populations are being massacred ruthlessly in a one-sided butchery by the regime.

They never explain how it would serve Assad to alienate his strongest asset to survival, namely the support of a majority of Syrians against what he has accurately named foreign intervention into sovereign Syrian affairs.

Indeed numerous eyewitness journalist accounts from inside Turkey and Syria including RT have alleged that from the beginning the “peaceful democratic opposition” had secretly been provided with arms and training, often inside camps across on the Turkish side. Professor Ibrahim Alloush from Zaytouneh University in Jordan told RT,

“Weaponry is being smuggled into Syria in large quantities from all over the place. It is pretty clear that the rebels have been receiving arms from abroad and Syrian television has been showing almost daily shipments of arms being smuggled into Syria via Lebanon, Turkey and other border crossings. Since the rebels are being supported by the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and by NATO it is safe to assume that they are getting their financing and weaponry from the same sources that are offering them political cover and financial backing.” 10

One veteran Turkish journalist whom this author interviewed in Ankara in April, just back from an extensive tour of Syria, gave his eyewitness account of the capture of a small band of “opposition” fighters. The journalist, fluent in Arabic, was astonished as he witnessed the head of the rebels demand to know why their military captors spoke Arabic. When told that was their native language, the rebel leader blurted out, “But you should speak Hebrew, you’re with the Israeli Army aren’t you?”

In short, the mercenaries had been blitz-trained across the border in Turkey, given Kalashnikovs and a fistful of dollars and told they were making a jihad against the Israeli Army. They did not even know who they were fighting. In other instances, mercenaries recruited from Afghanistan and elsewhere and financed by Saudi money, including alleged members of Al Qaeda, make up the “democratic opposition” to the established regime of Al-Assad.

Even the ultimate US establishment newspaper, The New York Times, has been forced to admit that the CIA has been pouring arms into the Syrian opposition. They reported, “C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”11

The International Committee for the Red Cross now classifies the conflict as a civil war.12 Peter Wallensteen, a leading peace researcher at the University of Uppsala and the director of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, stated that, "It's increasingly an internationalized civil war, and as we know from previous history, the more internationalized, the longer the conflict will be…there is a civil war, but now so many weapons are coming from the outside, that there is actually an internationalized civil war." 13

According to Mary Ellen O'Connell, a respected legal scholar and professor of law and international dispute resolution at the University of Notre Dame, "The International Committee of the Red Cross statement means that the Assad regime is facing an organized armed opposition engaging in military force, and it has the legal right to respond in kind. The Syrian military will have more authority to kill persons based on their being part of the armed opposition than when Assad was restricted to using force under peacetime rules."14 The rebel opposition groups claim it means just the opposite.

While the US State Department makes pious pronouncements of their supporting “democracy” and demanding Al-Assad step down and recognize the dubious and factionalized opposition of the Syrian National Council, an exile group dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia is working skillfully on the diplomatic front to weaken the Western march to war.

Putin’s shrewd diplomacy      

Now, no sooner did Vladimir Putin again take the office as Russia’s President on May 7 than he embarked on a complex series of diplomatic missions to defuse or hopefully derail Washington’s Syrian game plan. On July 16 Putin hosted a Moscow visit of Kofi Annan where he repeated Moscow’s unflinching support for the Annan Peace Plan. 15

Because of the considerable media distortions it’s useful to read the actual text of the six-point Annan plan:

(1) commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;

(2) commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country.

To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.

As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.

Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;

(3) ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level;

(4) intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organizing access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;

(5) ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;

(6) respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.15

There is no demand in the Annan Plan for Bashar al-Assad to step down before any ceasefire, contrary to what Hillary Clinton repeats after insisting the US also backs the Annan Plan. The Annan Plan calls for a diplomatic solution. The US clearly does not want a diplomatic solution. It wants regime change and evidently widening war across the Shi’ite-Sunni divide of the Muslim world.

Moscow and Beijing just as clearly want to draw the line and prevent chaos spreading from Syria. On July 19, again Russia and China, both veto members at the UN Security Council blocked a new US-backed resolution on Syria they insisted was designed to open the door to a Libya-like military intervention into Syria. The resolution had been drafted by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and would have opened the door for a Chapter 7 resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria. Chapter 7 allows the 15-member council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention.17 The Hague resolution demanded that the Syrian government in 10 days pull out all its heavy weapons from urban areas and return troops to barracks. Nothing was said about disarming the “Free Syrian Army.” Washington claimed it would only be interested in economic or diplomatic sanctions, not military. Of course. Hmmmm…

Putin has more than a little leverage to use with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Erdogan was in Moscow just prior to the July 19 UN Security Council vote to discuss Syria with Putin.18 Turkey is the second-largest buyer of Russian natural gas, some 80% of its natural gas coming from Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom. 19 Turkey’s entire “energy hub” strategy of playing a key role in gas flows from Eurasia, the Middle east to Europe depends on gas from Russia and Iran. One year ago a $10 billion pipeline deal was signed between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s huge South Pars field to Iraq, Syria and on to Turkey, eventually connecting to Europe.20

