HumansForPeace.org -- AfterDowningStreet.org
You are hereSyria
Keeping the Syrian Pot Boiling
by Stephen Lendman
The ink's barely dry on the March 21 Security Council Presidential Statement. It called on both sides "to bring an immediate end to all violence" and engage in conflict resolution diplomacy.
Worrisome Security Council Presidential Statement on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
After months of internal wrangling, Security Council members unanimously endorsed efforts to end Syrian violence. Or did they? More on that below.
Stepped-Up Pressure on Assad
by Stephen Lendman
Last weekend's anti-Assad Damascus and Aleppo terrorist violence reflects Washington's violent pursuit of regime change.
Peaceful resolution efforts are subverted. Obama's waging undeclared war. On March 19, Iran's Russian ambassador, Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi, explained US-style democracy, saying:
Washington Plans War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
On March 11, Assad repeated what he's said numerous times. He's "ready to support any honest effort to solve the situation."
There are fake video reports coming out of Syria and we have good reason to believe that these are at least sponsored by the U.S. Avaaz foundation.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC09Ak03.html
by John Glaser, Antiwar.com
Special operations forces from the U.S. and its allies have been on the ground in Syria since at least December, according to confidential emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor that were released by WikiLeaks.
An analyst from Stratfor claimed in December 2011 that officials at the Pentagon clued him in on covert military operations taking place in Syria. “After a couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF [Special Operations Forces] teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces,” the email said.
“One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway, but all the operations being done now are being done out of ‘prudence,’” it continued. “They have been told to prepare contingencies and be ready to act within 2-3 months, but they still stress that this is all being done as contingency planning, not as a move toward escalation.”
Publicly, the Obama administration has retreated from its initial refusal to stay out of the conflict in Syria by agreeing this week to provide direct humanitarian and communications assistance to the Syrian opposition. While the official line remains to keep military options off the table for now, the change in policy could open the flood gates for expanded military intervention.
Complicating the official story, a report coming out of Lebanon this week claimed 13 French soldiers were captured in the Syrian city of Homs. The French Foreign Ministry denied the claims, saying there are no ground troops in Syria.
According to the Stratfor analyst, after rejecting the prospect of “an eventual air campaign,” the officials at the Pentagon told him “the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”
The extent to which the information exchanged in the conversation was “hypothetical” is not clear and no U.S. official has made any comment on the information in the leaked email. The discussion appeared focused on contingency planning and the phrase “they said without saying” is never elaborated on. The date of the email coincides roughly with the first public reports of secret contingency planing in December.
Information in a report on Stratfor’s website published March 7, 2012, appears to have been taken at least partially from this very email. It reads: “The U.S. military indeed has updated its order of battle for Syria in preparation for any contingency operations, and this work allegedly produced the best order of battle the United States has had on Syria since 2001. However, contingency plans exist for numerous countries with which war is unlikely.”
In congressional sessions with top military officials on Wednesday, some in Congress expressed frustration with current policy, as articulated by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and others. “I get irritated, I get angry,” McCain insisted, accusing the U.S. military of “standing on the sidelines” instead of waging an all out war on Syria, as he proposed on Monday.
NATO Intervening in Syria
by
Stephen Lendman
From Wired.com:
Leon Panetta, confirms that the military is “reviewing all possible additional steps that can be taken” to protect beleaguered Syrians from Assad’s brutality, “including potential military options if necessary.” Welcome to the next U.S. war.
In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning, Panetta did not sound enthused about going to war in Syria. He did not describe it as a certainty, or even a likelihood, saying the Obama administration “is focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than a military intervention.” And he ruled out taking any action without a broad international coalition.
But for all the talk from President Obama about how “the tide of war is receding” — and the reduced budgetary growth for the Pentagon — the U.S. military will hardly be getting a breather while the Arab Awakening continues to reshape the Middle East. “Should we be called upon to defend U.S. interests,” testified Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “we will be ready.”
Unlike Gen. James Mattis, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East and South Asia, Panetta didn’t premise any potential intervention on ousting Assad. His goal instead is to protect Syrians from regime violence that he described as “increasingly dire and outrageous.” But the U.S.’ role in the Libya war last year indicates that once military action to protect a population from a repressive regime begins, it’s difficult to stop it short of overthrowing the regime itself.
Indeed, Panetta disclosed that the administration’s deliberations on the scope of a potential Syria intervention are “guided by our approach from Libya and elsewhere.” That is, the U.S. needs a “clear legal basis” for taking action, although Panetta did not say it would require approval from the United Nations Security Council, which blessed the Libya war. He would similarly want to limit its military contributions in coalition warfare, probably to air or sea power, drones, intelligence assets and logistical support. Dempsey said options actively under consideration by the administration include “a no-fly zone, maritime interdiction, humanitarian corridor [and] limited aerial strikes.”
Nor would a war be easy. Dempsey said Assad possesses “approximately five times more sophisticated air defenses than existed in Libya covering one-fifth of the terrain” and “about ten times more than we experienced in Serbia.” He also has chemical and biological weapons. Panetta said he “recognize[d] the limitation of military force, especially U.S. boots on the ground.”
While Dempsey did not give any policy advice, he did not sound like he thought war in Syria was wise. “It’s not about can we do it,” Dempsey told the panel. “It’s should we do it. And what are the opportunity costs?”
It’s possible to read Panetta’s remarks as a constraint on intervening. He said that the Syrian opposition is an x-factor; Assad’s military is formidable; and if a full-scale civil war breaks out, “an outside intervention in these conditions would not prevent that, but could expedite it and make it worse.” There’s also no international “consensus” against Assad: Russia and China recently vetoed a resolution rebuking him at the Security Council. If Panetta meant to frame those concerns as obstacles for intervention, he didn’t explain how the U.S. would clear them away.
Still, the Obama administration is now opening the door to yet another war in the Middle East, just months after ending the Iraq war and waging the eight-month war in Libya. And perhaps not just one. “Any government that indiscriminately kills its own people has lost its legitimacy,” Panetta said.
That line was not in Panetta’s prepared statement. But it might turn into a marker justifying the Obama administration’s emerging posture toward Mideast brutality.
Planned Regime Change in Syria
by Stephen Lendman
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria had peace and calm until Washington intervened belligerently.
Strategies and tactics vary. Objectives are consistent. They involve replacing independent regimes with pro-Western ones by any means, including war.
Wrongheaded UN Vote on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
On February 4, Russia and China vetoed the Arab League's one-sided Syria resolution (SC/10536). It illegitimately called for Assad to step down.
Under international law, no nation or combination thereof, may interfere in the internal affairs of others, except in self-defense if attacked.
The Global Research's Online Interactive I-Book Reader, brings together, in the form of chapters, a collection of Global Research feature articles, including debate and analysis, on a broad theme or subject matter. To consult our Online Interactive I-Book Reader Series, click here.
INTRODUCTION
“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, ...a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. ...[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, ...
Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. ...Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …
Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention... the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)
In this online interactive I-book, we bring to the attention of our readers a selection of feature articles on the Syrian crisis.
Our objective is to dispel the tide of media lies and government propaganda, which presents the events in Syria as a "peaceful protest movement".
The "protests" did not emanate from internal political cleavages as described by the mainstream media. From the very outset, they were the result of a covert US-NATO intelligence operation geared towards triggering social chaos, with a view to eventually discrediting the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and destabilizing Syria as a Nation State.
Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups --covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence-- have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers including mercenaries have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians.
Iit is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts --including the indiscriminate killing of men and women and children-- are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing "an armed entity" operating inside Syria.
The evidence confirms that foreign intelligence operatives, according to reports, have integrated rebel ranks:
"As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.
“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need." " Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)
The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a military intervention, under NATO's "responsibility to protect" mandate.
A NATO-led intervention is on the drawing board. It was drafted prior to the onset of the protest movement in March 2011. According to military and intelligence sources, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been discussing "the form this intervention would take".
US, British and Turkish operatives are supplying the rebels with weapons. Britain's Ministry of Defence confirms that it "is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [in coordination with its allies] "but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council." (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). According to these secret plans: "fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi".(Ibid ).
