US Legislator Brookings´ “Path to Persia” II: The Proxy War Path through ISIS
Iran has just been hit for the first time by ISIS – the tool of the US, Turkey, the UK and Israel – so this is a declaration of war by those powers on Iran!
The BBC 7 June 2017
Twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini’s mausoleum in the capital, Tehran, have killed at least 12 people and injured many more. The Islamic State (IS) group has said it carried out the attacks, which would be a first in Iran.
NATO-General Wesley Clark sagte im Jahr 2001 auf Pentagon-Insider-Informationen basiert voraus, der Iran sei die Letzte von 7 Regierungen, die die USA zu stürzen plane.
Brookings/US incredible hypocrisy to fool the world
On 29 Nov. 2013, I wrote, referring to Tony Cartalucci: The Brookings Institution is a very influential US think tank that has been building US policies over the past 70 years.
In Brookings´paper “Which Path to Persia?“, 2009, Brookings writes on p. 39:
“…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context. 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.”
Indeed, Iran may come under attack according to plan. Brookings writes: Goading Provocations for an Air Strike, p. 97-98): “…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.”
Now the US is using proxies to bring about regime change in Iran – so far mostly letting ISIS fight against Iran.
However, the problem is that all Syrian anti-Assad warriors cooperate with IS(IS) and Al Qaeda! So, the Brookings article indirectly admits IS(IS) as a US ally.
This plan is not new in principle: Divide and rule – as already the ancient Romans said, using Muslim mujahedeens – in this case ISIS – as a tool to smash the order of states like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, indeed even Europe, and here and here
Tony Cartalucci, Activist Post 9 May 2017 writes:
Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers
The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran’s borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq – and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey – is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.
In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” Es gelang then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.
The report explicitly stated:
The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime.
The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.
Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list MEK from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization registry – which happened in 2012 – so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change. and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly.
This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump’s campaign team – including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.
However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups.
Under a section of the paper “Which Path to Persia 2009” titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings notes:
Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.
For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role.
Brookings noted in 2009 that:
A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.
The Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and verifiably executed since then.
The Islamic State represents the perfect “proxy”.Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria.
|Here US-Senator John McCain meets in Syria with ISIS. The head in the red circle belongs to al-Baghdadi, the Jewish Mossad-Agent, who is the boss of the Isis|
The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, was demonstrated definitively during the 1980s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.
For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.
In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on the state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.
The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West’s proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.
by Anders , new.euro-med.dk