Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

Israel Ready to React with 'Great Force': Netanyahu

AFP
March 24, 2011

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US Defence Secretary Robert Gates Friday that Israel is ready to act with "great force" in response to a spate of rocket fire by Gaza militants and a deadly bus bombing in Jerusalem.

Israel had been "subjected to bouts of terror and rocket attacks," Netanyahu told reporters before going into a meeting with Gates.

"We stand ready to act with great force and great determination to put a stop to it," he added, with officials saying Israel had not been hit by any projectiles Friday morning.

"Any civilised society will not tolerate such wanton attacks on its civilians," he said.

However, as Netanyahu spoke, Defence Minister Ehud Barak toured the Gaza border with army chief Lieutenant General Benny Gantz, saying that the situation seemed to be calming down.

"In the last 24 hours there has been no fire into our territory, but we continue to monitor the situation," Barak said, according to a statement from his office.

And Barak indicated that if the rocket attacks stopped, Israel would also halt its strikes into the Gaza Strip.

"We don't intend to let the terror organizations again disturb the order but we will do all we need to to return the (military) activity to the border line itself," he said.

Also, Barak said, Israel will deploy its "Iron Dome" multi-million-dollar missile defence system in southern Israel for the first time next week in the wake of rocket attacks.

"I authorised the army to deploy in the next few days the first battery of "Iron Dome" for an operational trial," he said.

The deployment of the Iron Dome interceptor, designed to combat short-range rocket threats from Gaza and Lebanon, has been delayed until now with officials saying operating crews needed more training and suggestions the system was prohibitively expensive.

Gates, a former CIA director with years of experience in Washington, said US-Israel security ties were as strong as they had ever been at a time when the region was in "turmoil."

On Thursday, he said in Tel Aviv that Washington firmly backed Israel's right to respond both to the rocket fire and the Jerusalem bombing, which he described as "repugnant acts".

But he suggested Israel should tread carefully or risk derailing the course of popular unrest sweeping Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East.

The US defence chief is pressing Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take "bold action" for peace despite soaring tensions, saying political upheaval in the region offered an opportunity.

After his meeting with Netanyahu, Gates travelled amid heavy security to the West Bank city of Ramallah to meet Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the first such visit by a US defence chief.

Before their meeting, Fayyad told Gates it was a time of "great challenge throughout the region but also a time of opportunity, requiring a redoubling of the effort in pursuing the cause of peace, and justice and security."

Gates said he looked forward to discussing "prospects for a two-state solution".

Neither man made any statement following their roughly 45-minute meeting.

Israel's leaders have appeared reluctant to be dragged into another bloody war with Hamas, especially as they lacked international support for any new offensive on Gaza.

In the last week dozens of rockets have hit southern Israel. The vast majority of them were fired by Islamic Jihad's military wing, the Al-Quds Brigade.

Israel has responded with airstrikes on Gaza.

Thursday's rocket fire on Ashdod came a day after the Al-Quds Brigades vowed to fire more at cities deep inside Israel as it entered "a new phase" of resistance.

And despite Hamas's pledge to rein in militants firing on Israel, Islamic Jihad's leadership insisted it would not stop its "resistance" unless Israel did the same.

Overrunning the Entire Middle East, Erasing Entire Civilizations and Building a Servile Homogeneous Regional Block to be Rolled into a Greater Global Government

Syria & Yemen: Tying up Globalist Loose Ends

By Tony Cartalucci, LandDestroyer.com
March 23, 2011

Once again, “claims” and “allegations” herald broader western meddling in the Middle East under the guise of the suspiciously ubiquitous “Arab Spring.” As the global corporate-financier oligarchy directs US, British, and French planes to bomb yet another Arab nation, their media tentacles are searching for sensationalism and sympathy in Syria to bolster destabilization efforts on the ground.

Indeed the “Otpor fist” that heralded unrest from Tunisia to Egypt is now being “raised” in Syria.

In a recent TIME magazine article titled, “Arab Spring: Is a Revolution Starting Up in Syria?,” it cites “descriptions” of protests, “claims” of government brutality, and “alleged details” of protesters rising up against the Syrian government, long slated for removal by the global corporate-financier oligarchs.

Yemen as well, cited as an example of Western hypocrisy for not garnering it’s own UN “no-fly zone” in reality doesn’t need one, as the British created and managed Muslim Brotherhood and elements within the Yemeni army are already on their way to ousting President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Mohammed Qahtan, Yemen’s Al-Islah (Muslim Brotherhood) leader, is leading the calls to oust Saleh from power, not “the people of Yemen.” In a March 23, 2011 Reuters report, Qahtan was quoted as warning Saleh,

“We will arrive where you are and we will remove you.”

In the same report, the US gives yet another shocking display of feigned surprise over the Middle East upheaval, voicing concerns that Saleh’s ouster would be a blow to their fight against “Al Qaeda.”

As we will soon see, such upheaval has been in the works for 20 years, and this dishonesty now being portrayed since the unrest began in Tunisia is yet another look into the bottomless well of depravity from which our “leadership” reigns.

The Greater Middle East

Concurrently the US is providing Al-Qaeda linked militant extremists in Libya with air support in their bid to oust Qaddafi. A recent US Army report aired by geopolitical analyst and historian Dr. Webster Tarpley shows the US Army noticed in 2007 that many of the Al Qaeda operatives sent to destabilize Iraq were from Libya. More specifically, these operatives were from the current eastern rebel strongholds of Benghazi and Darnah, now under the protection of a US led no-fly zone.

While this may seem to defy all reason, it only does so if measured against the now discredited official narrative peddled since the “War on Terror” began on September 11, 2001. If America is truly waging global war against Al Qaeda, indeed, nothing about the current crisis in the Middle East makes sense, officially or unofficially.

If however, Al Qaeda represents a militant force still as armed, supported, and directed by the West as it was during its US-backed inception during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980′s, it makes perfect sense.

Al Qaeda has made it possible for the US to not only justify its own military adventures in the Middle East, but has given them a militant force to badger target regimes as an alternative to the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood and the US State Department’s armies of youth activists. That America and Al Qaeda appear as “mortal enemies” helps the global corporate-financier oligarchy exert military force while circumventing the untidy anti-Western sentiment that accompanies each Western intervention.

The broader plan, of course, is to overrun the entire Middle East, erase entire civilizations and build a servile homogeneous regional block to be rolled into a greater global government. While this sounds like the stuff of wild conspiracy theories, former NATO commander Wesley Clark stated that in 1991, Paul Wolfowitz was already determined to use US military might to conquer the Middle East.

CFR and International Crisis Group member Wesley Clark, makes a shocking confession confirming the imperialist designs of the corporate-financier oligarchy. Before Bush was even put into office in 2000, the plan to seize the Middle East was already well underway, with 9/11 the opening act. It has more to do with global domination than simply “oil.”

Considering the irrefutable evidence that the current unrest in the Middle East is a result of a premeditated Western plot given the full support of the US State Department, Department of Defense, globalist corporations and now the US military in Libya, it is quite clear the plan Clark described back in 2007 is being rushed through to conclusion. The culmination will be war with Iran.

Clark specifically cites as the architects of this decades spanning plan, the “Project for a New American Century (PNAC).” PNAC is a “Neo-Con” cadre within the globalist combine that has been recently peddling cartoonish propaganda to incite war with Iran. Their serendipitously timed propaganda film “Iranium” focusing on aggressive support for another “Green Revolution” in Iran, just so happened to be released in January 2011 at the height of the unrest sweeping the Arab world. These same “Neo-Cons” are also complicit with supporting the various uprisings via an extensive network of NGOs funded and supported by the Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Rest of the World

Clark’s prophetic words in 2007 also shed light on the Russian factor – unwilling or unable to stop US military aggression against their own allies back in the 1990′s, and with the recent failure to vote down UNSC r.1973 regarding Libya, they embolden the West to continue their march toward Tehran.

Of course, both Russia and China are dealing with a myriad of destabilization efforts both on their borders and within.

Russia, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been struggling against Western-aligned oligarchs including the likes of Mikhail Khodorkovsky who attempted to erect a George Soros-style “Open Russian Society” network of NGOs, complete with Jacob Rothschild and Henry Kissinger sitting on its board of directors. Khodorkovsky was eventually stopped, and now resides in a Siberian prison cell courtesy of Vladamir Putin.

To this day, Khodorkovsky is being supported, and his imprisonment leveraged by the West to create tension within Russia via globalist lobbying firms like Robert Amsterdam’s Amsterdam & Peroff. Ongoing destabilization efforts in neighboring Belarus, openly backed by the US State Department and creatures like Joe Lieberman, are also taxing Russia’s ability to confront the West’s encroachment elsewhere.

Joe Lieberman misappropriates the American people’s time by
obsessing over Belarus’ internal affairs while his own nation teeters
on economic collapse, ironically caused by imperialist pursuits.

China has been the subject of encirclement and meddling for over two centuries. The US currently occupies South Korea, Japan, and Afghanistan, with a concerted and ongoing effort to destabilize relations within and between India and Pakistan, as well as efforts to stoke color revolutions in Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand. All of this is aimed at disrupting China’s ability to challenge Anglo-American hegemony in Asia.

China is no stranger to the effects of foreign, imperialistic meddling.
Its recent history is more or less a continuum of
fending off the ill-effects of foreign occupation and foreign
backed regimes including the devastating “Great Leap
Forward” by Mao Zedong.

Domestically, a “Jasmine Revolution” was averted by Chinese officials on the back of January’s Egyptian unrest. The US State Department and the BBC are now pledging to assist “activists” inside China (and Iran) with circumventing measures put in place to prevent another attempted uprising. Creating instability inside a nation of over a billion people with regional diversity rivaling that of Europe will undoubtedly result in thousands, perhaps millions of deaths (see the rise of Mao) and gives us another instructive look into the motivations and “values” of our alleged leadership.

As reported previously, this current globalist blitzkrieg signals the largest geopolitical reordering since WW2. It is but one step, albeit a large step, toward a unipolar one world government centered around the global corporate-financier oligarchy. Considering that it is a gambit 20 years in the making, we should not wonder why operations in Libya have taken precedence over the unfolding disaster in Japan.

We should however be outraged, as the men that lord over us and dominate our nations financially and industrially are irrefutably committing real crimes against humanity through aggression and criminal negligence.

For more information on alternative economics, getting self-sufficient and moving on without the parasitic, incompetent, criminal globalist oligarchs:

Naming Names: Your Real Government
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Alternative Economics
Self-Sufficiency

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report.

China

Is China Gearing Up For WW3?

CNN
March 23, 2011

A View of the NWO War Room

By Zen Gardner, www.zengardner.com
March 22, 2011

Notice their 'world of war' is played on a Masonic checkerboard of 'opposites'

Nothing like a map to know where you're going. In the case of the NWO, the world is like a chess game, where they move all the major pieces and just crush the pawns that get in the way.

But if you want to know what's coming, look how clearly things appear when you can assess where power is placed. Here are a few things I found enlightening when looking at the global positioning of the invading US arm of the NWO, precursor of the Army of the "United Nations".

1. The official statistics:

The U.S. maintains 716 operational military bases in 110 countries. There are 250,000 military personnel, men and women, employed on those bases. The annual cost of the US military presence is in the billions.

The sweep of history:

WW II ends, and the U.S. corporate elite sees its future in the war industry, an endless production of bigger and more destructive arsenals. A good pretext is the threat from the USSR, the escalation of fear, the arms race, the creation of the “communist menace.”

Always, there is the need for an enemy (Castro, Ho Chi MInh); after glasnost, new enemies are found: Chavez, Iran, drugs, then Al Qaeda and terrorism. Source

2. Now let's see where the U.S. air and military bases are in the middle east.

That doesn't look good for Iran now, does it...

Over 50 U.S. reported airbases in this vicinity alone...and this was in 2008!

3. Here's a map indicating which countries have one or more full fledged military bases.

U.S. military bases circa 2008

4. This map shows what it calls "Obama's big game".

We know he's just a puppet, but they revel in exalting images since that's what they'll ultimately set up for the world to worship in some form.

This is supposed to represent regional powers in the Middle East, the countries hosting US bases, those with nuclear power capability, as well as the "core of the Pakistan match and the strategic crisis ellipse."

Again, doesn't look real good for Iran. One just might get the impression this "encircling power" would very much like that last piece of this regional pie now, wouldn't you?

So Why Haven't They?

Iran claims this would happen if attacked:

Official Says Iran Would Destroy Israel If Attacked

Iran tested missiles this week

July 12, 2008

TEHRAN -- Iran would destroy Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the Middle East if the Islamic republic was attacked over its disputed nuclear program, a senior official has been quoted as saying.

"The U.S. knows full well that with the smallest move against Iran, Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles and would be destroyed," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Mojtaba Zolnour as saying on July 12.

Zolnour is the deputy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards. Source

And then there's the Israeli factor...what are they giving away in visual maps?

A little predictive programming, bra? Oh, how many are itching for this insanity!

Epilogue

An Iran attack may be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" that brings Russia and China into the fray. Not good for anyone on the planet. WW3 on steroids.

But things are moving fast. They're currently busy taking out the little dominoes first in Egypt and Libya, with more to follow for whatever reason, "by hook or by crook", you can be sure. It's been "in the cards" for a long time to the insiders.

But this is big.

The day will very soon come for an Iran attack, but it's clear they're getting their ducks in a row while working on world opinion to reach a satisfactory saturation of their propaganda.

As if it matters.

That they coerced the Arab League, a once "renegade anti-imperialist" organization, to concur with the invasion of a fellow Arab country, you knew they'd made some serious headway replacing, bullying and buying out Arab leaders of the region. Very telling of what lies beneath the surface of reported news.

The headway the NWO has made is staggering.

The rest is going to follow 'like night follows day', an apt metaphor.

Just wondering about it all, Zen

U.S. and the Arab World

Iran concerns fuel U.S. wariness on Libya intervention

The Envoy
March 16, 2011

As Libyan forces continue their rapid advance against poorly equipped rebels, many within the Washington and international foreign policy community have been urging the United States to stop deliberating and back a proposed multilateral no-fly zone to curb Muammar Gadhafi's brutal crackdown.

But some in D.C. policy circles fear that humanitarian intervention in Libya could have the unintended effect of straining the international alliance trying to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, while also expanding anti-American sentiment in the volatile region. In particular, writes Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal, some national security hands in the Obama administration worry that a U.S.-led international military intervention in Libya would play directly into Iranian narratives about U.S. interference in the Middle East and designs on its oil fields:

Those wary of intervening, including many in the Obama administration, worry that Western intervention will play directly into the narrative Tehran's leaders have been spinning to justify cracking down on their own dissidents: that the U.S. and its Zionist allies are waiting to take advantage of any Mideast unrest to seize control of the region and its oil assets.

This Iranian narrative holds that the protesters in Tehran's streets are either active or unwitting agents of this insidious American conspiracy. Because any military intervention in Libya inevitably would be led by American forces, it would be used to further the argument. Indeed, an examination of statements by Iranian leaders in recent days shows this is precisely how they are framing the Libya question.

With Iran in position to make trouble by fomenting unrest among its Shiite brethren in nearby Bahrain, the question of how Mideast turmoil might advance Tehran's interests already loomed large. Now it figures to play more directly into the Libya debate, for Tehran is trying to play both sides of the argument, rhetorically supporting the Libyan rebels while opposing Western help for them.

However, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter--who dealt with many of the same debates about no-fly-zones and UN resolutions during the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts in the 1990s--argues that an international intervention in Libya need not be so complex:

A no-fly zone can be imposed in a matter of hours, likely with low military risk, as NATO demonstrated over Bosnia in the mid-1990s and as a coalition did over Iraq after 1991. As Gates argued, this might also require suppressing Libyan air defenses -- but that is also a relatively straightforward military proposition.

In sum, the course is clear. Washington should push for the rapid institution of a no-fly zone against the Qaddafi regime. This no-fly zone could be undertaken by NATO, the European Union, or by a "coalition of the willing" that includes the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and a few others. This could prove necessary if, despite the backing of the Arab League, the GCC, and the OIC, some NATO allies still do not want to act. Both Turkey and Germany remain reluctant -- Ankara because of the precedent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Berlin out of its historic reluctance to use force. They may have some silent partners among other NATO allies.

At the same time, the West should begin arming the rebels and trying to peel off Qaddafi supporters, by publicly declaring that those who desert Qaddafi now will not be excluded from roles in Libya's post-Qaddafi future. [...] Libyans will need the help of the West not just in getting rid of Qaddafi but also in building their lives after him

But President Barack Obama--who met with his national security team about Libya Tuesday--does not yet seem fully convinced that the United States should wade into action that would require rebuilding another Middle Eastern nation.

"The President instructed his team to continue to fully engage in the discussions at the United Nations, NATO and with partners and organizations in the region," a White House read-out stated, seemingly indicating that action on the no-fly project remains in the discussion and planning stage.

Early reports on Wednesday, however, indicated that the United States is now playing a leading role in the pending UN Security Council debate on assembling a multilateral approach to enforcing no-fly restrictions over Libya.

Among the more prominent no-fly skeptics are some key lawmakers specializing in foreign policy matters, such as Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame, the strains on our military, and other factors, it is doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya," Lugar said Monday.

Israel and the Arab World

Israel Seizes Ship with Iran Arms for Gaza

Reuters
March 15, 2011

Israeli naval commandos on Tuesday seized a cargo ship in the Mediterranean carrying what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said were Iranian-supplied weapons intended for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

A military spokeswoman said Israeli forces met no resistance when they intercepted the German-owned "Victoria" some 200 miles from Israel and were taking the vessel to the Israeli port of Ashdod.

Israel maintains a land and naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, a coastal enclave controlled by Hamas, an Islamist movement opposed to peace with the Jewish state.

The military said the vessel had set off from the Syrian port of Latakia and stopped in Mersin, Turkey, before heading toward Alexandria in Egypt. Turkey has no involvement in the arms shipment, the military said.

Palestinians use a network of tunnels to smuggle weapons and other goods from Egypt into the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu said he personally approved the operation, which he told reporters was carried out "on the high seas in accordance with international law."

"Many weapons were found on board, intended for terrorist forces in the heart of Gaza," Netanyahu said. "Iran is the source of the weaponry."

IRANIAN DENIAL

Asked about Israel's allegation that it seized Iranian arms on the vessel, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said: "Don't trust Israeli media news. There is no such thing. We do not confirm it in any way."

An Israeli military spokesman said an initial search turned up three containers loaded with arms and more cargo would be examined after the ship reached Israel.

Last May, there was an international outcry when Israeli naval commandos seized a Turkish ship that was part of a flotilla trying to break the Gaza blockade.

The soldiers met violent resistance from pro-Palestinian activists when they boarded the cruise vessel Mavi Marmara and killed nine of them, in an incident that strained Israel's ties with Ankara.

In 2009, about 100 miles off Israel's Mediterranean coast, Israeli commandos seized the Francop, a freighter the Israeli military said was carrying hundreds of tonnes of Iranian arms, including rockets, to Lebanon's Hezbollah group.

Nine years ago, Israeli forces intercepted the merchant ship Karine-A in the Red Sea and brought it to the Israeli port of Eilat, where the military displayed 50 tonnes of weapons, including rockets, which Israel said Iran had sent to Palestinian militants.

• Palestinians launch unity rally in Gaza
  Mar 14 2011
• Israel to build settler homes after Palestinian attack
  Mar 13 2011
• Palestinians honour highjack leader, defying Israel
  Mar 13 2011
• Rival factions snub Hamas unity offer
  Mar 10 2011
• Palestinians dismiss talk of interim peace plan
  Mar 8 2011

Muslim Brotherhood and the Revolutions

Obama is Said to be Favoring Arab Sovereignty Over the Temple Mount!

"The Middle East peace plan that United States President Barack Obama will unveil soon involves the creation of a Palestinian Authority state by 2011 and the transfer of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem [presumably including the Temple Mount] to Arab-Muslim sovereignty... He intends to set an ambitious timetable for completing the peace deal -- something that will please Arabs but may irritate Israel." - Gil Ronen, Obama Plan: Temple Mount Under Arab-Muslim Sovereignty, Israel National News, August 23, 2009

By David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries
August 24, 2009

There is no doubt that the Illuminati plans to address the issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

In NEWS1052, I report that the New England Director of the House of Theosophy stated that one of the "breakthrough" events in allowing Antichrist to appear would be the creation of a single worship center for all Monotheistic faiths in the region, i.e., Jews, Muslims, Christians. However, the Director refused to answer my specific question as to whether this combination worship center would be built on the Temple Mount.

"As the U.N. General Assembly meets in late September, Obama aims to announce the opening of a new negotiating process between Israelis and Palestinians, along with 'confidence-building' steps by Israel, the Palestinian Authority and a number of Arab governments ... Obama 'will probably lay out at least a partial vision of the two-state settlement that all sides now say they support, and the course that negotiations should take. More significantly, he intends to set an ambitious timetable for completing the peace deal -- something that will please Arabs but may irritate Israel'."

I cannot fathom how Prime Minister Netanyahu could force this part of the plan for a Palestinian State down Israel's throat. The Temple Mount Faithful has created a cornerstone for the next Temple and enjoys wide public support. Even many secular Jews support the building of a new Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, which means that Israel must control that area.

Could immensely strong Orthodox resistance to Arab control over the Temple Mount lead to a public campaign against them which would erode their power by making them appear to be unrealistic and too radical? After all, the Director of the House of Theosophy in Boston stated that one of the major goals of the "New Jerusalem Covenant Project" was to eliminate the Orthodox influence in Israel.

We can only wait to see how this Palestinian State plan unfolds, but one matter is certain: events are going to be very interesting and will fulfill prophecy.

Prophecies of Daniel 9:24-27, Matthew 24:15 and Revelation 11:1-12 reveal that Solomon's Temple is built for Antichrist to use. This prophetic reality means that the new Temple is built after the World War III, which is designed to produce the Man of Sin. Most significantly, the Illuminati Plan, as revealed in "The Armageddon Script," states that the New David (Antichrist) will travel to the Temple Mount and stand amongst the "rubble of the Dome of the Rock" ( p. 233-35).

Thus, the Illuminati plans to destroy the Dome of the Rock during the World War III fighting so that their Antichrist can rebuild Solomon's Temple. This reality means that Arabs will retain control over the Temple Mount until the moment Antichrist comes to the world scene and seizes it for the Jews so his temple can be created.

Read More...

Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

Israel Provides Henchmen for Gaddafi

Israeli arms distribution company Global CST has reportedly, under the authorization of Tel Aviv, provided Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi with African mercenaries to clamp down on anti-government protesters.

Press TV
March 2, 2011

Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.

The arms company was previously convicted in an African country over illegal deals, News-Israel website reported.

Sources say Global CST had obtained the permission for providing the mercenaries to Gaddafi from the Israeli officials in advance.

Earlier, Global CST general manager had met with the head of the Israeli Intelligence Agencies (Aman) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak and obtained the permission for the measure.

The company representatives also met with Abdullah Sanusi, the head of Libyan Internal Intelligence, in Chad to discuss the details for a final agreement, the report says.

The mercenaries who attack the civilians in Tripoli have mostly come from Chad.

Gaddafi regime pays $2000 per day for each mercenary. The mercenaries receive $100 per day and the remaining goes to Global CST, the report says.

Meanwhile, the United States has demanded the UN Security Council (UNSC) to remove the provisions of charging mercenaries with war crimes in the killing of Libyan civilians.

The request is for the UNSC to word the resolution in a way that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the International Criminal Court could be prosecuted by the Court for their actions in Libya.

The Libyan revolution, inspired by the recent revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, sparked nearly two weeks ago.

Brutal crackdown by the Libyan regime on anti-government protesters has left thousands of people dead so far.

China

China Challenges U.S. Predominance in Asia-Pacific

Associated Press
Mar 7, 2011

When China launched threatening war games off Taiwan 15 years ago on the eve of an election on the self-governing island, the U.S. deployed two aircraft carriers, and China quickly backed down.

Things don't seem so one-sided any more.

China's military has been on a spending spree at a time that the debt-ridden U.S. government is looking to cut defense costs. On Friday, China announced a 12.7 percent hike for this year, the latest in a string of double-digit increases.

That trend has triggered worries in Congress and among security analysts about whether the United States can maintain its decades-long military predominance in the economically crucial Asia-Pacific.

While the U.S. military has been drained by 10 years of costly conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, China has developed air, naval and missile capabilities that could undercut U.S. superiority in China's backyard.

China is still decades away from building a military as strong as the United States. It has not fought a major conflict since a border war with Vietnam in 1979 and is not a Soviet-style rival threatening American soil.

But the shift raises questions about whether the U.S. can meet its commitment to maintain a strong presence in the Asia-Pacific for decades — a matter not just of global prestige but also seen as critical for safeguarding shipping lanes vital for world trade and protecting allies.

China already has an innate geographical advantage in any conflict in the west Pacific. One expert posits that with its military buildup, China could conquer Taiwan by the end of the decade even if the U.S. military intervenes.

China regards Taiwan as part of its territory. Relations between the two, long seen as a potential flash point, have warmed in the past two years. But China's assertion of territorial claims in the South China Sea, which it has declared as a "core interest" — essentially something it could go to war over — has spooked its neighbors and fortified their support for a strong U.S. presence in the region. Even former enemy Vietnam is forging military ties with the U.S.

Last week, the Philippines deployed two warplanes after a ship searching for oil complained it was harassed by two Chinese patrol boats in the South China Sea. Japan scrambled F-15 fighter jets after Chinese surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft flew near disputed islands in the East China Sea.

"As China's military has gotten more capable and China has behaved more aggressively, a number of countries are looking at the U.S. as a hedge to make sure they can maintain independence, security and stability," said Abraham Denmark, director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

But those allies question whether the U.S. can retain its freedom to operate in the region, and whether its economy — highly indebted to China and struggling to recover from a recession — can sustain its high level of military spending, said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center of Strategic and International Studies think tank.

The U.S. Pacific Command has 325,000 personnel, five aircraft carrier strike groups, 180 ships and nearly 2,000 aircraft. Tens of thousands of forces stay on China's doorstep at long-established bases in South Korea and Japan.

China's defense spending is still dwarfed by the United States. Even if China really invests twice as much in its military as its official $91.5 billion budget, which some analysts believe, that is still only about a quarter of U.S. spending. It has no aircraft carriers and lags the U.S. in defense technology. Some of its most vaunted recent military advances will take years to reach operation.

For example, China test flew its stealth fighter in January, months earlier than U.S. intelligence expected, but U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says China will still only have a couple of hundred of these "fifth-generation" jets by 2025, when the United States should have 1,500.

But China's growing array of aircraft, naval and submarine vessels, ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-satellite and cyber war capabilities already enable it to project power beyond its shores. It plans new submarines, larger naval destroyers and transport aircraft that could expand that reach further.

Roger Cliff, a respected defense researcher who recently testified before a congressional hearing on China, says many of the missiles and strike aircraft have a range of about 900 miles, which put them within attacking distance of virtually all U.S. air and naval bases in the region. They include the DF-21D missile which is designed to target aircraft carriers. It employs technology that no other U.S. rival has mastered. It does not appear to have been tested yet against a maneuvering target at sea.

Cliff said if trends continue, China should have sufficient missiles and precision bombs by the end of the decade to render inoperable for a week or more all airfields on Taiwan and U.S. air bases in Okinawa, Japan, and possibly others farther away. He said there are between 40 and 50 Chinese air bases within 500 miles of Taiwan, each generally hosting a squadron of 24 aircraft, which could overwhelm superior U.S. aircraft through sheer numbers. If China acquired amphibious landing vehicles, he forecast it could conquer Taiwan.

If U.S. military planners are worried about that possibility, they aren't showing it. They say plans to cap defense spending within five years won't derail modernization plans. Pacific Command chief Adm. Robert Willard said last month that while the U.S. carefully watches China's growing military capabilities — and urges greater openness from China about them — the United States does not need to change its strategy.

China maintains it does not have offensive intentions, and analysts say that military action in the region would hurt its export-driven economy which could threaten what its government prizes above all else — domestic stability. The U.S. military presence may also benefit China as it restrains neighbors like South Korea and Japan from seeking nuclear weapons.

As U.S. and Chinese forces increasingly rub up against each other in the west Pacific, the U.S. says it wants to promote military ties with China to prevent a chance skirmish and for China to develop as a "responsible major power." To date, China has been reluctant to engage meaningfully after the recent restoration of military ties that were cut over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

"This is not the Cold War with two rival camps facing each other," said Michael Schiffer, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia. "We are seeking a military-military relationship that is broad and deep enough to manage our differences while expanding on areas of common interest."

Israel on High Alert as Iranian Warships with Missiles Enter Suez Canal en Route to Syria

Iranian Naval Vessels Enter Suez Canal en Route to Syria

Associated Press
February 22, 2011

Two Iranian naval vessels entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday en route to Syria, officials said, the first time in three decades that Tehran has sent military ships through the strategic waterway.

Canal officials said the ships — a frigate and a supply vessel — are expected to reach the Mediterranean later in the day.

Israel has made clear it views the passage as a provocation. Israeli officials refused to comment Tuesday, though earlier this week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he viewed the move "with gravity."

The canal linking the Red Sea and the Mediterranean enables ships to avoid a lengthy sail around Africa. The Iranian ships are headed for a training mission in Syria, a close ally of Iran's hard-line Islamic rulers and an arch foe of Israel. In Syria, officials at the Iranian embassy said it would mark the first time in years that Iranian warships dock in a Syrian port.

The ships paid about $300,000 in fees for the passage, according to a Maritime agent. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Iran's request to send the warships through the Suez Canal came at a particularly difficult time for Egypt as the nation's new military rulers try to focus on pressing domestic issues, including restoring security after the uprising that ousted longtime leader Hosni Mubarak.

The military rulers apparently had no choice but to grant the ships passage because an international convention regulating shipping says the canal must be open "to every vessel of commerce or of war." Egypt also cannot search naval ships passing through the waterway.

Iranian warships have not passed through the Suez Canal since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Egyptian-Iranian ties broke down following the Islamic Revolution and the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty the same year. Later, the relationship improved slightly, with contacts currently channeled through interest sections in the two capitals.

Iran Warships to Begin Suez Canal Passage Tuesday

Suez Canal officials: Iranian warships to enter waterway Tuesday, first passage in decades

The Associated Press
February 21, 2011

Suez Canal officials say two Iranian naval vessels are expected to start their passage through the strategic waterway early Tuesday.

Canal officials say the ships are expected to pay a fee of $290,000 for the crossing. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

If the ships make the passage, it would mark the first time in three decades that Iranian military ships have traveled the canal that links the Red Sea to the Mediterranean.

Israel has made clear it views the passage as a provocation.

Canal officials said Monday that the ships, a frigate and a supply vessel, are close to the southern entrance of the canal. The vessels are headed to Syria for a training mission.

'Israel on High Alert:' Iranian Warships with Missiles

Israel on high alert for Iranian warships' Suez transit. Kharg brings missiles

DEBKAfile Special Report
February 19, 2011

Tehran connived to slip the two Iranian warships through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sunday, Feb. 20, after a series of fake delaying tactics agreed between them to cover the flotilla's movements. Egypt's military rulers approved the passage of Iranian flotilla through the Suez Canal without inspecting their freights for banned cargo, taking advantage of the sandstorm over the region which obscured them from spy satellites and helped them to give monitors the slip. Tehran marked this landmark event with an official state TV statement Sunday that the ships had entered the Mediterranean and were on their way to Syria. Sunday, Cairo was still saying they will only reach Suez Monday.

From earlier debkafile reports: Cairo's approval for Iranian warships transit of the Suez Canal has brought Israel and Iran closer than ever before to a naval collision at sea. debkafile reports: Israel has learned that the Iranian cruiser Kharg is carrying long-range missiles for Hizballah which it plans to unload at a Syrian port or Beirut harbor.

US State Department spokesman P.J Crowley said he was "highly skeptical" of the Syrian claim that the two ships' visit was for training.

"If the ships move through the canal, we will evaluate what they actually do. It's not really about the ships. It's about what the ships are carrying, what's their destination, what's the cargo on board, where's it going, to whom and for what benefit," Crowley told a news conference.

He was responding to questions in the wake of debkafile's disclosure that the Karg was carrying missiles for Hizballah and indicating that the US and all other UN members were authorized by UN sanctions against Iran to board and search Iranian ships suspected of carrying illegal weapons.

The war ships' passage through Suez has been delayed as Cairo and Tehran spar over an Egyptian navy inspection of the vessels' cargoes.

In Israel, government and military officials were urgently casting about for a way to prevent those missiles reaching the Lebanese terrorists. Heavy US and Israeli pressure failed to dissuade Egypt's military rulers from letting the Iranian flotilla through Suez. So now the waterway has been opened wide for Iran to consign heavy weapons deliveries to Syria and Lebanon - in the first instance, and eventually to try and break Israel's naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and bring Hamas the heavy munitions that were impossible to transport through smuggling tunnels.

On February 16, debkafile reported:

Twenty-four hours after Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the Egyptian upheaval had no military connotations for Israel, Tehran applied for the Iranian frigate Alvand and cruiser Kharg to transit the Suez Canal on their way to Syria Wednesday night, Feb. 16. Their passage was termed "a provocation" by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. In Beirut, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said he was looking forward to Israel going to war on Lebanon because then his men would capture Galilee.

Israel was closely monitoring the Iranian flotilla, whose visit to the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah on Feb. 6, preparatory to transiting Suez, was first revealed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly481 on February 10.

Up until now, Saudi Arabia, in close conjunction with Egypt and its President Hosni Mubarak, led the Sunni Arab thrust to contain Iranian expansion – especially in the Persian Gulf. However, the opening of a Saudi port to war ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the first time in the history of their relations points to a fundamental shift in Middle East trends in consequence of the Egyptian uprising. It was also the first time Cairo has permitted Iranian warships to transit Suez from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, although Israeli traffic in the opposite direction had been allowed.

Iran made no secret of its plants to expand its naval and military presence beyond the Persian Gulf and Red Sea to the Mediterranean via Suez: On February 2, Iran's Deputy Navy Commander Rear Admiral Gholam-Reza Khadem Biqam announced the flotilla's mission was to "enter the waters of the Red Sea and then be dispatched to the Mediterranean Sea."

However, Israeli military intelligence which failed to foresee the Egyptian upheaval and its policy-makers ignored the Iranian admiral's announcement and its strategic import, just as they failed to heed the significance of the Iranian flotilla's docking in Jeddah.

debkafile's military sources report that Iran is rapidly seizing the fall of the Mubarak regime in Cairo and the Saudi King Abdullah's falling-out with President Barack Obama (see debkafile of Feb. 10, 2011) as an opportunity not to be missed for establishing a foothold along the Suez Canal and access to the Mediterranean for six gains:

1. To cut off, even partially, the US military and naval Persian Gulf forces from their main route for supplies and reinforcements;
2. To establish an Iranian military-naval grip on the Suez Canal, through which 40 percent of the world's maritime freights pass every day:
3. To bring an Iranian military presence close enough to menace the Egyptian heartland of Cairo and the Nile Delta and squeeze it into joining the radical Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish alliance;
4. To thread a contiguous Iranian military-naval line from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Gaza Strip and up to the ports of Lebanon, where Hizballah has already seized power and toppled the pro-West government.
5. To eventually sever the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, annex it to the Gaza Strip and establish a large Hamas-ruled Palestinian state athwart the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea.
By comparison, a Fatah-led Palestinian state on the West Bank within the American orbit be politically and strategically inferior.
6. To tighten the naval and military siege on Israel.

U.S. Alliance with Egypt and Israel

Egypt OKs Iran Warships Through Suez Canal

MSNBC
February 18, 2011

Israel called it a provocation; canal official said only war could have blocked request

Egypt has agreed to let two Iranian naval vessels transit the Suez Canal, a move that comes despite expressions of concern by Israeli officials, the Egyptian-government's MENA news agency reported Friday.

An Iranian diplomat has said the vessels were heading to Syria for training and that the request to move through the canal is in line with international regulations.

Iranian diplomats have offered assurances that the two ships wouldn't have weapons or nuclear or chemical material, MENA stated.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, briefing reporters on an Air Force One flight from California to Oregon, said,

"We're monitoring that, obviously."

"But we also would say that Iran does not have a great track record of responsible behavior in the region," he said.

The move had been widely expected and Iranian officials have insisted the request is in line with international regulations.

It would be the first time since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iranian warships pass through the Suez Canal, which links the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

Egypt has been run by an army-led transition government since last week's ouster of President Hosni Mubarak in a popular uprising.

A Suez Canal official said Egypt can only deny transit through the waterway in case of war.

Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Iran's attempt to send warships through the canal was a provocation.

Israel's state-funded Channel One television said Lieberman, a stridently far-right partner in the conservative coalition, had spoken out of turn and that Israels defense ministry "had preferred to ignore" the ships' approach.

Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its disputed nuclear program, ballistic missile development, support for militants in the region and its threats to destroy Israel.

Syria is one of Israel's neighboring adversaries. It has an alliance with Iran which has deepened along with Tehran's isolation from the West over its disputed nuclear programme, which the Jewish state sees as an existential threat. Iran is a sponsor of the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah.

