I was scrounging around some recently (last year) declassified documents produced by the State Department of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika when I came across a gem. The official title of the document, in case you want to check it yourself to prove that I am not making this stuff up, is "UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015." The best way to convey the full impact of this prime example of the imperialistic nature of the Amerikan Empire is to quote large portions of the document for you: (the bold highlights are my own)
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weaponsprogram — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier
to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons
would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region....
Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes."
I trust you are as flabbergasted as I am by what is written above. How can the idiots at the State Department be so dumb? How can our rulers be so ignorant of world affairs? How can anyone in his right mind believe the things those who rule over us apparently believe? How can they be so blindingly ignorant of the recent history of the Middle East? How can they so misunderstand basic human nature? And, most depressing of all, how can these people be trusted with the power to do the things they want to do? Let's consider the highlighted points in the above document in this blog post today.
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear
capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar
Assad." Did you get all that? Despite what you read or hear on the news, the fact of the matter is that the SDA does everything it does in the Middle East to support Israel. I am shocked and amazed that the State Department would declassify a document in which it is flatly stated that the SDA is covertly and overtly attempting to overthrow the properly appointed government of a foreign country in order to protect Israel. The fact that Israel is the flashpoint for all international problems associated with the Middle East is well established. Prior to the creation of Israel in 1948 the various warring factions in the Middle East were minor players on the world stage. They were free to wage wars of jihad against each other to their heart's content until the SDA-backed Israeli government was created. Now the State Department simply assumes that "the people of Syria" worship and adore the Amerikan Empire and can't wait for its military forces to show up and murder their leader. All past sins against them perpetuated by the SDA are forgiven. The dispossession of the Palestinians is apparently no longer important to any Syrian. No justification is given for those beliefs despite the fact they run contrary to human nature and the political history of the region. Nevertheless, our rulers believe them to be true.
"For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not
the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked
Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of
both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but
cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian
nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but
could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go
nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in
which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional
military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today" This long paragraph reveals a tremendous amount about the mindset of the military and political leaders of the SDA. In public we are always told that Iran can't be permitted to develop a nuclear bomb because some crazed Imam will eventually detonate one in Israel. In private the State Department clearly does not believe its own propaganda. Shockingly, this document reveals that Israel's primary motivation for its actions in the Middle East as a pawn of the SDA is something they cannot talk about in public. What is the primary motivation for Israel in the Middle East? To maintain, by means of SDA hegemony, its nuclear monopoly. The SDA is terrified of the prospect that some country might actually fight back. I have posted articles to this blog before pointing out that North Korean dictators are free to do as they please because North Korean has nuclear weapons. The SDA will not fight any country it does not know in advance it can annihilate. A nuclear weapon changes all of that. Suddenly the big bully on the block has to back down. The State Department blatantly admits that Israel engages in military strikes against Syria and Lebanon primarily because it has nuclear capability and they don't. Why are these truths never revealed to the public via the major news outlets? Why are we, the citizens of the SDA, not told what our rulers really believe?
"It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar
Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's
security...The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance....In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria." Why is Israel's national security the business of the SDA? Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say that one of the functions of the federal government and the military is to support the governments of foreign nations? Why are my tax dollars being used to equip the Israeli military? If you are not a Dispensationalist, and therefore bound to support Israel because you wrongly believe they are God's chosen people, what is the moral argument for arming and equipping a nation that came into existence by stealing the land and property of thousands of people? Furthermore, how can the State Department confidently declare that killing Assad will end the alliance between Syria and Iran? How do they know that the next government that arises in Syria will oppose Iran, just like the SDA does? Answer: Because the SDA rulers intend to establish a puppet government in Syria just like they have in Iraq. Now tell me, how has that Iraqi puppet government been working out? Are the people of Iraq pleased as punch with their Amerikan saviors? The use of moral terminology by saying that the SDA military must overthrown Assad and create a puppet government in Syria as the "right thing" is straight out of Orwell. Only a person committed to the adoration of the Amerikan Empire and to belief in the absurd principles of Amerikan "exceptionalism" could make such an assertion with a straight face.
"But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle
East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass
opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the
better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from
which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region... The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend,
not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting
for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes." These final statements are perhaps the most ridiculous of all. The people in the State Department responsible for expanding the Amerikan Empire in the Middle East, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, continue to persist in their belief that Amerikan soldiers are liberators and that the peoples of the various countries of the Middle East will embrace them as heroes after they come in and bomb them to oblivion. They stupidly and blindly continue to hold to the view that Amerikan interference in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations is always perceived positively by the people who live in those countries. They persist in these outrageous beliefs despite the fact that no, read that again, no, intervention in a sovereign country has ever ended well. We need look no further than the disaster the SDA military has created in Iraq. After a day or two of celebration by the handful of people who hated Saddam Hussein, the great majority of the citizens of the country were plunged into a civil war that has destroyed their property and taken millions of their lives.
If the SDA is successful in overthrowing Assad and establishing a puppet government in the land I predict that things will go from bad to worse. I also predict that everything predicted by the bozos at the State Department will not come true. On the contrary, the safest prediction for the future of Syria would be to believe the exact opposite of what our rulers expect will happen if and when Assad is murdered.
Note to regular readers:
I am taking the next two weeks off to travel the world. I will return with my next blog post on Tuesday, November 1st, Lord willing. And thanks for reading.