Kick Starting WWIII Neocon Style
The rhetoric of war is picking up steam. The never-ending neoconservative agenda of pandering to Israel and confronting Iran and Syria over control of the Middle East is reaching a critical point.
The latest accusations by the United States against Syria, seven months after an Israeli air raid in northeastern Syria, should be taken very seriously by the world community. Not because of the validity of the allegations, but because those who are making the accusation have proven that irrelevant of fact or fiction, war is the agenda.
News has surfaced that Vice President Dick Cheney, who recently warned his allies of impending war in the Middle East and who also opposes diplomatic dealings with North Korea was “‘behind (the) Syrian reactor claim.’” This is the same man who was allegedly in charge of the recent B-52 Incident in the United States where “a B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with six nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation.”
Two articles, one by Project Censored award winning writer Dave Lindorff entitled “Was That Nuclear-Armed B-52 Flight Destined for Iran?,” and the other by Dr. Michael Salla, an international politics scholar, entitled “Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?”, both reported that Cheney was behind the incident. This is the same person who believes that “the US should not be pursuing a diplomatic path with Iran,” but rather should "establish the policy and pathway to bombing Iran."
We were lucky then. According to Dr. Salla, the world was “spared a devastating nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.” Unfortunately, however, it appears that some of these airmen, instead of being honored, were punished while Cheney - the architect of this potentially horrendous crime - remained in power, and is continuing his attempts to start a Nuclear World War III.
Attempts to Frame Syria Will Fail
When Israel bombed the facility in question, the US intelligence community saw no evidence of a nuclear facility being hit. “US intelligence ‘found no radiation signatures after the bombing, so there was no uranium or plutonium present,’ said one official, wishing to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject. ‘We don't have any independent intelligence that it was a nuclear facility -- only the assertions by the Israelis and some ambiguous satellite photography from them that shows a building, which the Syrians admitted was a military facility.’”
Israel tried to make the nuclear reactor argument stick but failed. Even The Jerusalem Post published an article in which an “Israeli nuclear expert” refuted the claims that a nuclear reactor was the target. “Tel Aviv University chemistry professor Uzi Even, who worked in the past at Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor, said satellite pictures of the site taken before the Israeli strike showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of reactors. The absence of telltale features of a reactor convinced him the building must have housed something else.”
Last fall, the nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress stated that “‘in attacking Dair el Zor in Syria on Sept. 6, the Israeli air force wasn’t targeting a nuclear site but rather one of the main arms depots in the country. Dair el Zor houses a huge underground base where the Syrian army stores the long and medium-range missiles it mostly buys from Iran and North Korea. The attack by the Israeli air force coincided with the arrival of a stock of parts for Syria’s 200 Scud B and 60 Scud C weapons.’”
In fact, Israel’s bombing of Syria was an “act of war,” and “a blatant act of aggression against its northern neighbor of the kind denounced as the ‘supreme international crime’ by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.” So why is the United States, on behest of Israel, presenting “evidence” which no country, other than the UK, will believe? The answer is that they are not presenting this so-called “evidence” to convince any allies to join them in a military strike against Syria. They are presenting this “evidence” to convince their neoconservative electorate, shown in red in the following diagram, to follow them into oblivion.
click to enlarge source
The United States does not need the approval or support of the international community to wage war. Neither the UN nor NATO approved the invasion of Iraq but that did not prevent the destruction of the country, resulting in over one million deaths and well over four million refugees.
What the neoconservatives need to do is to solidify the support of the heartland of the United States of America for both the upcoming 2008 elections and the proliferation of war.
What an Attack on Syria Really Means
Iraq was devastated for over ten years with sanctions and continual bombardment before being invaded in 2003. Syria is a country that hasn’t been touched yet, which means that it will be a harder target, even though it is no match for the Israeli military let alone that of the United States. That’s probably why it signed a defense agreement with Iran in June 2006. With this agreement Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and its defense capabilities to be those of Syria.
This means that an attack on Syria is an attack on Iran, and Iran is a much more formidable foe than Syria or Iraq. Not because of Iran’s military capabilities, but because of its diplomatic ties to the regional countries.
Not only has Iran signed a declaration with Caspian Sea leaders in which all parties have agreed “to reinforce peace, stability, economic development, and good neighborliness in the region,” Iran is also an observer countries with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a mutual security organization founded in 2001, which “includes not only the two giants Russia and China, but also the energy-rich Central Asian states Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.”
This is why Noam Chomsky in an essay entitled "Cold War II," outlines a possible scenario in which NATO, under the command of the United States, could, due to its aggressive stance towards Iran, get into a full confrontation with the SCO. If the United States attacks Syria, which it is threatening to do, it will trigger a war with Iran. If this occurs, it is very unlikely that the SCO will tolerate an interruption in the flow of the 40% of Middle East oil that is reported to be heading to the East.
Does anyone actually believe that Russia and energy strapped China will stand idly by and allow their economies to be devastated by a military confrontation between the United States and Iran? Does anyone actually believe that the SCO will allow one of its observer countries to be attacked by a Western power?
A war with Iran or Syria will be a catastrophe on its own, but it could also trigger a confrontation between NATO and SCO, leading to a World War.
It should be becoming clear to those living in the United States that their country is a rouge state and in dire need of change if we are to avoid a global nuclear catastrophe.
Related Posts
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
