U.S. foreign policy and onion layers

And the first big post-election issue will be:

The UK , France and Israel showed signs this week of lining up for military action with regard to Syria and Iran as soon as America’s presidential election was out of the way Tuesday, Nov. 6, debkafile’s military sources report. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spent two days (Oct. 31-Nov. 1) talking to President Francois Holland. As the Defense Minister Ehud Barak landed in London the next day, Prime Minister David Cameron was reported on standby for the dispatch of RAF fighter-bombers to the Persian Gulf.

Barak flew to London after US Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had spent several days in Israel, no doubt tying up the last ends of US-Israeli cooperation for potential action.

US strength – air, naval and strike ground units – are concentrated on the Red Sea Socotra Island and Oman’s Masirah Island in the Persian Gulf. Since mid-October, Washington has maintained supplementary special operations and anti-air units in Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

Britain and France have massed naval, air and special operations forces in the big naval base of Port Zayed and the Al Dhafra air facility – both in the United Arab Emirates. A French fighter-bomber squadron is also parked at the Tabuk air base in Saudi Arabia.

Military strategists regard the initial phases of the Iran-Israeli confrontation as already being in motion, manifested by an Iranian stealth drone which overflew Israel on Oct. 6 and Israel’s raid on Oct. 24 of the Sudanese factory manufacturing and storing Iranian missiles. They are predicting that such shadow-sparring exercises between Tehran and Jerusalem may evolve next month into more direct clashes between Israel, Iran and Hizballah – more probably isolated incidents related to Iran’s Middle East deployments, especially in Syria and Lebanon, rather than a full-blown eruption of hostilities all at once.

Meanwhile, after both Obama and Romney voiced disapproval of direct US military involvement in Syria, Washington embarked on quiet moves for a diplomatic accommodation.

During a recent round table in Ankara, Admiral James Winnfeld, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that Washington would reveal its intentions toward Syria once the 6 November presidential elections were over. But he then announced to his Turkish counterparts that a peace plan had already been negotiated with Moscow for keeping Assad in power and that the UN Security Council would not authorize the creation of buffer zones on which Ankara had pinned its plans for Syria.

Instead, Herve Ladsous, the UN Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, announced that he was studying the possible deployment of peacekeepers (“blue helmets”) in Syria.

This new situation comes at the expense of Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar and Turkey – all of whom back the Syrian revolt and demand regime change in Damascus. This anti-Assad coalition is now split between those demanding a compromise solution and those trying to sabotage the process underway between Washington and Moscow.


The leftist rag Mother Jones says Romney means war:

President Obama has helped push that snowball up the hill with sanctions to undermine the regime, covert and cyber warfare, and a huge naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Iran has ratcheted up tensions via posturing military maneuvers, while we have held joint US-Israeli exercises and “the largest-ever multinational minesweeping exercise” there. Our navies are facing off in a dangerous dance.

Obama has essentially loaded the gun and cocked it. But he has kept his finger off the trigger, pursuing diplomacy with the so-called P5+1 talks and rumored future direct talks with the Iranians. The problem is: Romney’s guys want to shoot.

The conservative view is that there are differing conservative views:

1. Sen. Lindsey Graham dissented Sunday:

“I think the time for talking is over. … We talk, they enrich. It needs to stop. We need to have red lines coordinated with Israel and end this before it gets out of hand.” Clearly, Graham believes an ultimatum, followed by an attack if Iran denies us “access to their nuclear program,” is the way to “end this.”

According to David Rothkopf, writing in Foreign Policy magazine, U.S. and Israeli military authorities are discussing a joint attack, and the idea getting the most traction is “a U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities.”

2. Robert Gates disagrees:

The U.S. could face the kind of attacks across the region that Ronald Reagan confronted when he put Marines in Beirut, with the U.S. embassy blown up and 241 Marines massacred by a suicide truck bomber.

And if after months we had smashed Iran as we did Iraq in Desert Storm, would the regime give way to a pro-Western democracy? Or would the result in Iran look like what exists today in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan?

Syria is breaking apart into Sunni and Alawite, Arab, Kurd and Druze, Christian and Muslim, Islamist and secular. Afghanistan is dissolving into Tajik and Uzbek in the north, Hazara in the center, and Pashtun in the south and east. Iraq is losing Kurdistan and reverting to civil-sectarian war.

A U.S. defeat of Iran could bring to power revanchists bent on payback through terrorism and propel that half of the population that is Arab, Baluch, Kurd and Azeri to try to break away.

Who would benefit from a breakup of Iran, other than jihadists? Iran would surely stir up Hezbollah to rain down rockets on Israel and incite the Shia in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to rise against the regimes there. Would Shia in Iraq attack the U.S. embassy in Baghdad? We cannot know, but Gates is surely right that the consequences could be catastrophic.