U.S. Alliance with Egypt and Israel

The Nature of American-Egyptian Military Relations

By Ali Younes, Palestine Chronicle
February 14, 2011

It should come as no surprise that the ruling Egyptian Supreme Military Council announced its intent to honor all of Egypt’s regional and international treaties after it took over the reins of power from president Hosni Mubarak last week. This announcement was made to primarily assure the United States and Israel that the new post Mubarak political order in Cairo will remain formally committed to its peace treaty with Israel.

More than any other government branch; the Egyptian military owes its modern weapons, training, logistics, and equipment to U.S, military aid which came as a direct dividend of the peace treaty it signed with Israel in 1979.

In other words, the U.S is paying both Israel and Egypt for peace it sponsored between the two countries in 1979. The U.S payment to Egypt comes in the form of $ 1.3 billion military aid package and only about $250 billion in economic aid.

The Israeli Payment is worth over $3 billion dollar.

A state department cable in 2009 leaked by Wikileaks last year about the U.S-Egyptian relationship documented a meeting between a U.S. general and Egyptian military leaders. The cable sumarized relationship:

"President [Hosni] Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the $1.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing as ‘untouchable compensation' for making and maintaining peace with Israel."

In another state department memo labeled “secret” the Egyptian military viewed "the tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear," it says:

"Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace."

The U.S. mil-mil relations with Egypt are not just about paying for new military weapons for the Egyptian army. The U.S military aid to Egypt, moreover, pays mostly for upgrades of existing weapons, training Egyptian military and regular maintenance and spare parts.

This military relationship, in exchange, gives the U.S. government leverage over Egypt that the new Egyptian leaders realize as an indispensible fact of life. Without the American military aid the Egyptian military, given the size of American-made weapons it has, will degrade and fall behind its potential enemies in the region.

During the last days of the Mubarak regime, some U.S congressional leaders spoke about cutting U.S. military aid to Egypt if its new leaders moved away from the U.S. national interests. This was the first and clear initial warning that the U.S. might trim its logistical or training support to the Egyptian military which will, in that case, degrade the Egyptian military in the long run and thus weaken Egypt’s strategic value in the region.

U.S. strategic planners calculate that the Egyptian military is unlikely to move away from its alliance with the U.S. due to its total dependence on the U.S. funding to maintain and sustain its American-made weapons. The reasoning behind this thinking is the situation both Iran and the U.S. found themselves in after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.

The Shah of Iran had acquired huge quantities of advanced U.S. weapons that were maintained by U.S .made spare parts and training programs. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, U.S advanced weapons were in position of an enemy state, but the U.S. ended its military aid programs to Iran, a decision that ultimately caused the U.S. weapons there to rust out of service.

A clear example of that is the U.S. made F-14 Tomcat fighter jets that were in service in Iran before the 1979 revolution. To this day, the Iranian air force has yet to recover from the impact of its dependence on U.S. contracts to service and maintain weapons purchased during the Shah era.

A similar situation could occur for the American-made Egyptian F-16s or its Navy frigates or tanks and armor vehicles. If the future leaders of Egypt decided to end their strategic alliance with the U.S, or end their treaty with Israel, the U.S then, can retaliate by ending its military assistance programs and deprive Egypt’s military crucial upgrades and service contracts.

A situation like that will severely damage the front line of the Egyptian air force, the F-16s, which without U.S spare parts and regular maintenance, will end up crumbling and become obsolete and will meet the same fate as the Iranian F14. In this unlikely scenario, Egypt will fall further behind Israel in its military capabilities; even if it compensated its losses with less advanced Russian and Chinese weapons systems.

For the future leaders of Egypt, the U.S. military aid to Egypt is a double-edged sword. On one hand the modern Egyptian military is almost a U.S. creation in terms of training, weapons, equipment and maintenance, and needs the U.S. support to maintain those advanced weapons systems especially that Soviet era weapons systems are on the way out. On the other hand, American military aid package will keep Egypt an American dependency and within the U.S. sphere of influence to advance the U.S. strategic interests in the region. Egypt in this case cannot chart an independent course in the Arab world much less lead it, nor can it match the much stronger Israeli army.

- Ali Younes is a writer and Middle East analyst based in Washington D.C. He can be reached at ali.younes@charter.net.

Dangerous Victims: Egyptian Revolution in Israeli Eyes

By Seraj Assi, Palestine Chronicle
February 14, 2011

The Arab World is suffering and in its suffering it threatens Israel.

'Israeli citizens are frightened,' said Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni in a moment of deep confession.

In fact, what Livni was saying, to paraphrase Franz Fanon, is this: "Mama America, see the Arab! I'm frightened! Frightened! Frightened!"

This is a typical colonial scene where the “frightening victims” are captured in a game that involves dehumanization and empowering and rendered silent and dangerous subjects at the same time. Never can they escape this colonial capacity to invite and contain contradictions and opposites.

Yet in the Israeli case the irony is far more acute. For not only does Israel see its victim as dangerous and potentially evil, but has itself become the victim. It is within this irony that the ritual of victimization came to dominate the master narrative of Israel’s colonial discourse and foreign policy. Not only has Israel become a country whose entire existence is dependent on the suppression of all Arab and Muslim peoples, but has relentlessly contributed to their suppression.

According to Israel’s imperial logic, it is only reasonable to suppress the lives of three hundred million people for the “security” of a few million Israeli Jews, no matter how fictitious this security claim is. The irony is while Israel continues to bill Egyptian revolution as a threat to its national security, its Palestinian citizens- for decades Israel’s internal “dangerous victims”- are taking to the streets to celebrate the victory of their Egyptian brothers. Motivated by human and national solidarity, they have never felt as secure as they do now.

Israel’s security is fundamentally the security of vision. And since the vision of Arab and Muslim despotism is the only guarantee for Israel’s cultural narcissism and ethnic superiority in the region, it must be preserved by any means, and precisely by brutal force for “Arabs only understand force”, as Zionists believe.

Yet Israel’s fear has a performative colonial function. Its obsessive insistence to remain “the only democracy in the Middle East” is not merely a representational fantasy, but an effective colonial strategy. It is precisely this vision that gives Israel’s colonial policies in the region its moral justification and authentic validity. Its “civilizing mission” in the region is completely dependent on its vision of Arab and Muslim undemocratic spirit.

It is Israel’s cultivated vision on Arab despotism that permits its former Prime Minister Ehud Barak to boast that “Israel is a villa in a jungle” and its President Shimon Perez to contrast democracy with peace:

“Mubarak is a great man committed to peace, but Egyptian youth want democracy.”

And when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued his paternalistic warning to Egypt from “becoming another Iran” he was operating into the same imperial logic.

Here Israel’s ambition to reorder the world by the brutal force of Zionist propaganda reaches its extreme absurdity. Indeed, it is in Israel where suppression is equivalent to stability. It is there where Egypt, its people, history and culture are all reduced to one word: Camp David. And it is in Israel where international sympathy for Egyptian struggle for freedom and dignity is violently placed under what an Israeli journalist has recently called “the betrayal of the West.”

Even when the moment has arrived to contradict these proclamations, Israel continues to see itself as the civilization custodian surrounded by uncivilized enemies and unruly protestors. There is no doubt then that Israel’s fear of any prospective democracy in the Arab world is steeped in racism. For Arab democracy simply threatens Israel’s undisputed vision of Arabs that maintained itself regardless of any historical evidence disputing it. And since the evidence this time is too visible to be denied, it becomes too intimidating for the Israeli observer. As the vision is now defeated by the narrative, as it is yielding to the pressure of history, Israel’s fear turns into collective phobia and racist hysteria. The scene of an Arab getting out of the iron cage fashioned by the Israeli observer to violate the serenity of history is precisely what frightens Israel.

On February 02, 2011, an article published in Haaretz opened with the following:

“Edward Said was right. We are all infected with Orientalism, not to mention racism. For the site of an entire people shaking off the yoke of tyranny and bravely demanding free elections - instead of uplifting our spirits, fills us with fear, just because they are Arabs.”

This clearly illustrates how, by a strange change of fortune, Israel came to inherit Western Orientalist racism and produce its own “Orientals”. Indeed, it is in Israel where, to steal a line from Naomi Klein, “Jews made the shift from victims to victimizers with terrifying ease.” This ironic legacy of Western Orientalism now produced by the Zionist racist machinery is precisely what enables Binyamin Fuad Ben-Eliezer, himself an Arab Jew born in Basra in Iraq, to lament Mubarak’s departure by claiming that "Arabs are not ready for democracy.”

Yet Israeli Jews are not alone to inherit the ironic legacy of Western Orientalism in the region. Just a week after the Egyptian revolution broke up Mubarak too introduced his version of Orientalism. Not so different from Livni’s was his message to President Obama on ABC that

"You don't understand Egyptian culture and what would happen if I step down now”.

One might wonder what was left of Egyptian culture under Mubarak regime but a bunch of corrupt muftis and semi-intellectuals. In fact, one does not need a revolution to discover that Mubarak is the last one in Egypt to understand what Egyptian culture is.

Perhaps the most hilarious scene of Mubarak’s Orientalist doctrine was his “camelization” of the demonstrations in Egypt. By unleashing his thugs riding in on camels and horses to crush and terrorize peaceful civilian protestors on the streets Mubarak was sending a clear message to his friends in the West. That is Egyptians, when left to their devices, are nothing but a bunch of unruly savages unsuited to democracy and civilization. His barbaric response to one of the most civilized revolution in the region shows how deeply he believes in what he says and does.

