And now, the US fully admits that the CIA and US State Department are openly arming, funding, and equipping fighters in Syria. The Washington Post’s September 2013 article, “U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels,” admits:
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.
Clearly, based on previous admissions, claiming this is a “major escalation” is a verifiable lie. The US has already sent the total summation of material support to terrorists operating in Syria over the past 2-3 years it could possibly muster – recent admissions are solely for public consumption. The failure of this material support to turn the tide in the fighting is precisely what triggered the recent fabrications of chemical weapons use in Syria and the subsequent, Iraq-esque attempt to justify direct US military intervention.
One must wonder, how if the US has been funding “moderate rebel groups,” to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and arming them with thousands of tons of weaponry at a time, has Al Qaeda still emerged as the prominent militant group inside Syria? How has Al Qaeda managed to raise the funds and execute this unprecedented logistical feat of a multinational invasion of Syria if the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar are solely funding “moderates?” Bake sales and carpooling?
Clearly there were never any “moderates.” And just as was plotted under Bush in 2007, extremists – Al Qaeda extremists – were intentionally armed, funded, and funneled into Syria to destabilize the nation through a sectarian bloodbath starting in 2011 under the Obama administration and callously portrayed as a “pro-democracy” uprising “brutally crushed” by the “evil Assad regime.”
The US’ direct, premeditated support of sectarian extremists starting in 2007 and continuing up to and including today, not only solves the “mystery” of Al Qaeda’s perpetuation in Syria, it also exposes the fraud of Western democracy – where two diametrically opposed presidents carried out a singular geopolitical agenda, merely behind the cover of their respective rhetorical right/left political platforms. The American people were never really given a choice despite the illusion of “elections” and “political representation.”
Israel’s Role: The Silent Accomplice and Unilateral Warmonger
Perhaps the most dangerous, and yet-to-be-played card in the West’s hand, is Israel. Israel poses as a silent observer of the Syrian conflict – taking military action unilaterally in what it tenuously claims is preemptive “self-defense.” In reality, it is part of a joint US-Saudi-Israeli axis that has sought to undermine and overthrow Syria and Iran since at least 2007.
Israel is playing a very specific role to keep it isolated from the West and its Arab partners in the region for as long as possible – both to lend extremist forces operating in and around Syria legitimacy they otherwise would not have with overt Israeli backing, as well as to portray Israel as the “victim” of staged or intentionally provoked attacks from within Syria, Lebanon and even Iran. Such “victimization” would allow Israel to retaliate and give Western nations desperately needed justification to also intervene and save their failed proxy war.
This is not mere speculation, but rather a conclusion based on documented policy papers produced by the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, one of many think-tanks engineering US-Saudi-Israeli policy.
One such policy paper, the 2009 Brookings “Which Path to Persia?” report, explicitly states the compartmentalized role Israel would serve in planned subversion and aggression versus Iran and how Israel could offer the West a “foot in the door” to wider military intervention in the region. It states [emphasis added]:
“…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.) ” –page 84-85, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
“Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion).” –page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
Similar calls to use Israel, and its regional partner, NATO-member Turkey, to conduct similar provocations versus Syria have been made by Brookings more recently in a report titled, “Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.”
In the report, Brookings describes how Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, combined with Turkey’s aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border to the north, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:
“In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.” –page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Israel then, still maintaining this posture and attempting to distance itself from the current political struggle over Syria may still be planning intentional or even staged provocations. A recent warning from Russia involving a false flag attack carried out by terrorists inside Syria against Israel provides a very plausible scenario that would give Israel rhetorical justification to strike Syria in hopes of starting a wider war involving pre-positioned Western forces now on standby.
American “Exceptionalism:” The rotting fruits of dead empires, Hitler’s Germany, and racist British imperialism
In a recent speech made by US President Barack Obama, he claimed that the United States was “exceptional,” echoing the delusions of grandeur of corporate-financier interests and the think-tank policy makers in their orbit. “American Exceptionalism,” proclaims that the US is somehow different than all other nations, and by inference, better. It gives the United States the ability to circumvent international law it itself has contrived, to do as it wills both within and beyond its borders, because it “knows better” than the rest of the world.
Its standing alone on the issue of Syria, with even the American public rejecting wholly the concept of another war based on clearly fabricated evidence, shows just where the wellspring of “American Exceptionalism” lies – among the corporate financier elite who invented it.
It is a revolting concept that echos the racist imperialism of Britannia and the unhinged belligerence of Nazi Germany, used to justify the violation of human rights through the subjugation by invasion, occupation and wholesale exploitation of other nations. It seeks to justify what evidence, reason, logic, and global consensus has otherwise opposed, and is the last rhetorical resort for a crumbling empire unable to justify its actions any other way.
A nation basing its actions upon the world stage through such justifications is a dangerous one that depends on the illusion of its superiority. As that illusion crumbles, it will seek to reassert it through increasingly desperate and abhorrent mechanisms. This includes false flag attacks to trigger wars where it can justify the flexing of its military might, and thus scare the international community back in line.
With the West pledging to continue the arming and funding of terrorists in Syria, thus jeopardizing the safety of UN inspectors who will eventually attempt to survey, secure, and neutralize Syria’s chemical weapons, we can see there is no genuine intent to end the violence in Syria with anything less than regime change in favor of Western interests. The goal was never humanitarian in nature, only the propaganda used to perpetuate the conflict was “humanitarian.” A nation that would intentionally create a humanitarian catastrophe to then use as a pretext for further war is a nation exceptional only in regards to the depths of its own depravity. Like their historical predecessors citing “superiority” and “exceptionalism,” the interests driving America now are destined for their own ignominious place upon the scrap heap of history. The question is, how much damage will they cause between now and then?