| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
False Bravado
What if were to tell you that there is a detailed conspiracy against global peace and stability in the Middle East? That ISIS is a monster well-funded by many countries including the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel? That they are being allowed to grow in order to create more chaos in the region?
What if I were tell you that Benjamin Netanyahu has been preaching the same line about Iranian nuclear capabilities for five years now? That the idea that Barack Obama has soured his attitude towards Israel’s plot to attack Iran is in fact a lie?
This would mean that the administration’s feigned bad attitude against Netanyahu, as well as the diplomatic negotiations that the United States has had with Iran are truly theater. These talks are planned to fall apart in order to give the United States plausible deniability if things go bad in the region.
What if I told you that the whole story of the Obama/Netanyahu “falling out” is nothing more than false bravado, and that the final curtain of this drama is about to fall in ways that will make the final act “Armageddon”?
I guess if you believe in conspiracy history, these are easy conclusions to make. At the moment they don’t seem believable to average Americans who are glued to the mainstream media, which is simply repeating the claims that have been made by Israel and the United States.
In order to illustrate just how much of a show this all is, you have to go back to the beginning of Obama’s presidency, when he praised Israel and gave them his unwavering support. On December 7, 2008, President-Elect Obama said on NBC’s Meet the Press that:
We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in… We may have to tighten up those sanctions… and give them a clear choice… whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way.
Back then it was Barack Obama who once said that Washington would nuke Iran to protect Israel. George W. Bush replied contemptuously that it would be very hard to convince American parents in Kansas that their sons should risk nuclear incineration for the sake of a small country in the Middle East. Clearly Obama was a greater war monger on issues involving Israel in 2008. Regardless of his heated and threatening tone, the President still got the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now things have mysteriously changed, as today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave hollow praise to Obama during his speech before Congress. This, even while the White House snubbed him, and tried to discredit his stance on Iranian nuclear negotiations.
The Prime Minister listed all the times he had called Obama and received immediate aid, including the 2010 Carmel Forest fire, and the siege of the Israeli embassy in Cairo during the 2011 unrest. “In each of those moments, I called the President, and he was there,” Netanyahu said. “And some of what the President has done for Israel might never be known; because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli Prime Minister. But I know it! And I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.”
Obama now seems to have turned on Israel. But is it all for show?
The major American broadcast networks declined to carry Netanyahu’s address to Congress live. The speech was boycotted by many leading Democrats, and early reaction to the speech in Hollywood seemed to signal a growing disenchantment with the Obama administration’s foreign policy, particularly the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.
To those Americans who are confused at the turnaround, you are not alone.
Apart from the conspiracy theories about the loyalties of Obama (that he is truly a Muslim and is now parting with Israel), there is another theory that seems to have some merit.
Back in 2000, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others drafted a strict blueprint for the expansion of the military-industrial complex and the advanced police state in the United States.
The blueprint was called “the Project for the New American Century: Strengthening America’s Defenses.” It argued for the necessity of military spending, and the militarization of space. It called for the toppling of regimes, an offensive stance by our military against Central Asia and the Middle East, as well as the possible use of nuclear weapons to control the world’s resources.
The problem that faced the authors of this radical plan was (as they lamented) that the American people would not stand for this. Americans knew of the warnings of President Eisenhower and his exhortation to not allow the growth of the military-industrial complex.
All that Dick Cheney and the planners needed was a body count.
The PNAC planners wrote in their war plan that they needed a “Pearl Harbor-type event” to galvanize public support for unlimited military action. Later the planners got what they had wished for when planes were hijacked by terrorists. Two met their targets in New York at the World Trade Center, and the other hit the Pentagon.
Dick Cheney and his cast of plotters all got their wish because terrorists just coincidentally decided to attack, allowing for the expansion of the military and the rejection of the Constitution in favor of a police state in America.
It was a remarkable script for a grim diorama that luckily or on cue happened in order to give these men plausible deniability. Amazingly, the perpetrators of this crime were Middle Eastern terrorists and not the men themselves, who thought of the plot one year before the event happened.
Now in what looks like a repeat performance, a US policy paper published in 2009 by the Brookings Institution makes it crystal clear that the US is determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost, up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.
According to an article at Activist Post by Tony Cartalucci:
…The Brookings Institution’s policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.
For the past 5 or 6 years, we have been hearing the same old song from Netanyahu about Iran and nuclear capabilities. All the while, all of the suggestions that have been proposed have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength (which according to Brookings, is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran).
The Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy paper, titled “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are purely theater. This will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible “peaceful” options before resorting to violent regime change. The report states specifically that:
…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
In July of 2014, there was a reported leaked transcript of a call between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which only added to the possibility of false bravado between the United States and Israel.
The report came from Israel’s Channel 1 News, a respected television channel funded by Israel’s state broadcasting network in a similar fashion to the BBC. The reporter, Oren Nahari, said the call’s transcript was provided to him by a senior American official.
But the transcript (translated back into English from Hebrew by the Times of Israel) makes Obama and Netanyahu sound like robots. Nahari reported that the call lasted 35 minutes, and that his source said the conversation was tense. Obama purportedly showed impatience, while Netanyahu is described as expressing disbelief at Obama’s demands. It went like this:
Barack Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities, in particular airstrikes.
Benjamin Netanyahu: And what will Israel receive in exchange for a ceasefire?
BO: I believe that Hamas will cease its rocket fire — silence will be met with silence.
BN: Hamas broke all five previous ceasefires. It’s a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
BO: I repeat and expect Israel to stop all its military activities unilaterally. The pictures of destruction in Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.
BN: Kerry’s proposal was completely unrealistic and gives Hamas military and diplomatic advantages.
BO: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas based on the 2012 understandings, including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege and restrictions on Gaza.
BN: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.
BO: I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.
BN: I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks -
BO: (interrupting Netanyahu) The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.
The Brookings paper also provides the blue print and script that the United States shall follow with regard to Iran:
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.
As you can see, Brookings policymakers openly conspire to undermine global peace by “goading” another nation into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from. Provoking a nation that poses no threat to the national security of the United States is a clear violation of international law.
If this plan is in play, it most certainly could be used as signed intent much like PNAC. However it appears that no one is aware of or cares about the war crimes that have been perpetuated through both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Of course Barack Obama, along with his Zionist advisers, could cook up some false flag event against Israel or its interests, allowing for Israel to retaliate against Iran. Then the United States could join in with the attitude that they did all they could. This would be a security blanket allowing Obama to declare plausible deniability.
Despite this open admission by the Brookings paper of a conspiracy against world peace, what is of more interest is that the United States’ plans to disavow any responsibility for an attack. It would use its regional proxy, Israel, to carry it out in its place. The paper states specifically under a chapter titled, “Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that:
…the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).
The US is portrayed in the Brookings plan as desperately trying to hammer out an almost unreasonable accommodation with Iran, while the hawkish Israel seeks to unilaterally attack Iran, thus giving the US the plausible deniability. That Brookings openly claimed it would disingenuously attempt to create ahead of any Israeli attack on Iran.
It should be noted that the summation of Israel’s military might is a result of long, extensive, and continuous US military support, meaning that an Israeli military operation is not even possible without it.
We have supported Israel for so long that it seems so out of character for Washington to pretend like everything in the past does not matter.
That is why it is more than likely that all of this snubbing and fake anger is purely theater. It is happening so that the United States can play “good cop” to Netanyahu’s “bad cop.”
Text – Check out Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis Live Nightly @ http://www.groundzeromedia.org
Source: http://www.groundzeromedia.org/false-bravado/
