Iran, Not Syria, Is the West's Real Target

[Octafish]

Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West

by Robert Fisk
Aug. 30, 2013, The Independent

Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.
They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.

Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran’s only Arab ally.

There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.

And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.

And I suppose it’s worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam’s mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn’t matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise “restraint”. And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. “Hama Rules” is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/30-3

Real men go to Tehran on behalf of PNAC.

[Ghost Dog]

1. This indeed appears to be what the US Gov intends...

... AFP - An Al-Qaeda front group claimed a wave of bombings across Baghdad in a statement on Friday, part of a surge in violence sparking worries of a return to all-out bloodshed.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant said the attacks carried out on Wednesday, when nationwide violence killed 75 people and wounded more than 200, were retribution for the executions this month of people convicted of terror-related offences.

The group, formerly based solely in Iraq, has since expanded its reach to neighbouring Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad has been embroiled in a 29-month conflict with rebels, of whom the Al-Qaeda group are a critical part.

"The new wave organised by the lions of the Sunni people... was a response to the crimes of the Safavid government with the executions of a group of Islamists from the Sunni people in Iraq," said the statement posted on jihadist Internet forums.

It referred to Iraq's central government using a pejorative for Shiite Muslims, referencing the former Safavid empire that ruled what is now modern-day Iran...

/... http://www.france24.com/en/20130830-al-qaeda-group-claims-wave-baghdad-attacks

Oh, and there was this:

Perfidious Albion hands murderous Assad a spectacular victory
How a perfect storm of British ineptitude and gutlessness sent the wrong message to the butcher of Damascus, and left Israel more certain than ever that it can only rely on itself
By David Horovitz August 30, 2013, 11:39 am

/... http://www.timesofisrael.com/?p=655472

[Octafish]

2. Nixon, Dulles & Dulles, on behalf of British Petroleum, helped set the stage for World War III.

For oil, the Middle East becomes the cauldron for all the evils men can conjure.

History of BP Includes Role in 1953 Iran Coup After Nationalization of Oil

AMY GOODMAN: As we wrap-up, as tens of thousands of gallons of oil continue to spew into the Gulf of Mexico from the BP oil spill, we continue our series on BP. Yesterday we looked at their horrendous safety record on the millions of dollars they’ve spent on lobbying congress to prevent regulation. Today, we’re going to look at the history, sixty years ago, BP was called Anglo Iranian Oil Company. In an interview on DEMOCRACY NOW!, Stephen Kinzer, the former New York Times bureau chief, author of "All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror", told the story of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company’s role in the 1953 CIA coup against Iran’s popular progressive Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Let’s go to a clip of what Steven Kinzer says.

STEVEN KINZER: At the beginning of the 20th century as a result of a corrupt deal with the old dying monarchy, one British company, owned mainly by the British government, had taken control of the entire Iranian oil industry.

SNIP...

...What happened was that Prime Minister Mossadegh, who really was an extraordinary figure in his time, although he’s in somewhat forgotten by history, came to power in 1951 on a wave of nationalism aimed at this one great obsession, we’ve got to take back control of our oil and use the profits for the development of one of the most wretchedly impoverished nations on earth at that time. So the Iranian parliament voted unanimously for a bill to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Petroleum Co. and Mossadegh signed it and he devoted himself, during his term of office, to carrying-out that plan. To nationalize was then Britain’s largest and most profitable holding anywhere in the world. Bear in mind that the oil that fueled England all during the 1920s and 30s and 40s all came from Iran. The standard of living that people in England enjoyed all during that period was due exclusive to Iranian oil. Britain has no oil. Britain has no colonies that have oil. every factory in England, every car, every truck, every taxi, was running on oil from Iran. The Royal Navy, which was projecting British power all over the world, was fueled a hundred percent by oil from Iran. Suddenly Iran arrives and says, 'Oh, we're taking back the oil now.’ So this naturally set-off a huge crisis. And that’s the crisis that made Mossadegh really a big World figure around the early 1950s. At the end of 1951 Time magazine chose him as 'Man of the Year,' and they chose him over Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur, and Dwight Eisenhower; and they made the right choice because at that moment, Mossadegh really was the most important person in the world.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the former New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer. Wrote "All the Shah’s Men." Talked extensively about the Anglo Iranian Oil Company which was renamed British Petroleum. That’s BP. That does it for our show.

SOURCE: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/6/history_of_bp_includes_role_in

Here's an excellent overview from Mr. Bill Hare:

When the CIA Overthrew Iran for British Petroleum

By Bill Hare
opednews.com

EXCERPT...

Iran had just elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, that nation's most popular political figure.

The fact that Mossadegh was elected by the will of Iran's citizens did not deter the efforts of an invigorated CIA that used the Cold War as a pretext to move away from the fact finding agency conceived of by President Harry Truman to an aggressive international political body willing to overthrow nations in contravention of popular national will.

Mossadegh immediately angered the international power cartel with which the CIA actively interlinked. British Petroleum had been garnering the lion's share of profits from Iran's wealthy oil deposits.

Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil as a means of obtaining what he deemed to be a fairer portion of that important asset. The nationalization law was passed unanimously by the Iranian Parliament.

Despite the fact that BP was offered considerable compensation by Mossadegh his days were numbered after the nationalization bill was passed.

Richard Helms, who would later become CIA Director, was prepared to act with a close Iranian friend becoming political beneficiary. A plan was launched to overthrow Iran in a coup and hand over the reins of power to a reliable figure who would accede to the international power elite's interests on behalf of British Petroleum.

CONTINUED...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/When-the-CIA-Overthrew-Ira-by-Bill-Hare-100511-809.html

Corp Watch adds more on BP: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=287

I'd call them, and all who help support wars for profit, members of the real "Monsters Inc," but calling them anything less than human would let them off the hook as the war criminals and traitors they are at heart.

[Ghost Dog]

3. Yes indeed. But you this refers to a relatively brief period of recent history

compared to:

Ottoman Empire–Persian Empire relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of Persian-Ottoman relations started with the establishment of Safavid dynasty in the Persian Empire in the early 16th century. The initial Ottoman-Safavid conflict culminated in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, and was followed by a century of border confrontation. In 1639, Safavid Iran and Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Zuhab which recognized Iraq in Ottoman control.

Until the 18th century, the struggle between Safavid Persian Shi'ism and the Ottoman version of Islamic orthodoxy had continued to remain an important dimension of the combative relationships between the two empires.[1] In the early 18th century, Persian-Ottoman peace negotiations introduced a new concept of inter-Muslim relations whereby sovereign states could co-exist as autonomous parts of the Islamic world community.[2] Although the further relations were guided by the mutual fear of weakness and distrust, it wasn't until 1847 when Qajar Iran and Ottoman Empire reached a substantial peace Treaty of Erzurum, starting a century of peace.[1]

/... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire%E2%80%93Persian_Empire_relations

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars

[Octafish]

6. Clash of Civilizations

Thank you for the background. A fascinating culture that we all should be celebrating instead of looting.

[bullwinkle428]

4. Follow the oil. K&R.

[Octafish]

9. The Oil Kings

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439155186/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1439155186&linkCode=as2&tag=thenatiinte-20

Money! Each year, more oil is sold than all the world's governments spend.

When there's war, the prices shoot up and helps the holders of these reserves, interesting enough, they just happen to be friends of the BFEE.

[jberryhill]

5. Cribbed from far-right "American Thinker"

Not a surprise:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/is_iran_the_real_target.html

Is Iran the Real Target?

[Octafish]

8. Are you accusing Robert Fisk of plagiarism?

What a surprise, considering the guy's been writing about the subject for decades.

http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/robert-fisk

Where do Fay Voshell and American Thinker come in, jberryhill?

[jberryhill]

10. Where do they come in?

They came in several days ago, with the same premise, that's where they came in.

And, had I intended to say "plagiarism" I would have certainly said so.

Their common talking points may have a different source entirely.

[Octafish]

14. Cribbed is a synonym for plagiarism

Hence my question. Sorry you didn't know that.

[Maedhros]

20. Evaluate the idea, instead of attacking the source.

Lends credibility to your posts.

[woo me with science]

7. PNAC list down to just two...

No wonder they are livid that the commoners would dare to interrupt.

[Octafish]

13. Damascus is a stepping stone to Tehran

http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?article...

They wouldn't really attack Iran, would they?
By: Paul Street
2007-08-11

Remember the old neoconservative half-joke that "sacking Baghdad is fine but real men go to Tehran?" We are moving into the time when many Washington watchers have thought it possible and even likely that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would order an attack on Iran .

They wouldn't really do it, would they?

God knows there are a large number of reasons for a rational White House NOT to attack. United States and global public opinion is opposed to a U.S. assault on Iran. So are European and other leading and allied governments, the U.S. intelligence community and much of the nation's military leadership. According to a February 25th "London Times" report, "most senior commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a strike against Iran."

SNIP...

While "Iran cannot (militarily) defend itself against U.S. attack," Noam Chomsky recently noted, "it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting ever more havoc in Iraq. "Some issue warnings that are more grave," Chomsky adds, noting British military historian Corelli Barnett's judgment that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War Tthree" (5).

SNIP...

A military strike against Iran would be thoroughly illegal under international law and the U.S. Constitution. It would evoke horror and condemnation across the world, further tarnishing the United States' fading "moral credentials" (Bzrezinski), especially if it employs (as it likely would) "low yield" nuclear missiles that would (as a senior U.S. intelligence official told Seymour Hersh) produce "mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties and contamination over years&quot 7).

CONTINUED at Waybac Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070505135012/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=12610

Too bad the streets are paved with the bones of innocents...

[iamthebandfanman]

11. of course it is .. even tho

a report just came out saying sanctions seem to be working at hurting the government as far as income from oil is concerned:p


nah, cant you see its just a front for big attack !?!

[Octafish]

15. My attention span must be PNAC short.

When Cuba didn't knuckle under after more than 50 years of sanctions, I as a citizen thought: "Perhaps there is another way of making the world safe for warmongers."

Imperial Madness

Marching Toward Syria and Beyond

by BEN SCHREINER
CounterPunch WEEKEND EDITION AUG 30-SEP 01, 2013

EXCERPT...

Playing the tried and true chemical weapons card—played each time the U.S. has moved to publicly deepen its level of intervention into the Syrian crisis—U.S. strikes are now reportedly a matter of when, not if. Accordingly, the propaganda machine revs up.

SNIP...

See Damascus, Think Tehran and Beyond

Ever since Jimmy Carter declared Middle East oil to be a “vital national interest” of the United States, the U.S. military has laid perpetual siege to the region. Yet, the one state American planners have always coveted—and once held in their vice—continues to slip the imperial trap. And for this defiance, Iran has become an obsession of U.S. planners. Thus when it comes to U.S. strategic thinking on Syria, it’s really all about how to best to weaken Iran.

Indeed, as Anthony Cordesman of the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies writes:

If Bashar al-Assad wins or survives in ways that give him control over most of Syria [which failing Western intervention, looks more and more likely], Iran will have a massive new degree of influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in a polarized Middle East divided between Sunni and Shi’ite and steadily driving minorities into exile. This will present serious new risks for an Israel that will never again be able to count on a passive Assad. It will weaken Jordan and Turkey and, most importantly, give Iran far more influence in the Gulf.

Likewise, Richard Hass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued on the PBS Newshour that a strike against Syria is necessary “not simply to discourage them [the Syrian government] from using chemical weapons again, but to send a message to Iran.”

(One wonders if the message received on Tehran’s end will be that nuclear weapons provide the only immunization from U.S. attack.)

Of course, Syria has long been about Iran—not only for the U.S. As Efraim Halevy, former director of the Israeli Mossad, crowed back in early 2012, the Syrian crisis “created an opportunity to defuse the Iranian threat.” Knock off Tehran’s main Arab ally, the notion goes, and it won’t be long before the Mullahs are brought to their knees. And failing that, destroying the Syrian state and any value it can offer as an ally to Iran will do just fine.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/30/marching-toward-syria-and-beyond/

I'm so proud to think this is a democracy.

[7962]

24. I can see Assad "surviving" meaning he stays alive,

but stay in power? I don't think the opposition will give up. As the days and months roll by, what would Assad really be in control OF?And Iran and Russia would only have Assad as a figurehead. What real power would he have when he cant control the country? Other countries (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc) will supply the rebels and keep them in the fight. As different radical factions kill each other off, our best course is to let them do it.

[leftstreet]

12. Iran is a serious threat

DURec

[woo me with science]

16. Can't post that often enough.

Thank you.

[Octafish]

18. Sheezo-peet! They've got us exactly where they want us!

Bankrupt. Morally, financially and spiritually.

From 2002, a nice letter to the editor:

BRZEZINSKI, HITLER, MACKINDER AND GEOPOLITICS

Dear Emperor's New Clothes,

Is the move in Central Asia about Oil? No, it's about POWER. And I don't mean "power" as in "energy".

It's about how you become and remain the world's Dominant Power, and what you have to do to maintain/achieve it - like taking over strategic areas of the world.

Z.B. (Zbigniew Brzezinski) and his chums come with a theory and ideology to carry it out as well, which is why they behave like a high priestly order.

We, the Good 'Ole Brits invented it, when we were desperately trying to maintain the position of the British Empire as No. 1 Dominant Power.

"He who dominates East Europe controls the Heartland, (the pivotal part of Eurasia.) He who controls the Heartland controls the World Island, (Eurasia.) He who controls the World Island controls the World".

This is the mantra of the theory of Geopolitics, the theory of Sir Halford MacKinder, (he was a Brit and guru of these people).

In a slightly earlier era, it was called "The Great Game", and British commentators have said immediately, about The current intervention, "It's the Great Game".

I suggest - sorry about this one - a few articles explaining Geopolitics and how it's the great master plan and ideology of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) the heart of the National Security Establishment.

But how did it turn up in America, - it got taken there by Brits trying to involve America in supporting them, and became the watchword of the CFR after 1943-44 and US. foreign policy since the war.

Richard Roper, Sheffield, Yorkshire
UK

SOURCE: http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/geopolitics.htm

A handy history for those wondering how the heck we got to where we are today, at the verge of depopulating a good chunk of the world for the worthies tied to Carlyle Group's sake.

[Maedhros]

21. Oy yes!

Just look at how threatening they are to us.

[KamaAina]

17. It might be possible to drive a diplomatic wedge between Iran and Syria

Iran, you see, is a wee bit touchy about chemical weapons. Much like Japan is about nukes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023559168

Remember this?

[Octafish]

25. It's just business.

Is how the Mobsters put things, like mass murder.

Know Your BFEE: Poppy Bush Armed Saddam

With more sophistication, mobsters move into the genocide line of business.

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

And they make certain the innocent pay their bill.

#t=0s

No one makes me angrier than a warmonger.

[MisterP]

19. wait for '15, ya hair-on-fire Psychlos!

[Octafish]

27. Will there be immunity in the future?

It's going to have to be handed down, generation to generation, administration to administration...

Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For Everything

by Abby Zimet
CommonDreams.org 08.26.13 - 1:20 PM

Days before Bradley - now Chelsea - Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for helping expose U.S. war crimes in Iraq, [font color="blue"]the Obama Department of Justice filed a petition in federal court arguing that the perpetrators of those crimes - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al - enjoy “absolute immunity” against criminal charges or civil liability[/font color]. The filing came in a suit brought by Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, who alleges that the planning and waging of the Iraq war under false pretenses constituted a "crime of aggression" under a law used in the Nuremberg trials. With neither Congress nor Obama willing to hold Bush & Co. accountable for the Iraq catastrophe, supporters see the suit as a last-chance tactic to force the issue back into the public eye - an effort the Obama adminstration clearly opposes. More, all dispiriting, on the increasingly flawed Bush-Obama-lesser-of-two-evils thesis, and the current culture of impunity.

SOURCE w/the links: https://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/08/26

Slam dunk. Hair on fire. Who remembers when we flagged Iraqi tankers? Oh well. How 'bout them Kardashians?

[JEB]

22. Thank you, Octafish, for your many informative posts.

[Octafish]

26. You are most welcome, JEB! Thank you for your kind words.

Here's something about words and war:

Selling War on Syria

August 28th, 2013
by Stephen Lendman

Waging war requires manufacturing consent. Public opinion's manipulated to do so. Big Lies substitute for full and accurate reporting.

SNIP...

Nation magazine cheerleads Obama's administration. It's done so throughout his tenure. It's done it shamelessly. Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel's an establishment figure.

Her maternal grandfather, Jules Stein, founded entertainment conglomerate MCA. Her father, William, was executive assistant to William Donovan. He was involved in CIA's creation.

He was a Farfield Foundation board member. During the Cold War, it was a CIA front group.

Vanden Heuvel supports humanitarian interventions. She does so for "security" and "stability." She's a regular on scoundrel TV. She's a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2013/08/28/selling-war-on-syria

Life's too short as it is. How anyone can devote any of their time to shortening life for others is criminal in the extreme.

[DeSwiss]

23. If ''The West'' = ''Israel'' -- Then yes, Iran is the real target.

Couching it in terms as: ''The West'' gives it more clout and more heft, and attempts to advance the idea that whole countries and the majority of its populations are ready, willing and able to go to war with Iran and/or any other country in the Middle East, when in fact that is not the case. The people of the world are sick and tired of the wars that our ''leaders'' keep getting us into.

- We've all had quite enough......

K&R

[Octafish]

29. Absolutely enough. Had to peel Ray McGovern out from under the bus...

...just the other day. The guy isn't afraid to point out the stepping stones are dots that few in Corporate McPravda and a heck of a lot of the blogosphere seem unable to connect:

In Syria, the Other Target Is Iran

by Ray McGovern
August 28, 2013 by Common Dreams

EXCERPT...

Israel Riding High Again

Dealing with more moderate leaders in Iran remains one of Israel’s major headaches, even as Israel has ridden a string of geopolitical successes over the past several weeks. First and foremost, the Israelis were able to persuade Washington to represent the military coup d’état in Cairo as something other than a military coup, which enabled U.S. military and other aid to keep flowing to the Israel-friendly Egyptian military.

After shielding this blood-stained Egyptian military from geopolitical pressure, Israel was rewarded by the generals’ decision to choke off Gaza’s lifeline to the outside world via Egypt and thus further punish the Gazans for having the temerity to elect the more militant Hamas as their leadership.

With the Palestinians reeling – as their international backers face internal and external pressures — Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has found it timely to return to the bargaining table to discuss what undesirable land might be left for the Palestinians to live on as Netanyahu’s government continues to approve expansions of Jewish settlements on the more appealing patches of Palestinian territory.

The Israeli position vis a vis its Muslim adversaries is also improved by the spreading of sectarian conflicts pitting Sunni vs. Shiite, a rift that was turned into a chasm – and made much bloodier – by the neocon-inspired U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now, similar divisions are shattering Syria in a chaotic civil war with the growing likelihood that the Obama administration will soon weigh in militarily against the Alawite-dominated regime of Bashar al-Assad, which is being challenged by a Sunni-led rebellion. Alawites stem from the Shiite branch of Islam and Assad is allied with Shiite-ruled Iran.

The more the Sunni and Shiite are fighting each other – and thus expending their resources on internecine warfare – the better for Israel, at least in the view of neocon hardliners like those who crafted Netanyahu’s “clean-break” strategy in the 1990s. That strategy would see the snuffing out of the Syrian regime as a signature accomplishment.

CONTINUED...

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/28-3

And while he disagrees with Tel Aviv on a lot of things, Ray's no anti-Semite.

[liberal N proud]

28. So bombing Syria could be a shot across the bow of Iran?

Is that what I am to understand from this?

[Octafish]

30. In part.

The other part is, "Tehran! You're next."