This article is a translation of "Via ISIS alsnog naar Damascus en Teheran"
In one of his comments Rob van Heusden argues that the area in which ISIS is active, is disputed because of rival pipeline projects. That is true, but we also must take into consideration that politics always trumps the economy. In the case of ISIS too larger interests are at stake, like regaining Israeli and Saudi trust in Washington’s policies. These two are calling for rolling back the power of Iran and for destroying the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis; they are still embittered about the fact that Obama already several times hesitated about direct American intervention. Now however he has declared that this will be a war reaching well into the next presidency, so Hilary Clinton has her war even before being elected.
As argued earlier, ISIS is a project of the Saudis that has escaped their control. The war party in the US and NATO now exploits it to conduct its own power play in the region. The Netherlands have joined the undertaking and the Socialist Party (along with the friends of the animal world in our Parliament) should be complimented for keeping a cool head and having concluded that another war in the Middle East can only lead to even more chaos, more human suffering, and further wars.
Enlarging the threat supposedly emanating from ISIS, the cruel beheadings (incidentally by a convert from east London, in a month in which our ally, Saudi Arabia, had 19 public beheadings), the suddenly discovered Yezidis—everything points to intense news management.
Now that the decision to go to war has been taken, it is topical again to look at the interests that have formed to push through the regime change agenda in Damascus and Tehran. The most important pressure group here is United Against a Nuclear Iran, established among others by Dennis Ross, Middle Eastern envoy of Obama and one of the most prominent pro-Israel voices inWashington, along with Senator Joseph Liebeman, who sits on the UANI advisory council. In addition several personalities with a background in the intelligence world like past directors Richard Dearlove (MI6), Meir Dagan (Mossad), and August Hanning (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) are members of this group. A range of links connect UANI members to energy companies like Getty Oil and banks like Chase en N.M. Rothschild & Sons; but these interests can only become active once regime change has been brought about. This year a number of important steps have been taken in that direction.
In an article for Global Research by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya we read that in June this year, 600 parliamentarians and politicians of mostly NATO countries were flown to a suburb of Paris for a US-financed conference with the Iranian opposition movement, Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK/MOK/MKO). This group is based in Iraq and is suspected of the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists among others. In fact the US had MEK on their list of terrorist organisations and used the fact that Saddam Hussein allowed the group to operate from Iraq, as one pretext to invade that country—only to take over financing MEK themselves and deploy them as part of their own plans against Tehran.
The aforementioned Lieberman, Kosovo administrator Bernard Kouchner, as well as the Mayor of New York at the time of 9/11, Giuliani, were speakers at the Paris conference (the list of the most prominent participants is in Nazemroya’s article). From France, former defence minister Michèle Alliot-Marie was present, from Spain, former PSOE prime minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and to show that we still count internationally, our own Ad Melkert, former minister (and also a ‘socialist’), World Bank functionary, and Ban Ki-moon’s emissary to Iraq, also took part.
Regime change was not the only topic at the conference; there was also discussion of the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In May, on the eve of the Paris meeting, an encounter took place between the MEK leader, Maryam Rajavi (pictured left), who is slotted to become president of Iran, and Ahmed Jarba of the Syrian National Council (pictured right), to discuss cooperation.
As argued earlier, ISIS is a project of the Saudis that has escaped their control. The war party in the US and NATO now exploits it to conduct its own power play in the region. The Netherlands have joined the undertaking and the Socialist Party (along with the friends of the animal world in our Parliament) should be complimented for keeping a cool head and having concluded that another war in the Middle East can only lead to even more chaos, more human suffering, and further wars.
Enlarging the threat supposedly emanating from ISIS, the cruel beheadings (incidentally by a convert from east London, in a month in which our ally, Saudi Arabia, had 19 public beheadings), the suddenly discovered Yezidis—everything points to intense news management.
Now that the decision to go to war has been taken, it is topical again to look at the interests that have formed to push through the regime change agenda in Damascus and Tehran. The most important pressure group here is United Against a Nuclear Iran, established among others by Dennis Ross, Middle Eastern envoy of Obama and one of the most prominent pro-Israel voices inWashington, along with Senator Joseph Liebeman, who sits on the UANI advisory council. In addition several personalities with a background in the intelligence world like past directors Richard Dearlove (MI6), Meir Dagan (Mossad), and August Hanning (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) are members of this group. A range of links connect UANI members to energy companies like Getty Oil and banks like Chase en N.M. Rothschild & Sons; but these interests can only become active once regime change has been brought about. This year a number of important steps have been taken in that direction.
In an article for Global Research by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya we read that in June this year, 600 parliamentarians and politicians of mostly NATO countries were flown to a suburb of Paris for a US-financed conference with the Iranian opposition movement, Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK/MOK/MKO). This group is based in Iraq and is suspected of the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists among others. In fact the US had MEK on their list of terrorist organisations and used the fact that Saddam Hussein allowed the group to operate from Iraq, as one pretext to invade that country—only to take over financing MEK themselves and deploy them as part of their own plans against Tehran.
The aforementioned Lieberman, Kosovo administrator Bernard Kouchner, as well as the Mayor of New York at the time of 9/11, Giuliani, were speakers at the Paris conference (the list of the most prominent participants is in Nazemroya’s article). From France, former defence minister Michèle Alliot-Marie was present, from Spain, former PSOE prime minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and to show that we still count internationally, our own Ad Melkert, former minister (and also a ‘socialist’), World Bank functionary, and Ban Ki-moon’s emissary to Iraq, also took part.
Regime change was not the only topic at the conference; there was also discussion of the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In May, on the eve of the Paris meeting, an encounter took place between the MEK leader, Maryam Rajavi (pictured left), who is slotted to become president of Iran, and Ahmed Jarba of the Syrian National Council (pictured right), to discuss cooperation.
Recently a most important further step was taken by removing Maliki, who allowed Iraq to remain a way station for the relations between Damascus and Tehran, including pipeline plans between the two. Maliki’s intention to close the facilities in Iraq of the military wing of MEK was not less important; that would have disabled the springboard for regime change in Tehran.
This is the scenario in which the fight against ISIS fits. Statements by the US that an ISIS attack on American targets is ‘imminent’, and John Kerry’s equally absurd accusation in September last that Damascus (which has surrendered its chemical weapons for destruction following Russian mediation) is violating the chemical weapons treaty, are meant to obfuscate that there is no mandate from the Security Council—but that Washington has the right to attack nevertheless.
Hence the bombing in Syria by the US is illegal and in breach of the UN Charter; the ‘experienced hunters’ in the Dutch F-16s too will be part of the illegal operation, and of course far more importantly, will be causing new misery and bloodshed.
And now we just wait till a handful of hotheads from the immigrant quarter in The Hague take up the gauntlet.
Kees van der Pijl
This is the scenario in which the fight against ISIS fits. Statements by the US that an ISIS attack on American targets is ‘imminent’, and John Kerry’s equally absurd accusation in September last that Damascus (which has surrendered its chemical weapons for destruction following Russian mediation) is violating the chemical weapons treaty, are meant to obfuscate that there is no mandate from the Security Council—but that Washington has the right to attack nevertheless.
Hence the bombing in Syria by the US is illegal and in breach of the UN Charter; the ‘experienced hunters’ in the Dutch F-16s too will be part of the illegal operation, and of course far more importantly, will be causing new misery and bloodshed.
And now we just wait till a handful of hotheads from the immigrant quarter in The Hague take up the gauntlet.
Kees van der Pijl
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten