Most Americans don't understand what is going on in Syria, and those who think they know believe its citizens are trying to overthrough the (supposidly) represive government headed by (the democraticlly-elected) Assad ...and that the Russians have been bombing the supposed freedom fighters. All of this is propaganda spread by the crazed Americal neoconsevatives who literally own the U.S. government and plan to dominate the rest of the world ...or die destroying it (together with all the rest of us) in a nuclear holocaust. Below, Paul Craig Roberts explains what is REALLY going on in Syria and who is actually attacking it. Hint: not Russia, who to the contrary is defending it from ISIS/ISIL/Islamist State/ Daesh plus their providers, Washington, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Read the history below to learn where things are heading now.

---

The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria — Paul Craig Roberts

---

February 14, 2016 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria

Paul Craig Roberts

While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.

Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
 
I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.

The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington’s behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a “brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.” Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.

With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used “chemical weapons against his own people.” Obama turned these predictions into a “red line.” When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington’s puppets, the US would invade Syria.

With the “red line” drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the “red line.”

Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks. David Cameron, Washington’s puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.

Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.

Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.

Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..

Washington’s support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime to support ISIS. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html
See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c

The neoconservative insistence that “Assad must go” comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel’s attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.

The Islamic State that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington’s exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.

In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria.
 
The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.

Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.

The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.

Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.

Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.

The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.

Here is a description of the race to Raqqa: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/the-race-to-raqqa-is-on-to-keep-its-unity-syria-must-win-.html

Here is The Saker’s take on the seriousness of the situation: http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-a-dramatic-escalation-appears-imminent/

---

Read this and then decide who are the good guys and by comparison who are the bad guys. Your choices are Bashar al-Assad and his loyal armed forces, Russia's bombing of ISIS and other jihadi forces such as ISIL (also known as Da’esh), al-Qaeda, and the al-Nusrah Front. Don't forget the CIA who smuggle arms to rebels. And then there is Turkey, which sees to it that ISIS and other murderous groups get arms, ammunition, and food daily. Finally think of the people who have had to flee Syria to keep their families from being killed by the jihadis.

---

Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?

By Tony Cartalucci                                                                             Region: Middle East & North Africa 
Global Research, November 26, 2015                                                  Theme: Politics and Religion
New Eastern Outlook 9 June 2015

Note: Article originally published in June 2015

Since ancient times an army required significant logistical support to carry out any kind of sustained military campaign. In ancient Rome, an extensive network of roads was constructed to facilitate not only trade, but to allow Roman legions to move quickly to where they were needed, and for the supplies needed to sustain military operations to follow them in turn.

In the late 1700′s French general, expert strategist, and leader Napoleon Bonaparte would note that, “an army marches on its stomach,” referring to the extensive logistical network required to keep an army fed, and therefore able to maintain its fighting capacity. For the French, their inability to maintain a steady supply train to its forces fighting in Russia, and the Russians’ decision to burn their own land and infrastructure to deny it from the invading forces, ultimately defeated the French.

Nazi Germany would suffer a similar fate when it too overextended its logical capabilities during its invasion of Russia amid Operation Barbarossa. Once again, invading armies became stranded without limited resources before being either cut off and annihilated or forced to retreat.

The other half of the war is logistics. Without a steady stream of supplies, armies no matter how strong or determined will be overwhelmed and defeated. What explains then ISIS’ fighting prowess and the immense logitical networks it would need to maintain it?

And in modern times during the Gulf War in the 1990′s an extended supply line trailing invading US forces coupled with an anticipated clash with the bulk of Saddam Hussein’s army halted what was otherwise a lighting advance many mistakenly believed could have reached Baghdad had there been the political will. The will to conquer was there, the logistics to implement it wasn’t.

The lessons of history however clear they may be, appear to be entirely lost on an either supremely ignorant or incredibly deceitful troupe of policymakers and news agencies across the West.

ISIS’ Supply Lines

The current conflict consuming the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria where the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is operating and simultaneously fighting and defeating the forces of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, we are told, is built upon a logistical network based on black market oil and ransom payments.

The fighting capacity of ISIS is that of a nation-state. It controls vast swaths of territory straddling both Syria and Iraq and not only is able to militarily defend and expand from this territory, but possesses the resources to occupy it, including the resources to administer the populations subjugated within it.

For military analysts, especially former members of Western armed forces, as well as members of the Western media who remember the convoys of trucks required for the invasions of Iraq in the 1990s and again in 2003, they surely must wonder where ISIS’ trucks are today. After all, if the resources to maintain the fighting capacity exhibited by ISIS were available within Syrian and Iraqi territory alone, then certainly Syrian and Iraqi forces would also posses an equal or greater fighting capacity but they simply do not.
 
And were ISIS’ supply lines solely confined within Syrian and Iraqi territory, then surely both Syrian and Iraqi forces would utilize their one advantage – air power – to cut front line ISIS fighters from the source of their supplies. But this is not happening and there is a good reason why.

Recent maps showing ISIS’ territory show obvious supply lines leading from Jordan and Turkey. Should Syria and its allies manage to cut these supply lines, one wonders just how long ISIS’ so-far inexplicable winning streak would last.

SIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern Europe and North Africa.

Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.

The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that:

[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.

Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that:

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.

Recent revelations have revealed that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.
 
Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? 
 
While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.

Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.

Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

German national broadcaster DW reported on convoys of hundreds of trucks per day crossing into Syria from NATO-member Turkey with impunity, enroute to ISIS terrorists, finally explaining the source of the terrorist army’s fighting capacity. The trucks were reported by DW to have originated from deep within Turkish territory – most likely NATO air bases and ports.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.

Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.

In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.

If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian territory which would require a direct military confrontation with Turkey itself to eliminate.

With Iran joining the fray with an alleged deployment of thousands of troops to bolster Syrian military operations, overwhelming principles of deterrence may prevent Turkey enforcing its buffer zones.

What we are currently left with is NATO literally holding the region hostage with the prospect of a catastrophic regional war in a bid to defend and perpetuate the carnage perpetrated by ISIS within Syria, fully underwritten by an immense logistical network streaming out of NATO territory itself.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook Copyright © Tony Cartalucci,  
New Eastern Outlook, 2015

Paul Craig Roberts circulated this to his email followers under his title, "The Evil Empire Crumbles".

---

POLITICS.....00:35 18.10.2015.....(updated 10:15 18.10.2015)                                                     Original Here

Some of the US’s major allies appear more and more convinced that Barack Obama is losing his political influence on the Syrian conflict and the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State terror group, according an analysis in the US media.

Key US partners are increasingly fixing their eyes on Moscow rather than Washington, writes Dan de Luce, a columnist for Foreign Policy.

According to de Luce, the recent visit of Saudi Arabia’s defense minister Mohammed bin Salman to the Russian city of Sochi showcases on the one hand to what extent the “power dynamics” in the Middle East has changed, and on the other — that, in US allies’ eyes, President Putin is close to taking Barack Obama’s place of “regional kingmaker.” The author pointed out that high-profile representatives of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are now “knocking on Putin’s door instead of that of the Oval Office.”

The visit of the Saudi minister, de Luce noted, suggests Riyadh is looking into the opportunity of an agreement under which Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would stay in power for a longer period of time in exchange for the creation of Russian-Saudi joint forces in the fight against IS.

“If the Saudi visit was coordinated with the US, that would be one thing, but if it wasn’t, it was the Saudis again saying to us, ‘You’re irrelevant,’” FP quoted former US ambassador to Syria Ryan Crocker as saying.

The US’ key allies, alarmed by the recent Iran nuclear agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 powers, seem to be arriving at the conclusion that Obama is losing his significance and influence in terms of the Syrian war and fight with IS.

Despite the fact that the US maintains long-term alliances in the Middle East and has huge military and economic might, some of their partners are seeking reassurance amid ongoing events in Syria, and are probing into Moscow-proposed initiatives.

For instance, the visit of the Saudi defense minister to Russia coincided with that of a senior military representative from the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, de Luce added.

Another crucial regional ally of the US, Egypt, is also attempting to improve relations with Moscow. The country’s leader Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has four times visited Russia since coming to power in 2013, and has also invited Putin to Cairo once. At the same time, the Egyptian president has made only two trips to the US, and was supposed to be hosted at the White House only once.

Israel has also joined the list of those “knocking on Putin’s door,” de Luce noted, referring to the late-September meeting of president Putin with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The White House, in its turn, has hopes that Russia will stumble in Syria. Vali Nasr, a former senior State Department official, argued that if Moscow achieves its objective and transforms its wins on the battlefield to a political resolution of the war, it will eventually “translate into much more regional influence [for Russia] in the Middle East.”

“And also many other countries in other regions of the world may come to the conclusion that it’s not America that’s the indispensable nation,” he concluded.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151018/1028689293/Saudi-Arabia-Israel-Egypt-Knocking-Putins-Door.html#ixzz3p6MBYIN0

Pepe Escobar is the roving reporter for Asia Times. He really roves, and he knows knows many of the languages. He was the first, and perhaps the only, reporter to note the possible assassination of Dubya Bush's Saudi friend Bandar bin Salton a year ago. Bandar has now reappeared and is an active party to the destablization of Syria. Here Pepe explains in detail why Syria is so coveted by many global power centers. You are not likely to learn this from the mainstream media.

---

Category: Best of the Web

Original Here

---

Pepe Escobar on Pipeline Politics and what was really behind the U.S. wanting to bomb Syria?

 
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hold a press conference on US-Russia reaching an agreement on Syria Weapons. Roving correspondent Pepe Escobar of Asia Times discusses the geopolitical machinations behind what was really behind the developments in Syria. We discuss the possibility of an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline and how the regional players react to such a proposal, and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia's role in the current conflict. GlobalResearchTV

Abby Martin (arguably the best TV newscaster in the world on subjects the mainstream media never tells us but we dearly need to know) interviews George Galloway (described by Paul Craig Roberts as "the only real leader in the entire Western World") on the horrors soon to unfold in Syria and the Middle East and how they will affect us. Don't miss this!

---

http://youtu.be/I6qMCb14K3s
George Galloway: US in Bed w/ al-Qaeda & Christian Leaders Overseeing Destruction of Christian Sites

Published on Sep 6, 2013

Abby Martin speaks with UK Parliament Member, George Galloway, about Syria war propaganda and his upcoming film 'The Killing of Tony Blair'.

LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

WHAT IS REALLY ABOUT TO HAPPEN IN SYRIA, WHY IT WILL BE HAPPENING, AND WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE THE UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES. Though he may look like a hippie, Pepe Escobar has proved to me to be the best reporter of all facets of the political planning and scheming of all the countries of the Asian contenent. Here he analyzes Obama's ill-advised (and illegal) rush to war with Syria and the many possible consequences (all of them bad) likely to flow from his actions.

---

OpEdNews Op Eds 8/29/2013 at 00:46:53
"War On Chemical Weapons": Obama Traps Himself Into Syrian Combat
By Pepe Escobar (about the author)     Permalink

Headlined to H2 8/29/13

opednews.com

Source: RT

Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed by nerve gas in the Ghouta region, in the Duma neighbourhood of Damascus August 21, 2013. (Reuters)

Only a few days before the 12th anniversary of 9/11, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama might be fighting side by side with... al-Qaeda, as he was foolish enough to be trapped by his own rhetoric on Syria.

The dogs of war bark and the caravan... is Tomahawked. Amid out-of-control hysteria, the proverbial "unnamed US officials" spin like demented centrifuges.

Obama's "kinetic operation" on Syria will fall out of the sky "in the next few days." It will be "limited,"  lasting only "three days," or "no more than two days." It will "send a message," a "short, sharp attack" against less than 50 sites on a list of targets.

But then long-range bombers may "possibly" join the Tomahawk barrage, and all bets are off.

A proverbial, anonymous "senior administration official" even stressed the "desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week."

That's it; we bomb a country like dialing a pizza delivery, and then we go to a G20 summit with the world's emerging powers hosted by no less than Russia's president, Vladimir Putin. Just because we need to prove that the president of the United States meant what he said: chemical weapons are a red line. And to hell who's responsible for deploying them.

I'm not making this up. This is the core of White House spokesman Jay Carney's message, when he said, in faultless Newspeak: "The options that are being considered do not contain within them a regime change focus."

So the administration of "constitutional lawyer" Barack Obama is mulling how to attack Syria, bypassing the UN Security Council -- which will veto, via Russia and China, the new resolution proposed by the UK;  bypassing always-docile NATO; and with 91 percent of Americans against it, just to send an (explosive) political message. And all because a US president was foolish enough to get trapped in his own rhetoric.

U.N. chemical weapons experts visit people affected by an apparent gas attack, at a hospital in the southwestern Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya August 26, 2013. (Reuters)

Remember Iraq?  Call it a 10th anniversary special: it's Iraq 2003 all over again. 

The attack dog presumably in charge of the Obama administration war brigade is Secretary of State John Kerry. Here, Gareth Porter thoroughly debunks Kerry's game -- and lies. No wonder Kerry's "Powell moment" has gone viral -- as in "deceived" Colin Powell in his infamous February 2003 UN presentation telling the world Saddam Hussein had tons of WMDs. Unlike Powell though, Kerry knows exactly what he's doing. 