A "humanitarian" military intervention modeled on Libya is contemplated. NATO Special Forces from Britain, France, Qatar and Turkey are already on the ground inside Syria in blatant violation of international law. Reports from British military sources (November 2011) confirm that:
"British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)... The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces' strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. ... More recent reports have stated that 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 (emphasis added)
The Social and Political Context in Syria
There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The later include austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission's Concluding Statement, 2006).
Moreover, there are serious divisions within the government and the military. The populist policy framework of the Baath party has largely been eroded. A faction within the ruling political establishment has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In turn, the adoption of IMF "economic medicine" has served to enrich the ruling economic elite. Pro-US factions have also developed within the upper echelons of the Syrian military and intelligence.
But the "pro-democracy" movement integrated by Islamists and supported by NATO and the "international community" did not emanate from the mainstay of Syrian civil society.
The wave of violent protests represents a very small fraction of Syrian public opinion. They are terrorist acts of a sectarian nature. They do not in any way address the broader issues of social inequality, civil rights and unemployment.
The majority of Syria's population (including the opponents of the Al Assad government) do not support the "protest movement" which is characterised by an armed insurgency. In fact quite the opposite.
Ironically, despite its authoritarian nature, there is considerable popular support for the government of President Bashar Al Assad, which is confirmed by the large pro-government rallies.
Syria constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. It supports the struggle of the Palestinian people.
The objective of the US-NATO alliance is to ultimately displace and destroy the Syrian secular State, displace or co-opt the national economic elites and eventually replace the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad with an Arab sheikdom, a pro-US Islamic republic or a compliant pro-US "democracy".
Pro-government rally, Damascus, March 2011
The Insurgency: The Libya Model
The insurgency in Syria has similar features to that of Libya: it is integrated by paramilitary brigades affiliated to Al Qaeda, which are directly supported by NATO and Turkey.
Reports confirm that NATO and Turkey's High Command are providing the rebels with weapons and training: "NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces." (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)
Military sources also confirm that Syrian rebels "have been training in the use of the new weapons with Turkish military officers at makeshift installations in Turkish bases near the Syrian border." (DEBKAfile, Ibid). Recent reports confirm that British and Qatari Special forces are on the ground in the city of Homs, involved in training rebel forces as well as organizing the supply of weapons in liaison with the Turkish military.
As in the case of Libya, financial support is being channelled to the Syrian rebel forces by Saudi Arabia: "Ankara and Riyadh will provide the anti-Assad movements with large quantities of weapons and funds to be smuggled in from outside Syria" (Ibid). The deployment of Saudi and GCC troops is also contemplated in Southern Syria in coordination with Turkey (Ibid).
NATO's activities are not limited to training and the delivery of weapons systems, the recruitment of thousands of "freedom fighters"` is also envisaged, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA's jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
This recruitment of Mujahideen was part of NATO`s strategy in Libya, where mercenary forces were dispatched to fight under the helm of "former" Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.
The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by "Islamic brigades" together with NATO special forces has been applied to Syria, where "Islamist fighters" supported by Western and Israeli intelligence are deployed. In this regard, Abdel Hakim`s LIFG brigade has now been dispatched to Syria, where it is involved in terrorist acts under the supervision of NATO Special Forces.
The Central Role of US Ambassador Robert S. Ford
US Ambassador Robert S. Ford was dispatched to Damascus in late January 2011 at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. (The author was in Damascus on January 27, 2011 when Washington's Envoy presented his credentials to the Al Assad government).
At the outset of my visit to Syria in January 2011, I reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I did not, however, foresee that this destabilization agenda would be implemented within less than two months following the instatement of Robert S. Ford as US Ambassador to Syria.
The reinstatement of a US ambassador in Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Robert S. Ford as US ambassador, bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad.
Robert S. Ford was the man for the job. As "Number Two" at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte, he played a key role in implementing the Pentagon's "Iraq Salvador Option". The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of Central America.
It is worth noting that Obama's newly appointed CIA head, General David Petraeus played a key role the organization of covert support to rebel forces and "freedom fighters", the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces, etc. Petraeus led the Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC) "Counterinsurgency" program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination with John Negroponte and Robert S Ford at the US Embassy in Baghdad.