Putin had also gone to Tel Aviv on June 21 to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.21 Russian influence inside Israel is not minor. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union some six million Russians, mostly Jews, have emigrated to Israel over the past two decades. Ultimately Israel cannot be overjoyed at the prospect of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Syrian opposition coming to power in neighboring Syria. While few details emerged of the content of the talks, it is clear that Putin delivered the message that a “destroyed, disoriented and broken up Syria would not help Israel. Syria has the second, most well-organized Muslim Brotherhood organization after Egypt,” according to former Indian Ambassador K. Gajendra Singh.22

Then on July 11, Putin and Lavrov invited Abdel Basset Sayda, the new head of the US-backed opposition organization, Syrian National Council, to Moscow for “talks.” Sayda, who is from the Kurdish Syrian minority and has lived twenty years in Swedish exile, is a curious figure as opposition spokesman, from the Kurd minority in Syria, a man with little or no active political experience, clearly chosen mainly to hide the dominant Muslim Brotherhood profile of the SNC. Russia reportedly made it clear to Sayda they would continue to block any attempts to oust Assad and that the opposition need seriously adhere to the Annan Plan and negotiate a settlement. Sayda for his part made clear no negotiations until Assad is gone, a stance that is feeding the bloodshed.23

There are signs in all the bloodshed and escalation of violence that Putin reached some quiet deal as well with Obama to keep war off the table until Obama is past the November elections. Russia recently agreed to reopen supply lines for US military supplies in Afghanistan at the same time Washington orchestrated an “apology” for the recent killings of civilians in Pakistan with its drones.24

Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality:

“Turkey will keep offering the logistical base for mercenaries coming from "liberated" Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. The House of Saud will keep coming up with the cash to weaponize them. And Washington, London and Paris will keep fine-tuning the tactics in what remains the long, simmering foreplay for a NATO attack on Damascus. Even though the armed Syrian opposition does not control anything remotely significant inside Syria, expect the mercenaries reportedly weaponized by the House of Saud and Qatar to become even more ruthless. Expect the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army to keep mounting operations for months, if not years. A key point is whether enough supply lines will remain in place - if not from Jordan, certainly from Turkey and Lebanon.”24

Article Notes:

1 David Harding, How a meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood offers new hope to Syria's rebels, The Daily Mail, 18 July 2012, accessed in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2175295/How-meeting-Muslim-Brotherhood-offers-new-hope-Syrias-rebels.html#ixzz20zdHkpBv

2 Gajendra Singh, Syria: An update on internal, regional and international standoff, 18 July, 2012, email to author.

3 Raphael Satter, UK journalist Syria rebels led me into death trap, Associated Press, June 8, 2012, accessed in http://news.yahoo.com/uk-journalist-syria-rebels-led-death-trap-195428598.html.

4 Richard Lightbown, Syria: Media Lies, Hidden Agendas and Strange Alliances, Global Research, June 18, 2012, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31491

5 Tom Parfitt, Russian ship with helicopters for Syrian regime sets sail again, The Telegraph, 13 July, 2012.

6 F. William Engdahl, Washington is Playing a Deeper Game with China, Global Research, June 11, 2009, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14327

7 The vassal quote by Zbigniew Brzezinski: "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial (American-ed.) geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.", The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives , 1997, p. 40.

8 Adrian Blomfield, Syria: Turkey jet crash may have been accident, The Telegraph, 12 July, 2012, accessed in

9 Pepe Escobar, Why Turkey won’t go to War with Syria, July 8, 2012, accessed in http://www.voltairenet.org/Why-Turkey-won-t-go-to-war-with

10 RT, Syrian opposition getting 'daily shipments' of arms, 08 February, 2012, accessed in http://www.rt.com/news/syria-opposition-weapon-smuggling-843/

11 Eric Schmitt, CIA Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition, The New York Times, June 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

12 Mariam Karouny and Erika Solomon , Syrian forces surround rebels fighting in capital, Reuters, July 16 2012, accessed in http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120716

13 Victor Kotsev , Chaos in Syria overshadows rebels' hopes, Asia Times, July 18, 2012, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG18Ak02.html

14 Ibid.

15 AFP, Russia's Putin to meet Annan for Syria talks, 15 July 2012, http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/109-world-top-news/67866-russias-putin-to-meet-annan-for-syria-talks-.html

16 "Six-Point Proposal Presented to Syrian Authorities", UN Security Council. 21 March 2012.

17 Voltaire Network, Russia, China veto UN resolution on Syria for third time, 19 July 2012, accessed in http://www.voltairenet.org/Russia-China-veto-UN-resolution-on

18 Rian.ru, Putin Meets Turkey’s Erdogan Ahead of UN Syria Vote, 19 July 2012 accessed in http://www.turkishweekly.net/print.asp?type=1&id=138726

19 F. William Engdahl, The Geopolitical Great Game: Turkey and Russia Moving Closer, accessed in http://www.voltairenet.org/The-Geopolitical-Great-Game-Turkey

20 Pepe Escobar, op. cit.

21 AFP, op. cit

22 K. Gajendra Singh, Will Putin’s Israel Visit Calm Middle East Tempest?, June, 2012, accessed in http://tarafits.blogspot.in/2012/06/will-putins-israel-visit-calm-middle.html

23 RT, Syrian National Council in Moscow for first-ever talks, RT.com, 11 July, 2012, accessed in http://rt.com/politics/syria-russia-lavrov-moscow-talks-912/print/

24 Pepe Escobar, op. cit

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl