AMINTIRI DESPRE VIITOR-ROMÂNIA DE MÂINE , RrOMANIKA BABANA
Doriți să reacționați la acest mesaj? Creați un cont în câteva clickuri sau conectați-vă pentru a continua.

politica


Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)

AMINTIRI DESPRE VIITOR-ROMÂNIA DE MÂINE , RrOMANIKA BABANA :: O LUME NEBUNA, NEBUNA -POLITICA INTERNATIONALA :: POLITICA INTERNATIONALA :: CRIZE SI CONFLICTE -Diplomatia in carje -PACE SAU RAZBOI ? :: ORIENTUL APROPIAT :: IRAN new PEARL HARBOUR

In jos

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran) Empty Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)

Mesaj Scris de Admin Joi Noi 24, 2016 5:00 am


& integral pe site
Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government: James Morris Dares to Mention the Taboo History
In Russia Today’s recent Crosstalk program on Syria, guest  James Morris  was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel  lobby has been in the forefront  in pushing a hardline interventionist  approach for the US toward that divided country. The host and the two other  guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea  on the grounds that (in their  minds) it would not be in Israel’s national interest to topple the secular  Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even  more hostile to Israel.  But when one  moves from speculation to an analysis  of the actual position of members of the Israel lobby, one can see that  Morris was completely correct.  Moreover, Morris was completely correct  in  pointing out that the Israel lobby’s  position  has nothing to do with  ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as members of  the Israel lobby have perceived Israel’s interest (which might not be the  same as the Crosstalk threesome.)
The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel lobby, have especially been  ardent in their advocacy of a hardline, interventionist position toward  Syria. Evidence abounds for this finding, but it is best encapsulated by an  August 2011 open letter from  the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense  of Democracies (an organization which claims to address any “threat facing  America, Israel and the West”)  to  President Obama, urging  him to take  stronger measures against Syria.  Among the  signatories of the letter are  such neocon luminaries  as: Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of neocon “godfather”  Norman Podhoretz and a former National Security adviser to President George  W. Bush); the Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot; “Weekly Standard”  editor Bill Kristol;   Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy  under George W. Bush and an author of the “Clean Break” policy paper);  Joshua Muravchik (affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute [AEI],  the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and “Commentary”);  Frederick W. Kagan (AEI, co-author of the “surge” in Iraq);  Robert Kagan  (co-founder of the Project for the New American Century PNAC); James Woolsey  (head of the CIA under Clinton and chair of  the  Foundation for Defense of  Democracies); Randy Scheunemann (former President of the Committee for the  Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs adviser to John McCain in his 2008  presidential campaign); Reuel Marc Gerecht (former Director of the Project  for the New American Century’s Middle East Initiative and a former resident  fellow at AEI); Michael Makovsky (advisor to the propagandistic Office of  Special Plans, which was under Douglas Feith); John Hannah ( senior fellow  at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [WINEP] and a former  national security adviser to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney); and  Gary  Schmitt (AEI and former President for the Project for a New American  Century).
As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in  Syria was not an idea conceived by either  the neocons or the broader Israel  lobby; rather it  can be traced back to the Israeli  Likudniks, being  articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for Israel in the  Nineteen Eighties.”    In this article, Yinon called for Israel to use  military means to bring about the dissolution of  Israel’s neighboring  states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian  groupings. Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking  because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and  religious divisions. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of  powerless mini-statelets that could in no way confront Israeli power.  Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon’s model for the entire Middle  East. Yinon wrote: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves  as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and  the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution  of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such  as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long  run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as  the primary short term target.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 51)
What stands out in the stark contrast to the debate taking place  today is that Yinon’s rationale for  eliminating the dictatorial regimes in  Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with  their oppressive practices and lack of democracy, but rather was based  solely on Israel’s geostrategic interests-the aim being to permanently  weaken Israel’s enemies.     The neoconservatives took up the gist of the  Yinon’s position  in their 1996 Clean Break policy paper, whose authors  included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, which was  presented to then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It  urged him  to use military force against a number of Israel’s enemies, which beginning  with Iraq would include  “weakening, containing, and even rolling back  Syria.”  Once again the fundamental concern was Israeli security, not  liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. (“The Transparent  Cabal,” p. 90)
Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 expressed the need to  confront Syria in order to protect the security of both the United States  and Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided.  And this position on  Syria was concurred in  by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one  month before the US invasion of Iraq,  identified it, along with Libya and  Iran,  as an ideal target for  future US action.  Sharon stated:  “These are  irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass  destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make  that easier to achieve.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,”  p. 172)
A month after Bush’s 2004 re-election,  Bill Kristol would emphasize  the key position of Syria in the “war on terrorism.”  He wrote in the  “Weekly Standard” that because Syria was allegedly interfering with  America’s efforts to put down the insurgency  in Iraq,  it was thus  essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as  part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” (Quoted in “The  Transparent Cabal,” pp. 253-254)
The close ties  between Syria and Iran would begin to provide a  fundamental reason for the neocons’ desire to take action against Syria.  It  was this factor that shaped neocon thinking on the Israel’s July 2006  incursion into Lebanon.  Some months after the Israeli invasion, neocon  Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush administration that  was setting US policy on Lebanon, with the aim being a direct Israeli  confrontation with Syria. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that  Israel got a lot of time and space,” Wurmser stated. “They believed that  Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that  Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It  was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the  thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit.”  Furthermore, “If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow  for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in  the Middle East.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 278)
And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a  casus belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons  sought.  Michael Ledeen opined, “The only way we are going to win this war  is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus and they are not going  to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and  Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can  accomplish it.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)  Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article,  “It’s Our War,”  underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing  conflict. America “might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression  [arms provided to Hezbollah]  with a military strike against Iranian nuclear  facilities.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)
As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime  has existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time.  And it  currently propels the demand for militant action  against the Syrian  government.    Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a  way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous enemy),  or even leading to war with it.    That Israel might not benefit from regime  change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear such a  development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and much of  the overall Israel lobby support it.  And it is they who affect the policy  of the United States.
Stephen  Sniegoski
——————————————————————-
Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government
 
The Israel Lobby’s Role in Pushing for Regime Change in Syria
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East


Ultima editare efectuata de catre Admin in Joi Noi 24, 2016 5:30 am, editata de 1 ori
Admin
Admin
Admin

Mesaje : 10765
Data de înscriere : 05/11/2012

https://amintiridespreviitor.forumgratuit.ro

Sus In jos

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran) Empty continuare 3

Mesaj Scris de Admin Joi Noi 24, 2016 5:27 am

Obama’s Syria War Scheme Uses ISIL as a Pretext:
Here Come the Kagans-Their War Plan to Defeat the Islamic State:
A New Neocon Push for Syrian War (by Colleen Rowley):
Lavrov slams US, UN for undermining Geneva peace talks on Syria:
Obama plans to escalate civil war in Syria (for the Israel lobby per Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan of course!)
President Obama is asking Congress for $500 million to train and arm Syrian opposition:
White House requests $500 million to aid Syrian rebels:
Obama’s Half-Billion to Syria’s ‘Moderates’:
Haaretz is a Left Zionist Israeli news outlet and Obama (in relation to the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy), embraces a Left Zionist political line. Here we see it clearly. Obama rejects the Palestinian Right of Return as he clearly states he wants a Jewish State (democratic sic) and strongly implies the US is aiding the Syrian opposition to help Israel and will never allow Iran to have nukes (even though Israel possesses hundreds of them):
Peace is the only path to true security for Israel and the Palestinians:
Pat Buchanan: Congress Can Stop Obama’s Ramp Up to War
Pat Buchanan: 300 nukes in Israel yet Iran a threat? 
Netanyahu seems to validate Oded Yinon plan with following:
Jewish John Kerry threatening war (via chapter 7 at UN) vs Syria again:
Sniegoski on Cockburn Article about Regional Significance of Syria
Going after Syria in accordance with the neocon ‘Clean Break’ war for Israel agenda that the Iraq invasion was based on!:
A Short History: The Neocon “Clean Break” Grand Design And The ‘Regime Change’ Disasters It Has Fostered:
Pat Buchanan also mentioned the ‘Clean Break’ in his excellent ‘Whose War?’ article: http://tinyurl.com/whosewarac
Neocon inspired Chaos
Glad to see RT’s ‘CrossTalk’ host Peter Lavelle mention neocon agenda for Iran in following youtube (but he won’t mention the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan that James Morris did on ‘CrossTalk’ via youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXQFUAuB2Cs):
Blaming Obama for Iraq’s chaos:
Dr. Stephen Sniegoski wrote:
The following is my new article “The Mainstream Media, ISIS, and Iraq War Déjà Vu,” which shows how the mainstream media has been presenting a somewhat attenuated version of neocon war propaganda that is driving the US back to war in Iraq:
The Mainstream Media, ISIS, and Iraq War Déjà Vu
Stephen J. Sniegoski
Failed US invasion of Iraq resulted in ISIL: Interview with James Morris
ISIL part of US neocon, Israeli agenda to reshape Middle East: Analyst:


White House strongly hints US will strike ISIL in Syria:
Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack:
Israeli TV report shows air force gearing-up for Iran attack, says moment of truth is near
James Morris on Israel’s rarely discussed Samson Option
Additional Press TV and Russia Today interviews with James Morris linked via youtube at https://www.youtube.com/badbearness
Posted in Zionist Threat
Admin
Admin
Admin

Mesaje : 10765
Data de înscriere : 05/11/2012

https://amintiridespreviitor.forumgratuit.ro

Sus In jos

Sus

- Subiecte similare

AMINTIRI DESPRE VIITOR-ROMÂNIA DE MÂINE , RrOMANIKA BABANA :: O LUME NEBUNA, NEBUNA -POLITICA INTERNATIONALA :: POLITICA INTERNATIONALA :: CRIZE SI CONFLICTE -Diplomatia in carje -PACE SAU RAZBOI ? :: ORIENTUL APROPIAT :: IRAN new PEARL HARBOUR

 
Permisiunile acestui forum:
Nu puteti raspunde la subiectele acestui forum