Ambassador Ford in Hama in July 2011
The Insidious Role of the Western media
The role of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance in triggering an armed insurrection is not addressed by the Western media. Moreover, several "progressive voices" have accepted the "NATO consensus" at face value. The role of CIA-MI6 covert intelligence operations in support of armed groups is simply not mentioned. Salafist paramilitary groups involved in terrorist acts, are, according to reports, supported covertly by Israeli intelligence (Mossad). The Muslim Brotherhood has been supported by Turkey, as well as by MI6, Britain's Secret Service (SIS) since the 1950s
More generally, the Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US State Department as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)) to selected pro-US opposition groups.
Known and documented, the U.S. State Department "has been been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006. (U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition - World - CBC News April 18, 2011).
The protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the "Arab Spring", presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the Mashriq. There is reason to believe, however, that events in Syria, however, were planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia.
The outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt.
In chorus they have described recent events in Syria as a "peaceful protest movement" directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence amply confirms that Islamic paramilitary groups are involved in terrorist acts. These same Islamic groups have infiltrated the protest rallies.
Western media distortions abound. Large "pro-government" rallies (including photographs) are casually presented as "evidence" of a mass anti-government protest movement. The reports on casualties are based on unconfirmed "eye-witness reports" or on Syrian opposition sources in exile. The London based Syria Observatory for Human Rights are profusely quoted by the Western media as a "reliable source" with the usual disclaimers. Israeli news sources, while avoiding the issue of an armed insurgency, tacitly acknowledge that Syrian forces are being confronted by an organized professional paramilitary.
The absence of verifiable data, has not prevented the Western media from putting forth "authoritative figures" on the number of casualties. What are the sources of this data? Who is responsible for the casualties?
Dangerous Crossroads: Towards a Broader Middle East Central Asian War
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through "regime change" is closely coordinated with military planning. There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.
War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years.
US, NATO and Israeli military planners have outlined the contours of a "humanitarian" military campaign, in which Turkey (the second largest military force inside NATO) would play a central role.
We are at dangerous crossroads. Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against Syria, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war.
There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.
An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.
In Part I of the online interactive I-Book, an introductory essay is presented.
Part II examines the nature of the US-NATO-Israel sponsored insurgency, including the recruitment of terrorists and mercenaries. It also includes an examination of a 1957 Anglo-American covert intelligence plan to destabilize Syria and implement "regime change". The 1957 plan envisaged the triggering of "internal disturbances as well as the mounting of "sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents" by the CIA and MI6. What this essay suggests is continuity, i.e. today's Intel. Ops, while more sophisticated than those of the Cold War era, belong to realm of DÉJÀ VU.
Part III examines the complicity of the "international community" focussing respectively on the role of non-governmental organizations, the dynamics within the United Nations Security Council and role of the Arab League, acting on behalf of Washington.
Part IV centers on the insidious role of the corporate media, which has carefully distorted the facts, providing systematically a biased understanding of the causes and consequences of the Syrian crisis.
Part V focusses on the broader military agenda and the process of military escalation in the Middle East.
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.
A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.
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 towards a broader regional war.
Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, February 11, 2012
[Spread the word. forward this online interactive reader far and wide. Post it on Facebook]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
Introduction
 |
A "Humanitarian War" on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-08-09
|
|
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") directed against Syria.
|
PART II
Covert Operations:
US-NATO-Israel Support to an Armed Insurgency
 |
SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage
- by Felicity Arbuthnot - 2012-02-07
|
|
DÉJÀ VU? "The CIA is prepared, and MI6 will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria,... [using] capabilitites in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)
|
 |
The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists to Wage NATO's "Humanitarian Wars"
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-09-02
|
|
The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, with a view to justifying a "humanitarian" military intervention by NATO
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
 |
 |
VIDEO: NATO Recruiting Jihadists to Syria
New interview now on GRTV
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-09-19
|
PART III
Building a Justification to Wage War. NATO's "Responsibility to Protect"
The Roles of the United Nations, The Arab League and the NGOs
 |
Libya Déjà Vu in Syria: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-11-20
|
 |
Syria and the Russia-China Veto: Towards a Break Point at the UN Security Council?
- by Carla Stea - 2012-02-08
|
 |
How the Arab League Has Become a Tool of Western Imperialism
- by Finian Cunningham - 2012-02-09
|
|
 |
SYRIA. TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky
- 2012-02-01
|
 |
VIDEO: SYRIA: Armed Opposition Groups Supported by "Foreign Powers"
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2012-02-03
|
|
PART IV
The Media Disinformation Campaign
 |
VIDEO: Skeptical on Syria: 'Media reports framed & manipulated'
Watch now on GRTV
- by James Corbett - 2011-08-31
|
 |
Syria Regime Change PR in High Gear: More ‘Newborn Baby Slaughter’ Propaganda
- by Patrick Henningsen - 2012-02-09
|
 |
Media Lies Used to Provide a Pretext for Another "Humanitarian War": Protest in Syria: Who Counts the Dead?
- by Julie Lévesque - 2011-11-25
|
|
The reliance of the mainstream media on information emanating from anonymous groups provides a biased understanding of the Syrian protests
|
 |
Media Lies: Syria's President Bashar Al Assad Sets ABC News Senior Propagandist Barbra Walters Straight.
- by Tony Cartalucci - 2011-12-12
|
|
||||||||
 |
Media Manipulation and the Drums of War: How Media is used to Whip the Nation into Wartime Frenzy
Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War
- by James Corbett - 2012-01-03
|
PART VI
Syria and the Broader War
 |
The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-06-17
|
|
If a military operation were to be launched against Syria, Israel would in all likelihood also be involved, leading to a process of escalation
|
 |
Syria: The West's Strategic Gateway For Global Military Supremacy
- by Rick Rozoff - 2011-11-15
|
 |
The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-12-24
|
 |
Obama's Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? "The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus"
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2012-01-20
|
 |
VIDEO: A NATO Intervention in Syria would Engulf the Entire Middle East Central Asian Region
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-09-04
|
 |
Beating the Drums of a Broader Middle East War
Israel, Syria, and Lebanon Prepare the "Home Fronts"
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2008-05-07
|
|
Israel, Syria, and Lebanon Prepare the "Home Fronts". The Levant could be the starting point of a major international conflict, with global ramifications, which could quickly spin out of control.
|
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism"(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011).
He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and the Pacific, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for several international organizations.
Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
This Online Interactive I-Reader is made available to Global Research readers with a view to curbing the flow of media disinformation and war propaganda.
Our ultimate objective is to reverse the tide of war and restore World peace.
Please consider making a donation to Global Research.
TO DONATE CLICK HERE
THE GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-BOOKS SERIES
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Forthcoming
The War on Iraq
ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-READER 4
MARCH 2012
GLOBAL RESEARCH E-BOOK SERIES (PDF)
Order directly from Global Research (click title for details)
NEW RELEASE: GLOBAL RESEARCH E-BOOK
Towards a World War III Scenario
by Michel Chossudovsky
The Independent just announced that British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) would be running an apology worldwide for airing documentaries produced by a public relations firm. The anticipated apology resulted from last year's reporting in The Independent on this pecuiar BBC practice. A special committee investigated and confirmed the news fixing process.
"The BBC will today apologise to an estimated 74 million people around the world for a news fixing scandal, exposed by The Independent, in which it broadcast documentaries made by a London TV company that was earning millions of pounds from PR clients which it featured in its programming." The Independent, Feb 11
Sweet! The PR firm got a big payday from its clients, the nation of Malaysia for example, to produce the client-friendly documentaries. Then, the firm sold the documentaries to BBC for a nominal fee. The client state gets the publicity it wants, packaged for maximum effect, and BBC gets low cost content.
Institute for Public Accuracy
http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
STEPHEN ZUNES, http://www.stephenzunes.org, http://www.fpif.org
Zunes is professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus. He just wrote the piece "Syrian Repression, The Chinese-Russian Veto and U.S. Hypocrisy," which states: "As unarmed civilians continue to be slaughtered by the Syrian regime, permanent members of the United Nations Security Council continue to put their narrow geo-political agenda ahead of international humanitarian law. Just as France continues to shield Morocco from accountability for its ongoing occupation and repression in Western Sahara and the United States shields Israel from having to live up to its obligations under international humanitarian law, Russia and China have used their permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council to protect the Syrian regime from accountability for its savage repression against its own citizens. ...