The issue, to me, is whether POTUS is a puppet or not. Certainly, when Bush and Kerry faced off, both were members [or former members] of Skull and Bones. They were members of the same establishment. One test of puppethood was Bush’s attendance at the meeting with Martin and Fox on March 23rd, 2005 to consider the CFR document on the SPPNA [posts passim].

There was such a hue and cry over the NAU in subsequent days, led by the web mainly, including WND, that it was quietly retired. These sorts of kite-flying exercises at least get heads of state to them and resolutions come from them.

So who determines foreign policy and what role do thinktanks such as the CFR play? Well, with the NAU – a lot. The State department begs to differ in ijpe1102 [pdf]. However, this is quite some admission [page 12]:

The FPA points out:

And then there is this:

Then there is the “minder” factor, e.g. Kissinger and Cheney. Whom do they “mind” for? The Pentagon Hawks, Blackwater, Halliburton or the CFR? Someone else?

Anyone who has aspirations to control world events must have someone in the White House influencing POTUS. Those with the best show are those who appointed him. Who appointed him?

Unfortunately, no one mainstream is talking about that so one has to occasionally go left field. My approach to anything not mainstream is to consider it, note what seems to fir in other ways and explore anything new. If we start off prejudiced, we skew our view of how things are.

Here is a left field view of Obama. One thing the presenter said in 2008 [when this vid was made] was that we were coming up to a period of severe austerity. Also, at 06:50, he addresses Iran and at 7:33 – Syria. The man behind it and it’s difficult to fault this, through other reading, is Zbigniew Brzezinski:

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a case of a bright spark in a cluster of dullards who are very ambitious people but need someone like Brzezinski to formulate, gather the threads, posit a plan. He’s the type who can make sense to the PTB, like Maurice Strong to a lesser extent. He has his worldview and plan and a way to implement it. The PTB look at it, think yeah, that sounds about right and implement it.

So much for democracy. Such men as Brzezinski and Kissinger perhaps don’t start as evil but they get so bigheaded that everyone in power seems to be heeding them, they have the PTB behind them and they develop that political elite arrogance, along with the lifestyle. If a man does evil, is he evil himself? Hardly matters but Brzezinski is one of them and just look at those eyes.

There’ve been other Brzezinskis along the way, right back to Colonel House, although House was not an intellectual – he represented the PTB and was Wilson’s minder and to a lesser extent – Roosevelt’s.

The obvious question is who is behind Brzezinski. Power appears to be in layers, not unlike an onion. I’d suggest, from reading Brzezinski or looking at those vids above, then as a globalist, he would not be the core. He’s their man in the White House.

These ideas were around long before Brzezinski. On December 15, 1922, Philip Kerr stated in the CFR magazine “Foreign Affairs”:

“Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.”

And on June 28th, 1945, Truman said:

It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in the republic of the United States.

So these ideas are hardly new. And we are completely powerless to stop the insanity because we can’t work together, because trolls come in, the messenger is vilified and nothing whatever is done.

It is ever the way.


The current Zero Hedge article is definitely worth a read as it puts all this in context.

I simply have to quote this from the ZH article, concerning this very moment now in the cycle and if it was written for America, it could well have been the UK, Australia, Canada or anywhere in the west he is writing about:

The mood of the country continues to blacken. A simmering anger boils beneath the surface of an everyday façade of normalcy.

The middle class majority is being squeezed in a vice, with the rich powerful plutocrats on Wall Street and in Washington DC stealing their hard earned net worth through financial scams, the gutting of our industrial base and a tax system designed to benefit those who write the laws on one side and the parasitic willfully ignorant underclass that is sustained only through the extraction of taxes from the working middle class on the other side.

Our society has become a hunger games tournament, with the few benefitting while the many scramble to survive. The stench of class warfare is in the air. The generational resentment and rage is palatable as the Millenial generation has taken on a trillion dollars of student loan debt at the behest of the Federal government, Wall Street and older generations, only to graduate into a jobless economy.

The generational contract has been broken, as the older generations will not or cannot leave the workforce due to their own financial missteps. Younger generations are being denied entry level positions, even as the older generations expect them to fund their retirements and healthcare.

This presidential election will only exacerbate the anger, disappointment, bitterness and fury among the populace, no matter who wins.

1 comment for “U.S. foreign policy and onion layers

  1. Furor Teutonicus
    November 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    XX Britain…… have massed naval, air and special operations forces XX

    Aha. Britain have sent the last two Royal Navy rowing boats that the Westminster dictatorship have left them with, do you mean?

Comments are closed.