The White House promises a "revelation" from above this Thursday, "above" being the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Yet the heart of the matter is that the UN chemical inspectors have had no time to identify what sort of chemical weapon is involved in the Ghouta attack (sarin or something else); where it was manufactured; how it was delivered (possibly by DIY rockets); and last but not least, who did it.

It's imperative to remember that Russia presented an 80-page report last month to the UN Security Council detailing serious evidence about the "rebels" being behind the March 19 attack in Khan al-Assal. That's why the inspectors are in Syria now. So the Obama administration is lying when it insists that it's "too late" for the inspectors to investigate the latest attack.

This time though, Russia may not have collected enough evidence; it's too early. Otherwise Ambassador Vitaly Churkin would be talking to the press, like he did last month.

These investigations take time. And the results cannot be fixed around the policy.

"Fixing" the facts

Let's follow a track that is much more plausible than Washington's official narrative.

Israeli intelligence has leaked to a Kuwaiti newspaper that Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Benny Gantz handed over to his good pal US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey "documents and pictures" as evidence of the Syrian government's culpability. Arguably, this will be the core of the White House "revelation" this Thursday.

The evidence points to rockets launched from a "Syrian army post near Damascus" -- which Finnish researcher Petri Krohn, currently conducting a meticulous investigation, conclusively placed as occupied by the "rebels" since June.  (scroll down to "Qaboun rocket launches")

Add to it the Defense Ministry in Baghdad, one month ago, dismantling an Al-Qaeda cell in Iraq that was planning to launch attacks in Iraq and "abroad," as in Syria, using chemical weapons.

According to Iraqi national security advisor Faleh al-Fayyadh, Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) would have free access to these chemicals.

A Turkish fighter of the jihadist group Al-Nusra Front, bearing the flag of Al-Qaeda on his jacket (C-back), holds position with fellow comrades on April 4, 2013 in the Syrian village of Aziza, on the southern outskirts of Aleppo. (AFP Photo)

So here we have all the elements of a sophisticated false flag operation. Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis, mostly mercenaries, connected to al-Qaeda in Iraq, but with no connection with Syrian civilians, including women and children, use an area formerly occupied by the Syrian army to launch a chemical attack -- perhaps using chlorine -- under the cover of a Syrian offensive (admitted by the government). The offensive was code-named "Operation City Shield." Damascus had solid intel about scores of "rebels" trained by the CIA and the Saudis in Jordan converging to the area and planning a massive attack on the capital.

Then there is Saudi intel tsar Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush's threat to President Putin in their notorious four-hour meeting earlier this month: The military solution is the only one left for Syria. Bandar, a master of the dark arts, is in charge of "winning" Syria to the House of Saud by all means available, chemical or otherwise. 

Any serious UN chemical weapons inspector would be following this lead as we speak. They might not -- because of US political pressure (as in "It's too late"). They might not because Washington wants the inspections over barely after they started -- as in a lightning quick remix, once again, of Iraq 2003; fixing the facts around the policy.  

Deconstructing Obama's game  So we have to come back to the policy -- as in "we bomb because we want to." What exactly is Obama's game?

Tel Aviv's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, as I reported earlier, badly wants Washington to attack Syria's chemical weapons sites -- regardless of possible, horrible, "collateral damage," not to mention the possibility of al-Qaeda-linked jihadi outfits taking control of some of them.

Israel's agenda is Syria bleeding in total chaos for the foreseeable future. Which is not the same as the House of Saud's agenda: regime change. Which is not the same as the Obama administration's agenda. At face value, it's regime change, but Plan B calls for "leveling the playing field," and that melts into the Israeli agenda.

As for President Obama, establishing a hazy "red line" with no context, just to appease clueless but influential neo-cons, not to mention the liberal hawks/humanitarian interventionists that surround him, and without regard for the consequences; this has to be construed as criminal irresponsibility.

Granted, Obama's IQ in theory would equip him to know that yet another war of choice in the Middle East is the last thing he needs. At the same time, when we look at his record, we know he doesn't have the balls to confront the awesome War Party Hydra -- also featuring the mini-coalition of the willing, ranging from nostalgic opportunists such as Britain and France to cold-blooded actors pursuing their specific agendas, like Israel and the House of Saud.

And all this after Obama announced he would weaponize the "rebels" -- in fact that's been going on for ages, now fully supervised by Bandar Bush. The infinitely fractious rebel gangs have fractioned even further into sub-gangs of looters and assassins, with the more organized jihadis promising that after the Ghouta attack, they will kill any Alawite in sight.

A picture downloaded from the US Air Force website shows F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 35th and 80th Fighter Squadrons (AFP Photo/US AIR FORCE)

Obama knows these are bit players; the only factor that can deliver another one of his red lines --"Assad must go" -- is a US military attack. Crucially, Assad also knows it; that's why the notion that Assad would sanction a chemical weapons attack is beyond ludicrous.

So if we take the Obama administration at their word -- at our own peril -- they couldn't care less about who deployed chemical weapons. Yet at the same time they don't want regime change. They want a bombing to fulfill a "moral obligation," and to boost Washington's horrendously shattered "credibility."  American exceptionalists are even carping on "purity of intent" -- as if purity was inherent to cold-blooded, hardcore geopolitical power play.

Both US and Israel assume they have perfect intel -- as in knowing exactly where all of Syria's chemical weapons are stored. Yet if anything could go wrong, it will. We all thought that the "war on terror"  could not be topped as a meaningless concept. Wrong: meet the "war on chemical weapons."

Amid all the hysteria, we're not even talking about a counterpunch from Damascus itself, Hezbollah, Iran or, crucially, Russia. Moscow and Tehran are playing the chessboard like ninjas -- as they clearly see the possibility of Washington being bogged down in a net of its own. All it takes would be a single Onyx SS-N-25, also known as Super-Sunburn SS-22, the fastest hypersonic anti-shipping missile in the world -- which is part of Syria's arsenal -- to sink a US warship. Then what? Shock and Awe all over again?

So if we take the White House at its word, this  "limited" kinetic whatever will end in a couple of days. Or it could spiral into something more hellish than Iraq 2003. And then, the clincher; only a few days before the 12th anniversary of 9/11, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is fighting side by side with... al-Qaeda. Why?  Because, together, they can.

---

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His regular column, "The Roving Eye," is widely read. He is an analyst for the online news channel Real News, the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.  He argues that the world has become fragmented into "stans" -- we are now living an intestinal war, an undeclared global civil war. He has published three books on geopolitics, including the spectacularly-titled "Globalistan: How the Globalised World Is Dissolving Into Liquid War".

His latest book is "Obama Does Globalistan."

OpEdNews Member for 96 week(s) and 0 day(s)
166 Articles

PEPE ESCOBAR EXPLAINS WHAT THE U.S. MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON'T TELL YOU: THE "CIVIL WAR" IN SYRIA IS BEING ORCHESTRATED BY THE U.S. BY ARMING OUTSIDE FORCES (INCLUDING AL QAEDA!) TO CONVERT A PEACEFUL SECULAR STATE INTO A HELL HOLE OF MURDEROUS SECTARIAN MILITIAS SEEKING TO DESTROY THE "INFIDELS," WHICH COULD BE RIVAL MUSLIM SECTS OR THE LARGE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.

---

Lebanonize & Conquer: 'CIA, Mossad on Syria front line' 

http://youtu.be/mh7_z9nZsZQ

Published on Aug 2, 2012 by RussiaToday 

US President Barack Obama has signed a secret order allowing the CIA and other American agencies to support rebels seeking to overthrow the Assad regime, a US government source told Reuters - READ MORE http://on.rt.com/rnd0wn 

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air 

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday 

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com 

Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/b/102728491539958529040 

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 500 million YouTube views benchmark.

THE LATEST RUMOR IN THE VOLATILE MIDDLE EAST

---

August 1, 2012 at 16:19:03

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 8/1/12:     Permalink

Where is Prince Bandar?

By Pepe Escobar (about the author)

opednews.com

Cross-posted from Asia Times

Was Prince Bandar "Bush," 63, son of Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz (perennial Saudi Defense Minister,1963-2001), semi-perennial ambassador to Washington (1983-2005), and secretive jihad financier, killed by a Syrian intelligence death squad?

Thunderous silence prevails on Syrian, Iranian and Arab media (most of it controlled by the Saudis). The same applies for al-Jazeera. This is DEBKA's somewhat fanciful take.

Dates are crucial. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud may have pulled off operation "Damascus Volcano" on July 18. He was definitely promoted to head of Saudi intelligence on July 19. And he might have been killed in a bomb attack on the Saudi General Intelligence HQ in Riyadh on July 22.

One Syrian rumor mill version rules that "Damascus Volcano" came from Saudi intel -- with logistics provided by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This is highly unlikely; the CIA is clueless on how to penetrate Assad's inner sanctum. The predominant version circulating in the Syrian capital is this was a white coup.