"Since 1970, China has used its veto power eight times, Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has used its veto power thirteen times, and the United States has used its veto power 83 times, primarily in defense of allies accused of violating international humanitarian law. Forty-two of these U.S. vetoes were to protect Israel from criticism for illegal activities, including suspected war crimes. ... Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insists that it is the Russians and Chinese who have 'neutered' the Security Council in its ability to defend basic human rights.
"U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice expressed the feelings of many human rights advocates around the world in saying that she was 'disgusted' by the Russian-Chinese veto. Ironically, Rice herself disgusted many human rights advocates around the world last year when she vetoed an otherwise-unanimous UN Security Council resolution which simply reiterated a longstanding principle of international humanitarian law -- codified in the Fourth Geneva Convention, four previous UNSC resolutions, and a landmark World Court decision -- that Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are illegal and there should be a freeze on further construction.
"By contrast, the call in Saturday’s resolution for an internationally-recognized government to effectively hand over power to the opposition -- while justifiable in light of the extraordinary repression -- is a virtually unprecedented move by the UN Security Council. While territories under foreign military occupation, like those occupied by Israel, are clearly under the purview of the United Nations, the willingness of the UN to challenge human rights abuses within a country’s internationally-recognized borders is relatively new.
"Obama’s veto last year, then, was on far weaker ground legally than last weekend’s veto by China and Russia. So were most of the other UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by previous U.S. administrations. ...
"Another factor which may have helped prompt the Russian and Chinese veto was their willingness to allow passage last year of UNSC 1973 on Libya, which called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and other defensive measures to protect the civilian population from attacks by Gadhafi’s forces. Unfortunately, NATO went well beyond its UNSC mandate to protect civilian lives and effectively became the air force for the rebels -- and even ended up being responsible for scores of civilian casualties themselves. ...
"In a further irony, the primary sponsor of last weekend’s resolution on Syria was the government of Morocco, a non-permanent member of UN Security Council, which is currently in violation of a series of UN Security Council resolutions regarding their illegal occupation of Western Sahara. ...
"The Syria Accountability Act demanded that the UN remove Syria from its non-permanent seat in the Security Council because of its violation of UNSC resolution 520. No such demand has been made by the United States regarding Morocco’s seat on the Security Council, however, despite its far more numerous and egregious violations of UNSC resolutions."
Background: “The Military Staff Committee: A Possible Future Role in UN Peace Operations?” http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/199/40932.html
Patrick Seale, author of "Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East," was on Democracy Now this morning -- see: http://www.democracynow.org -- he also just wrote "The Syrian Crisis and the New Cold War." http://www.patrickseale.com
Heading for War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
Washington's longstanding policy is regime change in Iran and Syria. At issue is replacing independent regimes with client ones and securing unchallenged control of valued Middle East resources.
Russia and China Veto Syria Resolution
by Stephen Lendman
Shortly before 1PM EST, Reuters headlined, "Russia, China veto UN resolution telling Assad to quit," saying:
These excerpts from the Arab League observers' report on Syria make it clear that there is widespread violence on both sides, but that the opposition and the Western media have exaggerated the violence and casualties inflicted by government forces. The UN has stopped accepting casualty figures claimed by the opposition, and has frozen its "official" estimate of civilian deaths at 5,400, without acknowledging that this may already be highly exaggerated. This is not yet a bloodbath on the scale of Libya, where even the new government admits that at least 25,000 people died in the NATO-led war. Syria could follow the Libya model though, if NATO and the GCC keep providing weapons and military training to the Free Syrian Army and are prepared to beef it up with special forces on the ground, and as long as the UN approves a no-fly zone to provide cover for another 9,700 air strikes. How could Russia and China dare to nip this humanitarian crusade in the bud?
Security Council Showdown on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
Slowly things are coming to a head. America, Israel, rogue NATO partners, and regional despot allies are itching for a fight with Syria. Russia and China stand firmly opposed.
New Syria Resolution: Better but Still Flawed
by Stephen Lendman
Its sponsors include America, Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Colombia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, UAE, Oman, Lybia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Togo.
Notably, Russia and China aren't included. Nonetheless, Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said:
In Air America: Under the Imperial Eye, Chris Floyd reports on the recent revelation that Iraq's supposedly "sovereign airspace" is constantly under surveillance by a network of drones operated by the State Department. Apparently the only reason this news came to light is because of a publicly available government appeal for private bids on the project. Neither we nor Iraqis were meant to know:
"Iraqis were outraged this week to find they are being spied upon by a fleet of American drones hovering constantly in their supposedly sovereign skies, long after the supposed withdrawal of American forces."
Unarmed Resistance Still Syria’s Best Hope
By Stephen Zunes, Nation of Change
The Syrian pro-democracy struggle has been both an enormous tragedy and a powerful inspiration. Indeed, as someone who has studied mass nonviolent civil insurrections in dozens of countries in recent decades, I know of no people who have demonstrated such courage and tenacity in the face of such savage repression as have the people of Syria these past 10 months.
The resulting decline in the legitimacy of Bashar al-Assad's government gives hope that the opposition will eventually win. The question is how many more lives will be lost until then.
From Stop the War
Videos HERE.
On 28 January 2012 at the United States Embassy in London, Stop the War held a rally to launch the Don't Attack Iran campaign. Among the speakers (videos below) were Tony Benn, Kate Hudson, John Rees, Roger Lloyd Pack, Andrew Murray, John McDonnell MP, Sarah Colborne, Kevin Ovenden.
Washington's War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
On January 28, Arab League monitors suspended operations in Syria. In early February, they'll decide whether to end them altogether. League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby blamed Assad for "resort(ing) to escalating the military option in complete violation of (his) commitments."
Arab League Arrogance
by Stephen Lendman
On December 26, Arab League observers began monitoring Syrian cities. They'll remain another month, despite calls to remove them.
From East County Magazine:
By Nadin Abbott
January 17, 2012 (San Diego)— On January 2, a soldier in San Diegolinked toSpecial Forces posted on his Facebook page that he was deploying to Syria. The soldier’s Facebook page has been scrubbed, as well as almost all references to him. Still, this tantalizing piece of information startled readers, leading many to ask: does our country have troops in Syria and if so, why?
Shooting the Messenger in Syria - by Stephen Lendman
At issue is discrediting Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi. He's Arab League observer mission head in Syria. More on him below.
The phrase "shooting the messenger" is centuries old. Shakespeare wrote "Don't shoot the messenger" in Henry IV, part two. In Antony and Cleopatra, she reacted to Antony jilting her by threatening to treat the messenger's eyes as balls.
By Dave Lindorff
»Occupy« Declaration against War – Demand to stop preparations for war against Iran and Syria!
- by Occupy Berlin
Starting from Tunisia and Egypt, spreading to Spain, Greece and other European countries and finally to the USA in 2011 protest movements developed that work towards a profound political, social and economic change in the system.
We are globally networked people who feel inspired by these international events and who are motivated to join together in order to be politically active.
Our main demands are »real democracy« – that is real participation – and thus social justice and peace on Earth!
This includes the disbandment of international operating private banks, the disempowerment of the multinational corporations and the military industrial complex, because these three factors largely influence and determine all political decisions in the existing system.
STOP THE WAR COALITION
Newsletter No.1227
2 December 2011
Email office@stopwar.org.uk
Tel: 020 7801 2768
Web: http://stopwar.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/STWuk
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/stopthewarcoalition
1) STOP THE BUILD UP TO WAR ON IRAN
2) NEARLY 400 DEAD... BRING THE TROOPS HOME FROM AFGHANISTAN
3) A GRAPHIC HISTORY OF STOP THE WAR TEN YEARS ON
4) NO TO INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
***********
1) STOP THE BUILD UP TO WAR ON IRAN
The western powers seem to be doing everything possible to increase tension
with Iran. Yesterday EU ministers imposed new sanctions on top of those agreed
Sign up for:
2017
August 2-6: Peace and Democracy Conference at Democracy Convention in Minneapolis, Minn.
September 22-24: No War 2017 at American University in Washington, D.C.
October 28: Peace and Justice Studies Association Conference
Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.
Sponsors:
***
***
***
Julie Varughese
***
Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.
Ads:
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on Ca-Dress.com
