As the world descends into global guerilla warfare, engulfed by espionage, assassinations, and worldwide intrigue, Jeffrey Steinberg at Lyndon LaRouche offers a plausible theory as to who is REALLY behind the fiasco in Iraq and the Middle East.
While the hands and feet of this "three civil war" fiasco may be American, the authorship of the Armageddon drive is distinctly British.
* * *
[T]he Bush Administration has launched a new berserker "diplomatic" initiative, which, if successful, would likely trigger a new Hundred Years' War, starting in Southwest Asia, but soon engulfing much of the planet in chaos.
The Cheney scheme to promote a so-called "Sunni alliance" to counter Iran's growing Shi'ite dominance over the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean region, is the latest handiwork of a crew of outright British agents, who have employed the thuggish Vice President and his deadly wife, to wreck the United States from within, as a step towards undoing the entire nation-state system.
On the surface, the argument could credibly be made that the immediate target of the Cheney trip to Riyadh—the latest victim of a Cheney preemptive strike—was his long-time political rival cum arch-enemy, James Baker III. Cheney's push for a Sunni military alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv against Iran was, after all, kicked off literally moments before the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group held its final meetings, before presenting its findings to the White House and the outgoing Congress on Dec. 6. Those findings were widely reported to include the call for a regional peace conference and the beginning of direct diplomatic talks among the United States, Iran, and Syria.
But the reality is different. By the time the Baker-Hamilton study group was seated around the conference table at the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington, the "Ultimate Decider," President Bush, had already "decided." He shot off his mouth at the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, declaring that the United States will not consider withdrawal from Iraq until "victory" has been achieved, and will not talk with Iran or Syrian.
Moreover, State Department official Nicholas Burns had told reporters travelling with the President that the goal of the NATO summit in Riga, apart from the push for increased NATO troop deployments in Afghanistan, would be to forge closer security ties between NATO and the leading American allies in the Pacific Far East, and in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean. In the case of the Persian Gulf, Burns singled out the Gulf Cooperation Council, the alliance of Sunni oil sheikhdoms, as the best vehicle for NATO extension. Qatar and Kuwait, two GCC members, have already been engaged in quiet talks with NATO, on increasing defense cooperation, according to one well-placed Arab source.
And on Nov. 29, Nawaf Obaid, an advisor to the Saudi government, penned a Washington Post op-ed, threatening that Saudi Arabia would intervene to arm the Sunni population in Iraq, were the United States to withdraw its troops. "To be sure," Obeid warned, "Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks—it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse."
In point of fact, there never was a Bush Administration "policy review" on the Middle East. Senior Washington sources have reported that the United States is doing exactly what Jordan's King Abdallah II warned against on Nov. 26, in an appearance on CBS-TV: fomenting three civil wars in the region—in Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories, and in Iraq.
· In Lebanon, the U.S., in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, is covertly arming the Sunni Muslims, in preparation for a showdown with Hezbollah, the Shi'ite political movement whose militia defeated Israel's military invasion in the July 2006 Lebanese War. According to one eyewitness account, truckloads of arms are being distributed in Beirut after midnight every night. What's more, al-Qaeda elements, operating in northern Lebanon, are reportedly conduiting arms to the Lebanese Sunni—with the see-no-evil approval of Washington and Riyadh. Current events inside Lebanon are reminiscent of Henry Kissinger's mid-1970s orchestration of the first Lebanese Civil War, which began with a string of targetted assassinations, and was stoked by a massive clandestine infusion of weapons to all sides.
· In the Palestinian territories, the United States, in league with Jordan, is covertly arming and training Fatah militia factions, with the aim of orchestrating a showdown with Hamas. Furthermore, every effort at establishing a Palestinian national unity government, with Hamas and Fatah, has been shot down by the Bush Administration, giving Israel the green light to continue to withhold tax payments to the Palestinian Authority, thus creating a cauldron of poverty and rage. On Dec. 1, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced that the unity talks had totally broken down, and that he could call early elections.
· In Iraq, the Bush Administration is fueling the downward spiral into full-scale civil war and ethnic cleansing—including an effort to induce Shia versus Shia fighting. Just hours before the scheduled meeting of President Bush with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 29, the White House disclosed a classified memorandum by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, questioning the Iraqi Prime Minister's ability to deliver.
The memo—which was "leaked" to the New York Times by a "senior administration official" who also briefed the author of the Times story, Michael Gordon—stated, in part: "His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
The White House leak guaranteed that the Bush-Maliki meeting would be a fiasco. Reportedly, the President pressed the Iraqi Prime Minister to crack down on Shi'ite leader Muktadr al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, a preposterous demand, given that Sadr had delivered the decisive votes to get Maliki the Prime Ministership in the first place, and his militia is larger, more disciplined, and better armed than the official Iraqi Army. To further fuel Shia versus Shia communal violence, President Bush announced on Dec. 2 that he would be hosting Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the president of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), at the White House. There, he will reportedly press Hakim to turn his Badr Brigade against the Mahdi Army. Sheer madness!
* * *
It is no secret that Vice President Cheney operates under the influence of three notorious British agents: Dr. Bernard Lewis, Dr. Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz.
For Lewis, the British Arab Bureau Zionist spook who originated the "Clash of Civilization" lunacy in 1990, a Sunni versus Shi'ite conflict in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean region, would be the ultimate British imperial "wet dream." Lewis has been Cheney's key "advisor" on Arab and Islamic affairs, frequently participating in private dinner seminars at the Vice Presidential Residence at the Naval Observatory.
Washington Post author Bob Woodward wrote in his latest book, Denial, that Cheney admitted to him that Henry Kissinger, the author of the Malthusian National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), has been his most frequent outside advisor on national security and foreign policy affairs—particularly Iraq.
In May 1982, Kissinger boasted, at a public event at Chatham House, the London headquarters of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), that he took his cue, as Nixon and Ford's National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, "from the British Foreign Office," often working directly off Foreign Office draft documents. In the same speech, Kissinger waxed eloquent on the imperial virtues of Winston Churchill, while denouncing the "moralizing" of Franklin Roosevelt.
And while ground zero for the planned chaos is the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean, the primary target is not the oil patch: It is the United States.
The Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialist faction, the Venetian-modelled structure behind the antics of Lewis, Kissinger, and Shultz, is dedicated to a world empire, built on the rotting corpse of the nation-state system.
To achieve that goal, the United States, itself, must be destroyed—internally through economic and social disintegration, and globally, through a string of horrific policy fiascos. That is what is behind the latest insanity from Bush and Cheney. They are the dupes in a high-stakes British game to destroy the United States once and for all.
For these oligarchs, the prospect of a United States surviving the Bush-Cheney Presidency, with its constitutional institutions intact, is unacceptable. They fear a revival of the American System, and understand that the resounding electoral defeat of Bush and Cheney on Nov. 7, was a mandate for impeachment, and a demand for fundamental changes in economic and national security policy.
Furthermore, they know that their vision of a one-world empire, led by an Anglo-Dutch-centered financier oligarchy, is unattainable, without a massive reduction in world population. They therefore welcome a new Hundred Years' War. They relish the prospect of global chaos, asymmetric warfare, and waves of disease and famine.
They do not seek an American giant, flexing its muscle while tugging on a British leash. They want the United States Constitutional ship to sink in the depths of the ocean. Why else would anyone have engineered George W. Bush and Dick Cheney into the White House?
Far fetched? I don't think so.
I ran into this story shortly after reading Steinberg's -
Notwithstanding Silverstein's flowery promises to rebuild the 'freedom towers' - New York and America are not meant to recover from 9/11.
If the scheming moneychangers in London have their way, it will mark the end of the American experiment and final payback for 1776.