Mubarak’s response is an extraordinary example of how local dictators act as colonial agents towards their people and how they too feed on the irony of “dangerous victims.” Victimization in its Mubarak’s version depends on the same logic of radical inversion. That is by presenting Egyptian protestors as collaborators and foreign agents Mubarak is following the Arab proverb: “He hit me and cried, he raced me to complain.” Yet Mubarak certainly knows, as well as his Israeli and Western interlocutors, that one of the motivations behind the revolution was precisely his scandalous collaborative role in the region.

It is in this context that the revolution against Mubarak regime becomes an anti-colonial struggle. His dehumanization of his people tied with his brutal violence against peaceful civilians is an unmistakably colonial symptom. Here the recent events in Tunisia and Egypt should not make us forget how Western violence was exported to the Arab world from the dawn of colonialism up to the present day, how it was brought home by ruling elites whose links to neocolonial and postcolonial metropolises are maintained through multiple forms of agency, and how authoritarian Arab regimes continue to feed on Western hypocrisy in regard to democracy and liberty, the same slogans that have provided the foothold for Western expansion in the region.

Nor should we forget that Western political stability in comparison to the Arab world should be interpreted against the background of its exploitation of the region which provided it with the wealth to support its relatively decorous life. To make no mistake about it, the obsessive emphasis in Arab and Western media on formal U.S. announcements and responses to events in Egypt and Tunisia can only show how deeply neocolonialism is steeped in the region.

Isn’t then a bitter irony to expect the United State to liberate Egyptians from the very conditions that make it function in the region? Wasn’t this very same discourse on the liberation of Arabs what allowed its imperial venture to take place in the region? Don’t all kinds of critique of Israel’s support for Mubarak’s regime seem absurd given the fact that by supporting Mubarak Israel behaves in accordance with its colonial interests in the region and any critique of it must begin with its colonial foundations instead of its contemporary political hypocrisy?

- Seraj Assi is a PhD student in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, Washington DC. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Globalist Fueled Color Revolutions are Attempting to Transform Entire Regions - First the Middle East and Then the World

The Middle East & Then the World

LandDestroyer.com
February 18, 2011

Beginning in North Africa, now unfolding in the Middle East and Iran, and soon to spread to Eastern Europe and Asia, the globalist fueled color revolutions are attempting to profoundly transform entire regions of the planet in one sweeping move. It is an ambitious gambit, perhaps even one born of desperation, with the globalists' depravity and betrayal on full display to the world with no opportunity to turn back now.

To understand the globalists' reasoning behind such a bold move, it helps to understand their ultimate end game and the obstacles standing between them and their achieving it.

The End Game

The end game of course is a world spanning system of global governance. This is a system controlled by Anglo-American financiers and their network of global institutions ensuring the world's consolidated nations conform to a singular system they can then perpetually fleece. As megalomaniacal oligarchs, their singular obsession is the consolidation and preservation of their power. This will be achieved through a system of population control, industrial control, and monetary control, which together form the foundation of their Malthusian policies.

These policies are on full display in the UN's "Agenda 21," and by policy wonks like the current White House Science Adviser John Holdren in his book titled "Ecoscience."

Malthusian as their policies may be, they surely do not believe the world is in danger due to over-population or the environmental hazards posed by industrial progress. Instead, like all tyrants in history, they are establishing a convincing narrative to defend the immense concentration of undue power within their elitist hands and the implementation of measures to ensure such power stays in their hands indefinitely.

The immediate dangers posed to their plans are numerous, including an alternative media increasingly exposing the true nature of their agenda, and thus awakening a vast number of people who simply refuse to go along with it. There is also national sovereignty, where nations are openly challenging this Anglo-American centric world order and refusing to implement the conditions of their own enslavement.

These sweeping color revolutions, and coordinated military operations, both overt and covert, are dealing with the latter of these two challenges, while censorship, cognitive infiltration, and a tightening police state spanning the Western world under the very false premise of a "War on Terror" confronts the former.

Red = US-backed destabilization, Blue = US occupying/stationed.
China's oil and seaways are all covered.

The Middle East

With the globalist fueled destabilization in progress, concessions and regime changes are being made from Jordan to Egypt, all in the name of "democratization." The protesters' calls are verbatim repeats of the their local US funded NGOs' mission statements. Skeptical as many may be that all of this is being orchestrated by the West, one needs only read the RAND Corporation's 2007 report titled "Building Moderate Muslim Networks" where breathtaking confessions are made to not only reorder the Muslim world according to the West's interests, but how they would follow the same model of "civil society networks" they have already used for decades during the Cold War.

Egypt's recent "transition" played out as a direct translation of RAND's blueprint for meddling in the Muslim world. From the protest organizers and NGOs to the protest leaders, to the behind-the-scenes meddling by America's military leadership, the Egyptian uprising was entirely a US production. Even the drafting of the new Egyptian Constitution is being carried out by organizations funded by George Soros and the US National Endowment for Democracy.

The regional destabilization is resetting the geopolitical board in favor for a renewed effort to affect regime change in Iran. It has been extensively covered that the globalists have intricate and extensive plans, in the form of Brookings Institute's "Which Path to Persia?" report, to fund color revolutions, support terrorism inside of the Islamic Republic and even provoke war with a nation they concede would rather avoid conflict. No sooner did North African and Arab regimes begin to crumble did the "Green Revolution" in Iran start up again. As if reiterating the summation of Brookings' report, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has recently and overtly called on the US to back the "Green Revolution."

Iran's fall to the globalists, the extraction of its wealth, and the end of its support for Chinese and Russian economic and military ambitions would isolate the so-called Shanghai Cooperative Organization further.

NATO creeping forward, suffering failures in Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia.

Russia's Encirclement

Russia, along with China appear to be the two biggest blocs of opposition to the Anglo-American establishment. Indeed there are plenty of people and organizations within each nation gladly working hand-in-hand with the globalists, who in turn, are overtly trying to tempt and coerce the two nations to integrate themselves into their global world order.

Men like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to power in Russia amongst an era of immense corruption, began building networks of NGOs modeled directly after those of the Anglo-Americans in the West, even naming this network the "Open Russian Foundation" after George Soros' Open Society Foundation. According to geopolitical researcher William Engdahl, this Open Russian Foundation included Henry Kissinger and Lord Jacob Rothschild on its board of directors and its goal was to transform Russia from a sovereign state and into something more palatable for globalist consumption.

Whatever Khdorkovsky's early successes may have been, they were cut short by Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin, who has safely confined Khodorkovsky behind the bars of a Siberian prison. Today, Khdorkovsky receives lobbying and legal services from notorious globalist lawyer Robert Amsterdam who leads international efforts to vilify Russia and justify the nation's encirclement by NATO.

After Tunisia fell and protests began brewing in Egypt, Foreign Policy magazine published the Freedom House's list of "Who's Next?" On the list was Belarus' Aleksandr Lukashenko, leader of a European nation directly bordering Russia's western border, staring Moscow in the face. NATO itself admits the reluctance of Belarus to join its now unjustified organization, while the mainstream media berates the Belarusian government for putting down protests launched after the results of recent elections that saw the Western-backed opposition defeated.

Looking at a map of Russia, not a nation touching its borders has been spared the globalist treatment, from the Ukraine and their US-backed Orange Revolution, to Georgia and its US-backed invasion of South Ossetia. For Russia, they seem more than prepared to fight back, humiliating the US-trained and equipped Georgian military on the battlefield and overseeing the results of the US-funded Orange Revolution overturned, with Ukrainian talks to join NATO halted.

By targeting the Middle East, and in particular Iran, which both China and Russia have been using to check the West's world domineering ambitions, the globalists' hope is to renew political unrest in Russia's satellite regions and complete its campaign of encircling Russia, thus forcing it to concede to its place amongst the new global order.

SSI's "String of Pearls:" China's oil lifeline.

China's String of Pearls

It is no secret China depends on oil imports to not only keep its economy growing, but to keep its vast population busy and prosperous, thus keeping the ruling government in power. This has been a long known realism by both China and the West. For China's part, they have begun building a presence on continental Africa, especially in Sudan where they have established a 1,000 mile oil pipeline from the vast nation's heartland to Port Sudan on the Red Sea. They have also provided relief to the country from UN sanctions and buys the majority of Sudan's oil exports.

China also imports an immense amount of oil from Iran. In fact, the Islamic Republic represents the world's second largest exporter of oil to China, behind Saudi Arabia.

From Sudan and Iran, across the Indian Ocean, and back to China's shores in the South China Sea, represents a "String of Pearls," or a series of geopolitical assets China is developing to protect this vital logistical route. This "String" includes a Chinese port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, another facility in Myanmar (Burma), and expanded facilities in the South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam. China is also building up the size and capabilities of its fleet, including submarines which now shadow America's carrier groups, and the outfitting of their first aircraft carrier which is nearing completion.

The term "String of Pearls" was used as the title of the US Strategic Studies Institute's (SSI) 2006 report "String of Pearls: Meeting the challenge of China’s rising power across the Asian littoral." In this report, China's ambitions to project its power along this route is viewed as a direct challenge to American supremacy as well as a threat to the West's unipolar vision of a "new world order."

While China may not be a champion of human freedom, they do appear to favor a multipolar world where sovereign nations coexist instead of the Anglo-American unipolar world where, unsurprisingly, the British and American oligarchs dominate the planet.

To prevent such a multipolar world from coming into existence, the SSI report suggests several strategies regarding China, from engaging and enticing it to become what globalist pusher Robert Zoellick calls a "responsible stakeholder" in the "international system," to outright military confrontation and containment.

