Arab Awakening Pretext for Wider War?
By Staff News & Analysis - June 06, 2011

Hersh vs. the IAEA on Iran's Nukes … In the latest issue of the New Yorker, Sy Hersh has a long story on what he says is a discrepancy between the intelligence community's most recent estimate of Iran's nuclear goals and the Obama administration's assessment of and reaction to Iran's intentions. The central argument of the story is: There is a large body of evidence… suggesting that the United States could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein's Iraq eight years ago – allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimations of the state's military capacities and intentions. That sentence's syntactic opacity should be a tip-off to readers … Hersh provides reporting that the intelligence community's new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran shows no hard evidence of an effort to build a bomb … Unfortunately for him, the International Atomic Energy Agency simultaneously delivered a report to its board showing seven highly detailed other reasons for suspecting Iran's intentions. – AP

Dominant Social Theme: Iran is an evil country. Of that there is no doubt. We'll need to take them out.

Free-Market Analysis: We have tried in numerous ways to explain the Arab Awakening and why Western elites were (almost self-admittedly) behind at least the beginnings of it. We have pointed out that the CIA-sponsored AYM was behind the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings. We've also tried to analyze both sides of the results of such uprisings, which may include either the establishment of Western-style regulatory democracies or Islamic Republics.

But what if the "Awakening" in all of its chaos was meant to set up a more polarized Middle East that would confront Israel in an regional war? We know the elites like to follow the road map of religious texts (which predict this sort of thing) because it provides a kind of cover. (Religious texts in this regard may act as a kind of predictive programming.)

This obviously would have enormous sociopolitical and economic consequences. Oil would run up tremendously and the domestic security costs to the West would be horrible. A war between Israel and the "rest" of the Middle East might entail nuclear weapons and the amount of people killed would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like minor skirmishes.

Yet, the drumbeat for war continues. And would the result be a resurgent Israel that won new territory through enormously superior firepower? Would such a war, then, put the West in charge of the Middle East in a way it's never been before? Would it provide the fuel for even more Draconian rights crackdowns at home? Would it somehow place the elites closer to their goal of global governance?

We can surely see the Western and American media buttressing dominant social themes as pretexts for war (see article excerpt above). This has been going on for years. The Bush administration seemed to come very close to bombing Iran in the final years of the administration.

Recently, US anti-government pundit Alex Jones pointed out on Iranian Press TV that the Rand Corporation had issued think-tank documents arguing for a scenario along these lines – inflaming Arab states to set up an Israeli conflict that Israel would win by virtue of superior firepower. We've searched for the Rand document on its website and elsewhere (maybe someone else can find it) but whether or not it exists, the scenario makes sense (given what we know of Anglosphere elites), at least hypothetically.

It is true, as we reported recently that the recent G8 Conference authorized some US$40 billion to help states such as Egypt and Tunisia recover from their revolutions. Additionally as we have pointed out, the West is backing Saudi Arabia in its efforts to damp down certain "Awakenings" in Bahrain and Yemen, for instance – despite the rising tideo of the Internet Reformation in those nations.

But we return to a DB analysis written at the beginning of this year that asked if Western power elites essentially had the idea of generating additional Islamic republics via regime change. It made some sense to us then and still it makes sense to us now. In the Ivory Coast, the West backed the Muslim North over the Catholic South and France finally initiated regime change that made that power shift a reality. In Tunisia, the evident outcome of that "revolution" may be a regulatory democracy, but it will surely have Islamic overtones. Yemen will likely move toward a more Islamic-oriented government over time.

Strangely, the West is strongly supporting what seems to be a fairly radical Islamic-oriented regime in Libya. The "rebels" have stated flatly on numerous occasions that they do not want the West in Libya with "boots on the ground" and many reports seem to indicate that an Islamic republic would emerge if the West DOES succeed.

It is Egypt where we can see real change already. Post Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's stance toward Israel has shifted drastically and is becoming more hostile. The Palestinians have been energized by the Arab Awakening and are protesting against Israel's apparent usurpation of numerous towns some 60 years ago, when Israel was first formed. Jordan is becoming destabilized by Palestinian protests as well.

The theory that the "City of London" and its banking elites are actively planning a regional war that may go nuclear is from our humble point of view a horrible one. But it explains why Mubarak – who had kept the peace between Israel and Egypt – had to go. And Ben Ali in Tunisia; he was also far too pro-Western and anti-Islam.

It also explains why the Israelis are being so inexplicably brutal. According to news 'Net reports, including Newser: "Israeli troops on Sunday battled hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters who tried to burst across Syria's frontier with the Golan Heights, killing a reported 20 people and wounding scores more in the second outbreak of deadly violence in the border area in less than a month."

That's a lot of unarmed people to kill, but the reporting in the West is strangely muted when it comes to these kinds of killings, even though the protestors were unarmed. This has been going on for years now and is a kind of meme in our opinion. In many ways, Western populations, inured to these shootings, are being taught that Arabs are less than human, or that their lives somehow are less important.

There is another strand to all of this that makes sense if one hypothesizes that what is being set up is a regional, nuclear war. That has to do with the creation of the Iranian state itself. We've written about the beginnings of modern Iran on numerous occasions. We mentioned it a year-and-half-ago, January, 2010:

Here's an indisputable fact: The French kept Rouhollah Mousavi Khomeini sheltered in France just the way they sheltered Lenin before injecting him back into Russia "like a bacillus" during the White/Red war that led to the formation of the communist state. And when we looked into Khomeini's background years ago … it became fairly clear that there was a good deal of speculation as to whether his father had worked for British intelligence. (His mother apparently was Indian). Finally, there is a good deal of speculation that the Carter administration was pressuring the Shah over some commercial port facilities and that this is what eventually led to his downfall.

The power elite works in fairly long time frames and its operational methodology inevitably seems to include setting up "both" sides of any sizeable conflict. It is a documented fact that Western elites and Wall Street funded both the Russian Revolution and Hitler's rise to power. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has had a long history in modern Iran, sponsoring a coup that installed the pro-Western Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Iran's head of state. There has also been speculation that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was among the students that took over the US embassy back in 1980 in what some still believe was an incident that had US intelligence involvement.

US hostages 'remember Iranian President from embassy siege' … The White House is exploring allegations that the new President-elect of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was involved in the 1979 American Embassy siege in Tehran. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary said today that the Bush Administration was taking reports that American hostages remember Mr. Ahmadinejad taking part in the hostage crisis "very seriously." (- Times Online, June 30, 2005)

After Thoughts

We have speculated that these color revolutions, started apparently with Western support, may spin out of control and damage Western allies and even affect Saudi-Arabia support for the US dollar-reserve currency. But maybe Western, Anglo-American power elites are not overly afraid of further chaos if it ultimately generates a confrontation with Israel that leads to a war. It is horrible to think of; it seems at least a possibility.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap