The Syrian conflict is profoundly misrepresented across the entirety of the Western press.
To call it a civil war is a gross mischaracterization. The entire conflict was engineered and fueled from beyond Syria’s borders. And while there are a significant number of Syrians collaborating with this criminal conspiracy, the principle agents driving the conflict are foreigners. They include special interests in the United States, across the Atlantic in Europe, and regional players including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel.Syria is far from an isolated conflict. America’s interest in dividing and destroying Syria is part of a much larger agenda serving its aspirations both in the region and globally. The division and destruction of Syria as a functioning, sovereign nation-state is admittedly meant to set the stage for the conquest of Iran next.
Reuters recently published an op-ed titled, “Syria’s one hope may be as dim as Bosnia’s once was,” which argues that the only way the US can cooperate with Russia regarding Syria is if all players agree to a weakened, fragmented Syria.
If this scheme sounds familiar, that is because this op-ed was authored by Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution – a corporate-financier funded think-tank that has in part helped engineer the chaos now consuming the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). O’Hanlon previously published a paper titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” in which he also calls for the division and destruction of Syria.
In it, O’Hanlon calls for the establishment of “safe zones,” the invasion and occupation of Syrian territory by US, European, and Persian Gulf special forces, the relaxing of criteria used to openly fund what would essentially be terrorists operating in Syria, and openly making the ousting of the Syrian government a priority on par with the alleged US fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL).
“Relaxing” criteria regarding who the US can openly fund and provide direct military support for, is nothing less than tacit support for terrorism and terrorists themselves.
But none of these treacherous methods should be shocking. That is because O’Hanlon is also a co-author of the 2009 Brookings Institution report titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran”. In this signed and dated criminal conspiracy, methods for covertly overthrowing the Iranian government with US-backed mobs augmented with armed militants, the use of US listed foreign terrorist organizations to wage a proxy war against Iran, the provocation of open war with Iran, and the use of Israel to unilaterally attack Iran first, before bringing America inevitably into the war shortly after are all described in great detail throughout the 156 page report.
While some have tried to dismiss this report as a mere theoretical exercise, suggestions like having terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) removed from the US State Department’s foreign terrorist organization list so that the US could openly arm and fund it in a proxy war against Iran, has since come to pass. The report was written in 2009, MEK was de-listed in 2012.
Additionally, the report also suggests luring Iran to the negotiating table where the United States would place before it a deal so irresistible that when Iran either rejected it or accepted it and then appeared to violate it, subsequent US military intervention would be seen by the world as a reluctant option of last resort that Iran brought upon itself. This has since manifested itself as the much lauded “nuclear deal.”
And almost to the letter, every criminal conspiracy laid out in this report meant for Tehran, has been each in turn used against Syria. The report noted that Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah would be significant obstacles to dividing and destroying Iran and that each must be dealt with first. The report was written in 2009, the war in Syria began in earnest in 2011.
Understanding that Syria is not an isolated crisis, but is tied to US designs aimed at Iran and beyond, illustrates why O’Hanlon and other Western policymakers’ proposals for a “political transition” or the partitioning of Syria are unacceptable. It will not be the end of regional conflict, but rather the end of just the beginning. The successful destruction of Syria will portend war with Iran and beyond. …