Of course this report was written in July 2006, and the ink hadn't even dried before Israel suffered a humiliating defeat in its war with Lebanon, the war with Iran stalled, and globalist minion Thaksin Shinawtra was ousted from power in Thailand in a display of jealously defended sovereignty in Southeast Asia.

It appears that the globalists, over the following years, would present China with a flattering role to play in their global order while simultaneously destabilizing nearly every nation along the "String of Pearls." The US has expanded its war in Afghanistan and is attempting to balkanize Pakistan in the process, specifically the Baluchistan region where China is establishing a naval presence. Pakistan's Baluchistan region is also the seaside starting point of an energy and logistical conduit running northward through the Himalayas and into Chinese territory. The US is also heavily involved in destabilizing Myanmar (Burma) to affect regime change and subsequently establishing a Washington dependent government.

Thailand neighbors Myanmar to the east and possesses the narrow Kra Isthmus China would like to develop into a Suez/Panama Canal-like project to shorten trips for its oil laden, China-bound tankers. Thailand also serves as an overland conduit, running north and south as in Pakistan, with a developed rail system connecting Singapore's shipping yards to Laos' capital of Vientiane. China has begun the development of a rail system through Laos and the upgrading of Thailand's rail system. Thailand also is one of the world's largest rice exporters, which makes the nation vital to China's future growth.

It is no surprise then, that Thailand, like Myanmar, has suffered multiple attempts by the US to affect regime change. Their man, Thaksin Shinawatra is an overt globalist, having formally served as an adviser to the Carlyle Group, and since his ousting from power in 2006, has been lobbied for by everyone from James Baker's Baker Botts, to ICG's Kenneth Adelman and the Edelman PR firm, to his current lobbyist and lawyer, Robert Amsterdam.

It is quite clear that Washington is using its control of the Middle East and its control of the seas, albeit challenged control, to check China's vastly superior financial and economic position. It is also clear that Washington is investing a great amount of military resources and intelligence assets to destabilize the entire "String of Pearls" to confound, contain, and leverage concessions from China, with the ultimate goal of folding the emerging Asian giant into the unipolar Anglo-American global order.

How well this strategy is working is debatable, however, the US military is politically hobbled, strategically stretched, and led by vastly incompetent leaders in Washington who have lost the faith and trust of their own population, not to mention the world. The bold and perhaps desperate gambit the US is playing out in the Middle East could be a bid to rectify years of failure against China and the Shanghai Cooperative since the SSI wrote their report in 2006. Regime change in Iran is still the linchpin in making this latest bid a success.

South America

Even South America is not spared. There has been a lull in overt American meddling, allowing South America to become a bastion of sorts against the agents of globalization, however, covert operations and staging has been ongoing.

Troubling reports coming from South America's Argentina, no stranger to the ire of Anglo-American ambitions, indicate that tension is building up between Buenos Aires and Washington. It has culminated in a diplomatic row over a recently seized US C-17 transport chalk full of suspicious equipment and an even more suspicious explanation. This is leading many, including the government of Argentina, to believe the US is staging another round of destabilization efforts in South America.

Venezuela and Bolivia have been overtly targeted by the West in recent years by efforts to undermine and even overthrow their respective governments. The muted-confused response over the coup in Honduras also raises suspicions that America has begun striking back against the wave of regional nationalism sweeping South America. A visit over to Movements.org reveals that the US State Department/corporate funded organization is backing dissidents in Venezuela and encouraging the spread of "civil society," gleefully noting the insidious effects it is having on bolstering the anti-Chavez opposition.

Conclusion

The recent US-backed wave of revolution sweeping the Middle East is just the beginning of a greater move to dislodge Iran and begin regaining ground against Russia and China after several years of disappointing results geopolitically. The ultimate goal in mind is to force Russia and China to accept their role as "responsible stakeholders" in the unipolar Anglo-American "new world order." The unipolar world of Anglo-American financier domination requires that all competition be eliminated, all nations become interdependent, and most importantly, all governments conform to the globalists' model of "civil society" which in turn answers to centralized global institutions.

Understanding the overarching plan reveals the danger of being apathetic or complacent about the current unrest in the Middle East. It will surely spread, and depending on the Shanghai Cooperative's response and their determination to remain the masters of their own destiny, greater confrontation may ensue. For the United States and its dwindling power, its meaningless offers to the world's nations to join their bankrupt, one-sided model of world governance, and their growing economic mire, there is no telling what their desperation may transform into. This unpredictability and desperation may be perhaps the only card they have left in their hand worth playing, and one that should trouble us all.

Anglosphere Plots Color Revolutions Around the World?

The Daily Bell
February 12, 2011

Hosni Mubarak has resigned. The Egyptian "color" revolution (ie: a peaceable one), carried out by heroic people risking life and limb, has been apparently been a success. I only wish it were that simple. But there is ample evidence the revolution has been manipulated and that the Anglo-American elite plans to replicate the Egyptian revolution not just in the Middle East but worldwide via the use of the Internet and swelling youth demographics.

The latest and most astonishing global gambit is called AYM and Wikipedia provides us some information about the group, as follows:

"The Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) began with a December 2008 summit in New York City to identify, convene, and engage 21st century movements online for the first time in history. The United States Department of State partnered with Facebook, Howcast, MTV, Google, YouTube, AT&T, JetBlue, Gen-Next, Access 360 Media, and Columbia Law School to launch a global network and empower young people mobilizing against violence and oppression."

According to Wikipedia,

"Founders of AYM include Jared Cohen, former advisor to both Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton and now Director of Google Ideas at Google, Jason Liebman, CEO and co-founder of Howcast and Roman Tsunder, co-founder of Access 360 Media. Speakers at the 2008 summit included actress Whoopi Goldberg, Facebook Co-Founder Dustin Moskovitz, The Obama Campaign's New Media Team, and then-current Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs of the United States James K. Glassman."

A 2010 article at Wired.com covers a recent AYM summit in breathless detail, as follows:

"I'm at the Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit in London, at the Intercontinental Hotel. The two-day summit, which ends tomorrow, is an impressive gathering of youth activists from more than 18 countries, NGOs and tech giants, here to learn more about using online tools to promote their extraordinary range of social movements and promote non-violent change."

The Wired article, entitled "AYM summit: A meetup for the world's youth activists," then further explains the transformative changes that the "world's youth" are capable of making:

At the opening reception last night, hosted at Google's headquarters, I met a smart bunch of people from organizations such as Blue State Digital (which ran Obama's online campaign), Howcast, Middle East peace activists One Voice, and the East London-based Young Foundation. But the highlight is an A-list bunch of conference speakers at the conference today and tomorrow – including Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, Scott Heiferman of MeetUp, as well as top people from Google, YouTube and the World Bank. Other keynote speakers include Jeremy Gilley, the former actor who founded Peace One Day, and Joe Rospars, who was the new-media director for Obama for America.

There's strong representation here from Washington DC. This morning, Jared Cohen, of the US State Department, moderated a session titled Seizing the Moment: Responding to Crises and Mobilizing Around Key Events. That had speakers from Mobile Accord, Ushahidi, Mazahery Law, AccessNow and the Censorship Research Center. I'm now sitting in a session called Turning Video into Tangible Action, featuring experts such as Ramya Raghaven of YouTube, Levi Felix of Causecast, and Chris Sarette, Invisible Children ...

It's an inspiring event, geared towards helping activists share top-level information and making connections that lead to significant change. You can sense the scale of their practical ambition from the title of some of the sessions: one is called Tech Solutions to Repressive Regimes; another is titled Effective Strategies for Mobile Content to Increase Empowerment.

The above was a report on the third AYM Summit in 2010. Online you can find a transcription of Hillary Clinton's "Video Message for Alliance of Youth Movements Summit" that was apparently a keynote for the second AYM Summit in Mexico City, October 16, 2009. Here's an excerpt:

I want to congratulate all of you who have come to Mexico City, in person and online, to be a part of this groundbreaking summit. You are the vanguard of a rising generation of citizen activists who are using the latest technological tools to catalyze change, build movements, and transform lives. And I hope this conference provides an opportunity for you to learn from each other and discover tools and techniques that will open new doors for activism and empowerment when you return home. All over the world, young people like you are driving progress.

In Colombia, two young college graduates, fed up with the violence in their country, used Facebook to organize 14 million people into the largest antiterrorism demonstrations in history. In Iran, we saw young people using twitter and YouTube to communicate with each other and the world despite a government crackdown designed to keep them silent. And in India, a 14-year old high school student from Mumbai used social networking to link together half a million people who sought solidarity and support in the aftermath of the November 2008 terrorist attacks ...

Governments can't do it alone. Citizens, organizations, businesses, universities – everyone with a stake in our shared future must take responsibility for shaping it. That's what we call 21st century statecraft. So thank you for being on the front lines of progress, and I can't wait to see what all of you do next.

Of course what came next apparently was Africa and the Middle East: first Tunisia, now Egypt and surely other countries to come. It would seem, then, that Mubarak never attended an AYM meeting. But certainly he and his supporters have in fact discovered the limits of Western Anglo-American elite loyalties: One is useful until one is not.

So here's my supposition: Despots throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America (those who have gotten used to billion-dollar annual handouts from the US to "sustain stability" via the use of torture, famine and censorship) are probably online just this minute investigating timeshares in Lear Jets. Hillary's keynote speech is quite clear. Each AYM Summit is like a tolling of a bell. And it tolls for 20th-century thugs that cast their lot with the Anglosphere.

