|
by Brandon Turbeville
January 26,
2018
from
BrandonTurbeville Website
With the recent
unrest in Iran seemingly organized and orchestrated by outside
forces such as the U.S. color revolution apparatus in concert with
Saudi Arabia, it is becoming more and more clear to individuals
observing the situation in the Middle East that the plan to destroy
Iran is now coming into view.
Even before Syria was destabilized by
Western forces in 2011, Iran had been placed on the chopping block
on the list of countries that would be ripped apart for the crime of
not acquiescing to dictates of the Western financial system.
From
being included in
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech to being discussed by the
Project for a New American Century
as a target shortly before
9/11 became the "New Pearl Harbor" to justify the rapid spread of
American empire across the world and eviscerate what was left of
civil liberties at home, Iran has been in the crosshairs of the
Western financier system.
Likewise,
Iran was identified by General
Wesley Clark as one of the
countries set to be attacked and destroyed by the United States
after 9/11.
Ever since 2001, Iran has been a topic of discussion by politicians,
intelligence agencies, the military, and a myriad of Western
financier "think tanks" in terms of how the country can best be
destabilized, weakened, or destroyed.
The Brookings
Institution Report - Which Path to Persia?
The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran,
along with the theatre of alleged U.S.-Israeli tensions leading up
to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time.
For instance, in
2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and
military-industrial firm, released a report entitled "Which
Path to Persia? - Options for a New American Strategy for Iran,"
in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to
the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and
governing classes.
The plan involves the
description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be
able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and
occupation.
However, the report attempts to outline a number of
methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military
invasion would be necessary.
The plan included attempting to foment
destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus,
violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and "limited airstrikes" conducted
by the U.S., Israel or both.
Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken
against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a
fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout
the general public.
The report reads,
…any military
operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the
world and require the proper international context - both to
ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to
minimize the blowback from it.
The best way to minimize
international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging
or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread
conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a
superb offer - one so good that only a regime determined to
acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons
would turn it down.
Under those circumstances, the United States
(or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not
anger, and at least some in the international community would
conclude that the Iranians "brought it on themselves" by
refusing a very good deal.
From the writings
of Brookings, it is readily apparent for all to see what the latest
browbeating over the "terrible" Iran deal and how the Iranians are
not living up to their obligations under the agreement coming from
the Trump administration are all about.
The United States has
bullied Iran into accepting a deal it should never have had to agree
to in the first place and now the U.S. is attempting to add
restrictions and obligations that were never part of the deal to
begin with and/or claim that Iran is not living up to its end of the
deal.
If Iran refuses to comply with the additional mandates or if
the world is susceptible enough to the American and Israeli
propaganda attempting to paint Iran as uncooperative, Iran will be
painted as having refused "a very good deal."
As the report states,
any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran
has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been
disseminated throughout the general public.
For that reason, the
idea is being promulgated that Iran was offered a great deal at the
disadvantage of the United States but Iran would not abide by even
this agreement, continuing to insist on gaining nuclear weapons to
destroy the U.S. and poor innocent Israel, forcing America's hand
after diplomacy failed.
Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the
Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but
by entirely rational players.
Still, they move forward with a number
of options for attacking Iran.
It should thus be obvious to anyone
reading this report that the U.S., NATO, and Israel are uninterested
in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian
destruction.
"The so-called
'Iran deal,' introduced during the administration of U.S.
President Barack Obama,
represents precisely this 'superb offer,' with Flynn's
accusations serving as the 'turn down' ahead of the 'sorrowful'
war and attempted regime change the U.S. had always planned to
target Tehran with," writes
Tony Cartalucci .
The report
continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack
on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a
non-threatening nation into war.
It states,
The truth is
that these all would be challenging cases to make.
For that
reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States
could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the
airstrikes before launching them.
Clearly, the more outrageous,
the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the
better off the United States would be.
Of course, it would be
very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a
provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game,
which would then undermine it.
(One method that would have some
possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime
change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly,
or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an
unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
The question of the
Israeli role in the possible attack against Iran is also mentioned
by Brookings.
In fact, in the
chapter entitled, "Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military
Strike," Brookings not only outlines a potential strategy but
essentially admits that the U.S.-Israeli tension being hyped in the
Western media is nothing more than a farce.
Moreover, it discusses
the possibility of Israel taking the lead in an attack against Iran,
knowing that the U.S. would be drawn in under the guise of
"defending" Israel.
With an American public so thoroughly
brainwashed to believe it is the religious duty of Christians to act
as the sword Israel, it might very well be successful propaganda.
Israel, of course, is adept at using its symbiotic relationship with
the U.S., always ready to fight and die to the last American.
In Chapter 5:
entitled "Leave It to Bibi - Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli
Military Strike," the document states,
...the most
salient advantage this option has over that of an American air
campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed
for the attack.
If this proves true, then the United States
might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the
diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military
operation against Iran.
It could allow Washington to have its
cake (delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it,
too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic
initiatives).
The Which Path to
Persia document also contained a section dedicated to the overthrow
of the Iranian government via "soft power" means.
In a section
titled, "THE VELVET REVOLUTION: Supporting A Popular Uprising," the
paper reads,
Because the
Iranian regime is widely disliked by many Iranians, the most
obvious and palatable method of bringing about its demise would
be to help foster a popular revolution along the lines of the
"velvet revolutions" that toppled many communist governments in
Eastern Europe beginning in 1989.
For many proponents of regime
change, it seems self-evident that the United States should
encourage the Iranian people to take power in their own name,
and that this would be the most legitimate method of regime
change.
After all, what Iranian or foreigner could object to
helping the Iranian people fulfill their own desires?
.....
The true objective of this policy option is to overthrow the
clerical regime in Tehran and see it replaced, hopefully, by one
whose views would be more compatible with U.S. interests in the
region.
Interestingly
enough, the paper continues by discussing some of the exact methods
to be used against Iran in the coming "velvet revolution" as well as
some of the methods that are currently being used to those ends.
The
paper reads,
The United
States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution.
By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime,
the United States could create an alternative leadership to
seize power.
As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee
argues, students and other groups,
"need covert backing for their
demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet
access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep
vigilantes from beating them up."
Beyond this, U.S.-backed media
outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise
obscure critics more prominent.
The United States already
supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America
Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to
Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion's share of
overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran).
U.S.
economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can
discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival
leadership.
Under another
section entitled "Finding the right proxies," the paper lists
"intellectuals," "students," "labor and civil society
organizations."
In another section of the paper, Brookings discusses the possibility
of initiating a military intervention in support of the "revolution"
Western powers have instigated on the ground.
Found in the "Military
Intervention" section of the paper, Brookings writes,
...if the
United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the
clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to
provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran
from crushing it.
.....
...if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington
must take this possibility into consideration.
It adds some very
important requirements to the list: either the policy must
include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the
willingness of the regime's leaders to call on the military, or
else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.
As Tony Cartalucci
writes,
In essence,
Brookings quickly admits that its "velvet revolution" would be
the fulfillment of Washington's desires, not the Iranian
people's - pursued merely under the guise of helping Iranians
fulfill their own desires.
As the CIA itself admits in its own
historical records that U.S. "interests in the region" are based
on economic exploitation and the enrichment of Wall Street and
Washington, not lifting up, empowering, or enriching the Iranian
people.
It is an open
admission regarding U.S. designs for Iran demonstrated on multiple
occasions elsewhere from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine and
Yemen - what is promoted as progressive political revolution
supported by the "democratic" West is in fact the destruction
and subjugation of a nation, its people, and its resources at
the cost of global peace and prosperity.
In addition to
direct military invasion and "velvet revolution" through soft power,
Brookings discusses the possibility of creating an "armed
insurrection."
The paper reads:
As much as many
Americans might like to help the Iranian people rise up and take
their destiny in their own hands, the evidence suggests that its
likelihood is low - and that American assistance could well make
it less likely rather than more.
Consequently, some who favor
fomenting regime change in Iran argue that it is utopian to hold
out hope for a velvet revolution; instead, they contend that the
United States should turn to Iranian opposition groups that
already exist, that already have demonstrated a desire to fight
the regime, and who appear willing to accept U.S. assistance.
In this discussion,
Brookings points to the MEK radical Marxist terrorist group tacitly
supported by the United States and Israel.
It should be noted that
the MEK was removed from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in
2012.
The paper states,
Perhaps the
most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition
group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is
the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political
movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq).
.....
...the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign
terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three
U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran.
During the
1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take
American hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group
leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group
celebrations were widespread. Undeniably, the group has
conducted terrorist attacks - often excused by the MEK's advocates
because they are directed against the Iranian government.
For
example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the
Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership's
main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior
officials.
More recently, the group has claimed credit for over
a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on
Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001.
At
the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in
an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the
list of foreign terrorist organizations.
The report also
mentions briefly the need for the cooperation of neighboring states.
It states,
Of equal
importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a
neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid
to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where
the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply...
...without such a partner, it would be far more difficult for
the United States to support an insurgency.
One thing that the
United States would have in its favor when searching for a state
to play this role is that many of Iran's neighbors dislike and
fear the Islamic Republic.
.....
Properly executed, covert support to an insurgency would provide
the United States with "plausible deniability." As a result, the
diplomatic and political backlash would likely be much less than
if the United States were to mount a direct military action.
Of course, the
United States has already established willing partners neighboring
Iran.
Afghanistan, particularly, which the U.S. invaded in 2001 and
where it remains to this day seventeen years later, is a perfect
conduit for supporting an "armed insurgency" as well as a direct
military invasion.
Pakistan also serves as an easily managed conduit
nation. Iraq also stands as another country the U.S. invaded in 2003
and fifteen years later, still remains.
This is one of several
reasons why Iran has involved itself so heavily in both Iraq and
Syria.
"Of course," Cartalucci writes,
"Brookings' own publicly-published conspiracy coupled together
with the U.S.' demonstrated use of proxies in Syria, Iraq,
Libya, Yemen, and now Iran, lays bare this strategy and
mitigates whatever 'plausible deniability' Washington hoped to
maintain."
"Regardless," says Cartalucci, "the West,
through its formidable influence in the media, will attempt to
maintain plausible deniability regarding U.S. involvement in
Iranian unrest until the last possible moment - not unlike how
it hid its role in executing the so-called 'Arab Spring' during
its opening phases despite plotting and organizing the mayhem
years in advance."
But Brookings admits that it might not be necessary to completely
destroy Iran or even to overthrow the government. Instead, it
suggests that it may be worthwhile to simply keep the government
under constant pressure.
Brookings writes,
...even if U.S.
support for an insurgency failed to produce the overthrow of the
regime, it could still place Tehran under considerable pressure,
which might either prevent the regime from making mischief
abroad or persuade it to make concessions on issues of
importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and
support to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban).
Indeed,
Washington might decide that this second objective is a more
compelling rationale for supporting an insurgency than the (much
less likely) goal of actually overthrowing the regime.
Indeed, a weakened
Iran continuously occupied with internal disputes, protests, and
social unrest may very well serve as an acceptable Plan B for the
authors of the Brookings report as well as the intended audience.
Destabilizing Iran is
Nothing New
Attempts at destabilizing the Iranian government are by no means
anything new. In 2009, the United States attempted to engineer a
color revolution in Iran known as the Green Movement or Green
Revolution.
The color revolution was quickly put down by the iron
fist of the Iranian government and Iran remained free of internal
strife until 2018 when the U.S. once again attempted to stir up
popular sentiment against the Iranian government.
Again, the
government was able to quickly quell the revolt which itself was
much smaller than the 2009 version.
Tony Cartalucci also discusses the indirect
role of the United States in the Iranian 1979 Revolution due to the
revolution itself being a reaction to decades of American meddling
in Iran.
Indeed, American destabilization methods go all the way
back to 1953, when the United States overthrow the Iranian President
Mohammad Mosadegh and installed the repressive Shah.
Cartalucci writes,
While pro-war
circles in the U.S. claim the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an
instance of Iran drawing first blood, the revolution was in fact
a direct response to then already decades of U.S. meddling in Iran
stretching back as early as 1953 with the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency's Operation AJAX.
Regarding
Operation AJAX, in an entry on the CIA's own website titled, "All
the Shah's Men - An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East
Terror," it admits:
The target was
not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected
government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor
threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests.
The
CIA's covert intervention - codenamed TPAJAX - preserved the Shah's
power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil
infrastructure.
It also transformed a turbulent constitutional
monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of
unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic
revolution of 1979 - and, Kinzer argues in his breezily written,
well-researched popular history, perhaps to today.
The article - a
review by the CIA's own history staff of a book regarding
Operation AJAX - admits that U.S. policy regarding Iran merely
picked up where the British Empire left off in an effort to
reassert rapidly-slipping Western control over the globe.
In no
way was U.S. efforts to undermine and control the government of
Iran described in terms of protecting U.S. national security or
promoting democracy - and in fact was characterized instead as
undermining Iranian self-determination.
It is this
admission that reveals the core truth of today's tensions
between Iran and the United States.
The West still seeks to
reassert itself and its economic interests in the Middle East.
Notions of "freedom," "democracy," as well as threats of
"terrorism," "nuclear holocaust," and even the ongoing conflict
with nearby Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf States
are but facades behind which this self-serving neo-imperial
agenda is pursued.
Why Iran?
There are a number of reasons why the United States and the NATO
imperial army would like to see Iran destroyed over the coming
years. Geopolitical reasons are, of course, front and center.
On one level, the Israeli connection stands as one obvious reason
the United States has maintained an anti-Iran posture for nearly two
decades. Iran not only stands as a regional opponent to the whims
and aims of the Israeli settler state, but it also bankrolls and
supports one of the greatest forces of opposition to Israel
directly.
Indeed, Israel was humiliated by Hezbollah in front of the
world in 2006. Thus, if Iran is destroyed, Hezbollah goes with it
and two of Israel's biggest and most effective opponents disappear
from the game board.
The United States also sees Iran as an opponent due to Iran's
resistance to the Anglo-American insistence on global hegemony of
its "Western" system of financial and corporate overseers in a
global plantation owned by a world oligarchy.
Iran stands in
opposition to the Western system because it refuses to engage in a
system private central banking as well as corporate and private
financier domination of its society and culture.
Maintaining its own
national bank has long been a source of irritation for Wall Street
and City of London vampires eager to sink their fangs into the blood
supply of every nation on earth as has its refusal to knuckle under
to the destruction of its culture through insidious methods and its
alliance with other opponents of the Western agenda.
Iran also remains a close Russian ally and the last domino that
needs to fall before the great Anglo-American army can march forward
directly into Russia and break the largest country in the world into
"manageable" parts.
Once Iran is destroyed, Russia will be largely
isolated and left to face the NATO alliance which has been slowly
surrounding Russia over the last two decades.
Conclusion
While the recent protests may have disappeared from the
headlines and the streets, the plan to bring Iran to its knees is no
doubt continuing.
Indeed, a plan that has seen such massive amounts
of commitment, spanning decades of administrations, is not likely to
be abandoned anytime soon.
After all, the United States recently
announced that it will not be leaving Syria and essentially admitted
that it will continue to support the creation of Kurdistan.
As
documents, think tanks, and important geostrategic actors have
repeatedly demonstrated through their writings, Iran remains an
immensely important target.
The streets of Iran may be quiet today
but, if the United States, NATO, GCC, and Israel have anything to
say about it, they won't be for long.
|