"Damascus Volcano," by the way, was a flop; the swarm of mercenaries -- infiltrated via Jordan -- who were supposed to take over the capital had to retreat up north. Now the news cycle is fixated on another faux game-changer -- the "Battle of Aleppo."

There are serious problems with all the spin around "Damascus Volcano." None of the Assad regime's four heads of military intelligence were killed -- they are actually running the (ghastly) show in Aleppo.

There are also problems with a Syrian death squad being able to strike Riyadh's inner sanctum. But Iranian intelligence could certainly pull this off. As for Debka's assumption that Tehran may have hired al-Qaeda jihadis for an inside job against the House of Saud, that is rubbish.

The bottom line; no one knows, because no one is talking.

What is certain is that Bandar as head of Saudi intelligence was part of King Abdullah's hardcore response to the Arab Spring.

In Syria, the House of Saud strategy boils down to regime change -- and a fragile, fragmented, Sunni government in Damascus not aligned with Tehran.

Internally, the strategy is to viciously smash any peaceful Shi'ite-majority protest in the eastern provinces. Essentially, there's no Arab Spring in Saudi Arabia because the House of Saud either bribes or intimidates its subjects.

The overall strategy of choice is "blame it on Iran"; as this logic goes, Saudi Shi'ites are Iranian puppets as much as Bahraini Shi'ites. The Obama administration blindly subscribes to this fallacy -- totally missing the point; the House of Saud hates any semblance of Western parliamentary democracy as much as it hates Shi'ites -- Iranian and otherwise.

So what happened in Riyadh? A graphic Tehran message to the House of Saud? A rogue suicide bomber? An internal Saudi war? The House of Saud is not talking. And Bandar is not moving. 

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His regular column, "The Roving Eye," is widely read. He is an analyst for the online news channel Real News. He argues that the world has become fragmented into "stans" -- we are now living an intestinal war, an undeclared global civil war. He has published three books on geopolitics, including the spectacularly-titled “Globalistan: How the Globalised World Is Dissolving Into Liquid War”.  His latest book is "Obama Does Globalistan."

So Long, US Dollar

Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

---

By Marin Katusa, Casey Research

There's a major shift under way, one the US mainstream media has left largely untouched even though it will send the United States into an economic maelstrom and dramatically reduce the country's importance in the world: the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

For decades the US dollar has been absolutely dominant in international trade, especially in the oil markets. This role has created immense demand for US dollars, and that international demand constitutes a huge part of the dollar's valuation. Not only did the global-currency role add massive value to the dollar, it also created an almost endless pool of demand for US Treasuries as countries around the world sought to maintain stores of petrodollars. The availability of all this credit, denominated in a dollar supported by nothing less than the entirety of global trade, enabled the American federal government to borrow without limit and spend with abandon.

The dominance of the dollar gave the United States incredible power and influence around the world… but the times they are a-changing. As the world's emerging economies gain ever more prominence, the US is losing hold of its position as the world's superpower. Many on the long list of nations that dislike America are pondering ways to reduce American influence in their affairs. Ditching the dollar is a very good start.

In fact, they are doing more than pondering. Over the past few years China and other emerging powers such as Russia have been quietly making agreements to move away from the US dollar in international trade. Several major oil-producing nations have begun selling oil in currencies other than the dollar, and both the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have issued reports arguing for the need to create a new global reserve currency independent of the dollar.

The supremacy of the dollar is not nearly as solid as most Americans believe it to be. More generally, the United States is not the global superpower it once was. These trends are very much connected, as demonstrated by the world's response to US sanctions against Iran.

US allies, including much of Europe and parts of Asia, fell into line quickly, reducing imports of Iranian oil. But a good number of Iran's clients do not feel the need to toe America's party line, and Iran certainly doesn't feel any need to take orders from the US. Some countries have objected to America's sanctions on Iran vocally, adamantly refusing to be ordered around. Others are being more discreet, choosing instead to simply trade with Iran through avenues that get around the sanctions.

It's ironic. The United States fashioned its Iranian sanctions assuming that oil trades occur in US dollars. That assumption – an echo of the more general assumption that the US dollar will continue to dominate international trade – has given countries unfriendly to the US a great reason to continue their moves away from the dollar: if they don't trade in dollars, America's dollar-centric policies carry no weight! It's a classic backfire: sanctions intended in part to illustrate the US's continued world supremacy are in fact encouraging countries disillusioned with that very notion to continue their moves away from the US currency, a slow but steady trend that will eat away at its economic power until there is little left.

Let's delve into both situations – the demise of the dollar's dominance and the Iranian sanction shortcuts – in more detail.

Signs the Dollar Is Going the Way of the Dodo

The biggest oil-trading partners in the world, China and Saudi Arabia, are still using the petrodollar in their transactions. How long this will persist is a very important question. China imported 1.4 million barrels of oil a day from Saudi Arabia in February, a 39% increase from a year earlier, and the two countries have teamed up to build a massive oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. As the nations continue to pursue increased bilateral trade, at some point they will decide that involving US dollars in every transaction is unnecessary and expensive, and they will ditch the dollar.

When that happens, the tide will have truly turned against the dollar, as it was an agreement between President Nixon and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia in 1973 that originally created the petrodollar system. Nixon asked Faisal to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In exchange, Nixon pledged to protect Saudi oilfields from the Soviet Union and other potential aggressors, such as Iran and Iraq.

That agreement created the foundation for an incredibly strong US dollar. All of the world's oil money started to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing demand for both US dollars and US debt. Every oil-importing nation in the world started converting its surplus funds into US dollars to be able to buy oil. Oil-exporting countries started spending their cash on Treasury securities. And slowly but surely the petrodollar system spread beyond oil to encompass almost every facet of global trade.

The value of the US dollar is based on this role as the conduit for global trade. If that role vanishes, much of the value in the dollar will evaporate. Massive inflation, high interest rates, and substantial increases in the cost of food, clothing, and gasoline will make the 2008 recession look like nothing more than a bump in the road. This will be a crater. The government will be unable to finance its debts. The house of cards, built on the assumption that the world would rely on US dollars forever, will come tumbling down.

It is a scary proposition, but don't bury your head in the sand because countries around the world are already starting to ditch the dollar.

Russia and China are leading the charge. More than a year ago, the two nations made good on talks to move away from the dollar and have been using rubles and renminbi to trade with each other since. A few months ago the second-largest economy on earth – China – and the third-largest economy on the planet – Japan – followed suit, striking a deal to promote the use of their own currencies when trading with each other. The deal will allow firms to convert Chinese and Japanese currencies into each other directly, instead of using US dollars as the intermediary as has been the requirement for years. China is now discussing a similar plan with South Korea.

Similarly, a new agreement among the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) promotes the use of their national currencies when trading, instead of using the US dollar. China is also pursuing bilateral trades with Malaysia using the renminbi and ringgit. And Russia and Iran have agreed to use rubles as a means of currency in their trades.

Then there's the entire continent of Africa. In 2009 China became Africa's largest trading partner, eclipsing the United States, and now China is working to expand the use of Chinese currency in Africa instead of US dollars. Standard Bank, Africa's largest financial institution, predicts that $100 billion worth of trade between China and Africa will be settled in renminbi by 2015. That's more than the total bilateral trade between China and Africa in 2010.

The idea of moving away from the dollar is also finding support from major international agencies. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has stated that "the current system of currencies and capital rules that binds the world economy is not working properly and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises." The statement continued, saying "the dollar should be replaced with a global currency." The International Monetary Fund agrees, recently arguing that the dollar should cede its role as global reserve currency to an international currency, which is in effect a basket of national currencies.

There is also a host of countries that have started using their own currencies to complete oil trades, a move that strikes right at the heart of US-dollar dominance. China and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to ditch the dollar and use their own currencies in oil transactions. The Chinese National Bank says this agreement is worth roughly $5.5 billion annually. India is buying oil from Iran with gold and rupees. China and Iran are working on a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese imported products.

Speaking of Bartering for Oil… How about Those Iranian Sanctions?

The United States and the European Union based their Iran sanctions on the financial system behind Iran's oil trade. The country uses its central bank to run its oil business – the bank settles trades through the Belgium company Swift (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) and the trades are always in US dollars. Once they take full effect in July, US and EU sanctions against Iran will make transactions with the Iranian central bank illegal. When that occurs, this official avenue of trade will shut down. In fact, Iran was shut out of Swift a few weeks ago, so that road is already blockaded.

But the arrogance in the sanctions is the assumption that Iran can only use this one, dollar-based avenue. In reality, the Islamic Republic is considerably more agile than that; removing its ability to trade in the official manner is only encouraging the country to find imaginative new methods to sell its oil.

Since the sanctions were announced, Tehran's official oil sales have certainly declined. Iran actually preemptively halted oil shipments to Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain, and France, which together had bought some 18% of Iran's oil. But covert sales have curbed or perhaps even reversed the reduction in shipments. It is impossible to know the details, as buyers and sellers involved in skirting the sanctions are being very discreet, but the transactions are undoubtedly happening.

As mentioned above, Iran is selling oil to India for gold and rupees. China and Iran are working on a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese imported products. China and South Korea are also quietly buying Iranian oil with their own currencies.

The evidence? Millions of barrels of Iranian oil that were in storage in Iranian tankers a few weeks ago now seem to have disappeared. Officially, no one knows where the oil went. Was it rerouted? Has production been shut in? Is the oil being stored elsewhere?

Oil is fungible, which means one barrel of crude is interchangeable with another. Once it leaves its home country, it can be nearly impossible to know where a barrel of oil originated, if its handlers so desire. And it's not just barrels that are hard to track – even though oil is carried on ships so large they are dubbed "supertankers" it is surprisingly difficult to keep tabs on every tanker full of Iranian oil.

And the Iranians are using every trick in the book to move their oil undetected. In the last week it became apparent that Tehran has ordered the captains of its oil tankers to switch off the black-box transponders used in the shipping industry to monitor vessel movements and oil transactions. As such, most of Iran's 39-strong fleet of tankers is "off radar." According to Reuters, only seven of Iran's Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) are still operating their onboard transponders, while only two of the country's nine smaller Suezmax tankers are trackable.

Under international law ships are required to have a satellite tracking device on board when travelling at sea, but a ship's master has the discretion to turn the device off on safety grounds, if he has permission from the ship's home state. Some tankers turned off their trackers to avoid detection last year during the Libyan civil war in order to trade with the Gaddafi government.

And Iran is about to gain even greater flexibility in disguising the locations of oil sales, as the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) is about to take delivery of the first of 12 new supertankers on order from China. The new tankers will add much-needed capacity to NITC's fleet at a time when the number of maritime firms willing to transport Iranian crude has dwindled significantly, forcing Iran's remaining buyers to rely on NITC tankers. Thankfully for NITC, the 12 new VLCCs – each capable of transporting two million barrels of crude – will significantly expand the company's current fleet of 39 ships.

Sanctions or no sanctions, Iran is moving its oil. But even having your own, off-radar ships to transport oil bought in renminbi or rupees or won doesn't mean all these tricks and maneuvers don't have a cost.

Freight costs for each voyage add up to nearly $5 million, a sizeable hit for Tehran. Iran is often also shelling out millions of dollars in insurance for each oil shipment, because the majority of international shipments are insured through a European insurance consortium that is backing away from Iranian vessels because the EU sanctions will make such transactions illegal.

And since business is business, buyers are also demanding much better credit terms from the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) than normal. Traders are reporting agreements giving the buyer as much as six months to pay for each two-million-barrel cargo, a grace period that would cost Tehran as much as $10 million per shipment.

For Tehran to cover freight costs, insurance, and the cost of generous credit terms wipes out as much as 10 percent of the value of each supertanker load. Beyond that, customers are also negotiating better prices. For example, the flow of Iranian oil to China did slow in the first quarter of the year, but not because China endorsed the sanctions. Rather, Chinese refiner Sinopec reduced purchases to negotiate better prices with the National Iranian Oil Company. The country's imports from Iran are expected to climb back to the 560,000 barrel-per-day level in April.

That trade, along with non-dollar-denominated deals with India, Turkey, Syria, and a long list of other friendly nations, will keep Iran's finances afloat for a long time. The sanctions may be preventing Tehran from banking full value for each tanker of oil, but there is still a lot of Iranian oil money flowing.

The mainstream media is avoiding all discussion of the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. Even fewer people are talking about how sanctions based on Iran's supposed need to use the US dollar to sell its oil leave loopholes wide enough for VLCCs to sail right through.

Without acknowledging the elephant in the room, articles about Iranian tankers turning off their transponders or India using gold to buy Iranian oil invariably sound like plot developments in a spy thriller. Much more useful would be to convey the real message: The world doesn't need to revolve around US dollars anymore and the longer the US tries to pretend that the dollar is still and will remain dominant, the more often its international actions will backfire.

[The end of dollar dominance is a very ominous sign for the US economy… especially since the federal government seems to be ignoring this enormous elephant. Ignore it at your peril – or get advice from over 30 financial experts that will help you thrive during the tumultuous times ahead.]