It's not exactly an original story. During the era of the initial Gutenberg press and the Renaissance, the Great Venetian banking families of the day suppposedly set out to destroy the power of the Catholic church. The Venetians may have funded Martin Luther and his Reformation to split the Church, and further funded other schisms. Of course it didn't work out quite as planned. The Reformation seems to have spun out of control and numerous free-thinking sects (the results of the Reformation and Protestant revolution) ended up in America, creating anarchical, horizontal societies that took Western elites centuries to stamp out. In fact, the elites ended up with one good century – the 20th. The 21st we speculate will be a far bumpier ride thanks to the next iteration of the Gutenberg press – the Internet.

Because of the Internet, it's hard to be cynical about the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. It would be my hope that these revolutions would usher in some real change. But that is not what the revolution's handlers want.

The Anglosphere's operations are being carried out in two phases.

1. First comes the revolution.
2. Then comes "aftermath" that must inevitably resolve itself into Western-centric regulatory democracies, including manipulative central banks, endless, intrusive, brand-intensive corporatism and, generally, spirit-sapping regulatory democracy.

Alternatively, the Anglosphere's revolutions end up generating Islamic republics – but that's OK too. Islamic Republics come in handy in building a larger Islamic enemy that provides justification for further authoritarian depredations at home.

The process is already at work in Tunisia. The mainstream media is not covering ongoing (considerable) unrest in Tunisia anymore because the dominant social theme – the agreed upon narrative – is that the Tunisians had their "color" revolution and now that a "unity" government is in charge, the revolution has run its course. Reform is on the way; a consensus will be reached and Western-style regulatory democracy will be installed in that small, bleeding country – unless of course militant Islam shoulders it aside.

As incredible as it is to contemplate, these manipulations apparently run even beyond the arrogance of inciting worldwide revolution. Another dominant social theme that's been launched seems to involve Julian Assange and his psyops WikiLeaks program, if that's what it is. We recently explained WikiLeaks operations as follows:

Each WikiLeaks "release" only seems to confirm the dreary conclusion that the entire enterprise is a kind of concoction intended to facilitate Western intelligence interests and further reinforce Western messaging. Is this so farfetched? It is a well-documented fact that Wall Street funds were funneled overseas (via the Red Cross) to help gain victory for the Red communist factions (and Lenin) during the Russian Revolution. And it is just as certain that Anglo-American elites created the economic conditions that allowed for the rise of Adolf Hitler – and then provided massive industrial funding as well. The American Bush family was directly involved in this latter transaction.

For this reason we identified Assange as a key figure in an upcoming global, elite promotion almost from the very beginning when we wrote a fictionalized speculation called "Comes a Blond Stranger." We weren't positive then and we won't make a definitive statement now, but the evidence continues to pile up. If we are correct, it may be in fact almost impossible to overstate the importance of Julian Assange and his role in the "history" that the elites are now busily creating. He could end up being the first leader of a world government – a six-foot-four (or five or six) inch blond rebel with an electronic cause and a commitment to global transparency (see below).

http://www.thedailybell.com/1750/Frauds-of-WikiLeaks.html

WikiLeaks has been in play for nearly a year. The gambit of "color" revolutions has been revitalized only recently. But they may have the same roots. Consider, please, Egyptian heroic rebel Wael Ghonim, conveniently of Google, an American Internet corporation that has close ties to American intel. Just yesterday, Ghonim tweeted,

"Dear Western Governments, You've been silent for 30 years supporting the regime that was oppressing us. Please don't get involved now".

This sounds quite admirable. But let's take a further look at Google's Ghonim. A summary from alternative news website Infowars:

"Having been living abroad in Dubai, [Ghonim's] Facebook page didn't pop-up overnight, it was actually created nearly a year ago in tandem with Mohamed ElBaradei's arrival in Egypt during February 2010. Ghonim also created ElBaradei's official campaign website. Ghonim and ElBaradei then concurrently campaigned for the coming November 2010 Egyptian election and built up an opposition network in support for ElBaradei. This network included the April 6 Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the independent labor unions now making up the bulk of the protests."

Infowars informs us of information that is readily available all over the ‘Net – that the Egyptian protests were planned by Western operatives and that Ghonim and the "Revolutionary Youth Movement," were intimately involved along with an "opposition network ElBaradei had been busy building since early 2010." This information has been reported by the mainstream media as well. The UK Telegraph reported on US involvement in training Egyptian youth protests more than a week ago. The Wall Street Journal recently reported how organizers selected places for the protests and even walked the routes to figure out timelines.

More from Infowars:

"Perhaps Wael Ghonim ... doesn't know who ElBaradei really works for and that he consorts with the very men making the US policy he feigns to deplore. Perhaps he is unaware of what designs such men have for his "new" Egypt and has no clue that everyone involved in his protest has been networked, funded, backed, and even directed by foreigners with nothing but exploitation in mind for Egypt's future."

And who is Mohamed ElBaradei? According to Tony Cartalucci at alternative-news site landdestroyer.blogspot.com, "ElBaradei, the self-proclaimed leader of the unfolding Egyptian protests, is actually sitting on the Board of Trustees of the Zbigniew Brzezinski/George Soros globalist think-tank, the International Crisis Group." Cartalucci adds:

The mainstream media has been backing ElBaradei's ownership of the protests, hailing this Nobel Laurette and former UN IAEA director as the potential next president of Egypt and the "hero" of the protests. The New York Times refers to him as the "Nobelist" portraying him as standing "toe-to-toe" with hundreds of riot police and promising to run for president if and only if elections were "free and fair." While ElBaradei poses as a critic of the United States, it is not because of their meddling with Middle Eastern affairs, it is because they are not meddling enough. ElBaradei berates the United States for not intervening in what he calls "social disintegration, economic stagnation, and political repression" in Egypt.

Cartalucci eventually goes off the tracks. He is convinced that the color revolutions are being fomented by the West to encircle Iran and ensure that Iran does not create nuclear devices. However as we've pointed out before there is considerably controversy over the origins of the Iranian revolution. Khomeini's father may have been a British agent (so some reports speculate) and Khomeini himself may have been trained by MI5/MI6. On the flight back to Iran, Khomeini reportedly said some nasty things about Iranians and generally didn't sound as if he was very happy about returning there. Finally, Khomeini apparently redrew various oil contracts in favor of the West when he arrived back in Iran – hard as that sounds to fathom.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1310/Maybe-US-Wants-Iran-to-Have-the-Bomb.html

It is not always clear what the Anglosphere is doing or why. But as usual in this world nothing is as it seems. I would advise those who wish to follow such things generally, (the continuing war between the Anglosphere and the Internet) to wait and see how events play out. Over time the reasons for what's happening will start to come clear. It may even happen sooner than later as the elite seems increasingly rushed.

It seems increasingly clear: Instead of taking 20 or 30 years to unpack a promotion, it is implementing them in three or four years. This leads to sloppiness. Julian Assange apparently provides us with a key to the modern-day promotions that the elite wants to emphasize. The Youth Movements may offer us insights into how the elite intends to build a new world order, one regulatory democracy at a time. For the most part, one may need pliable candidates in seats of power. And certainly the elite wants to be seen as participating in the transformative power of the 'Net. It may even be that they've realized the inevitability of convulsive change and are trying to get out ahead of it and to control it via such artifices as AYM.

The strategies of Western powers-that-be are always startling in their intricacy and boldness. But I will end this essay by pointing out that many of these global schemes were plotted, apparently, as long as a century ago, or even more. The Internet was not a consideration, then, though it surely is now. And given the haste with which the PE is operating at every level, I would argue that the Internet is exposing these plans in an intolerable way. The elites will continue with their business plan of global consolidation but much now militates against it. In the era of the Internet, it is easier to implement such plans than it is to bring them to a successful conclusion. I stand with the Egyptians in their heroic struggle and wish them well, though the hard part may be yet to come.

The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Arab World: The Alliance between Arab Dictators and Global Capital

Global Research
February 14, 2011

...The U.S. is trying to play a two-sided game. The New York Times, which is highly supportive of U.S. foreign policy, suggests that the U.S. government seeks a form of stage-managed democratization in Egypt. Ross Douthat states:

"[L]ook closer, and it's clear that the [Obama] administration's real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator's military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman [the current vice-president of Egypt], the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who's best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.'s rendition program. This isn't softheaded peacenik dithering. It's cold blooded realpolitik."

As long as the current structure of the Egyptian regime remains unchanged in the wake of Mubarak's departure, neo-colonial interests will continue to be served. As long as their interests are secured, they would have sacrifice Mubarak. The face of a regime does not matter; it is the interests that it serves.

Whether correct or incorrect, the Mubarak regime has claimed that the U.S. and Israel have been behind the mass protests throughout Egypt. Iran, Hezbollah, Qatar, and Hamas have also been accused of helping orchestrate the protests alongside the U.S. and Israel by Cairo. These accusations by Mubarak's regime are meant to demonize and delegitimize the protest movement as foreign ploys and to divide the Egyptian protesters.

The U.S. government seeks to maintain the same kleptocratic status quo in place in Egypt and Tunisia, either under continued dictatorship or under an outwardly appearing democratic political system. In other words, the aim is to keep the same substance, but to change the form. Kleptocracy can work under dictatorship or "managed" democracy.

As the protests across the Arab World gain momentum, the U.S. and its allies are working to "try" to mix their own "opposition" figures amongst the protest movements and to bring their "agents" into power. In other words, the U.S. is politically hedging its bets. If the Arab protest movements are not attentive to this process of infiltration, the emerging wave of so-called democratization in the Arab World could end up being a manipulated process which retains the control of foreign powers...

Read More...