Obama Administration Ready For Direct Intervention In Syria
A member of the al-Qaeda dominated mercenary group, the Free Syria Army. Photo: Freedom House.
“While no decisions have been made, the administration is considering several alternatives, including directly providing arms to some opposition fighters,” the Times reported.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S. will provide Turkey with the Patriot missile system. NATO officials are currently in Turkey surveying locations for the surface-to-air missile batteries, according to the newspaper.
The Times admits the batteries will be used to shoot down Syrian aircraft attempting to dislodge units of the Free Syria Army (FSA) inside Syria near the Turkish border. The FSA operates on the Turkish side of the border, primarily out of the Reyhanli military refugee camp, in the Hatay province.
Another option being considered is tighter CIA collaboration with the FSA, the al-Qaeda dominated mercenary group attempting to violently overthrow the Alawite Shia regime of Bashar al-Assad. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and al-Qaeda follow the fanatical Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam.
The Times also claims that the Obama administration delayed any decision on direct involvement in the effort to overthrow al-Assad until after the U.S. presidential election. Obama’s re-election, according to the Times, “has made the White House more willing to take risks.” Put differently, the public announcement was delayed so it would not dissuade antiwar Democrat voters, many already alienated due to Obama’s continuation of Bush’s neocon foreign policy.
The New York Times once again demonstrates that it is the primary propaganda fount for the establishment’s continuing war agenda in the Middle East. It characterizes “Obama’s record in intervening in the Arab Spring” as “cautious” and describes the action in Libya, which ultimately claimed the lives of more than 30,000 people, as “humanitarian.”
Following the public relations disasters of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, the establishment reverted to an older, more reliable course of action – indirect intervention by covert means, organizing mercenary groups (composed of supposed former enemies, including al-Qaeda) and mobilizing consensus for military action by NATO and European allies.
“In the case of Syria, a far more complex conflict than Libya’s, some officials continue to worry that the risks of intervention — both in American lives and in setting off a broader conflict, potentially involving Turkey — are too great to justify action,” the Times explains.
This supposed caution is then played off against the neocon version of intervention demanding “more aggressive steps” which are said to be “justified in Syria by the loss in life there, the risks that its chemical weapons could get loose, and the opportunity to deal a blow to Iran’s only ally in the region.”
Indeed, Syria will be the final domino to fall before the establishment moves against Iran. After Iran is attacked and weakened, it will be an easier task for the Israelis to attack and minimize the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and finally destroy Hamas in occupied Palestine.
An ideal scenario for the elite is to foster and extend the domination of the fanatical Wahhabi monarchies in the Middle East and severely minimize or eliminate entirely the influence of Shia Islam in the region.
The British have fostered fanatical Wahhabism since it installed the rule of Ibn Saud after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of the First World War and with the implementation of the Sykes-Picot and Balfour Agreements carving up the Middle East. The British used the super-austere Wahhabi sect and the notoriously corrupt Hashemites (in Jordan and Iraq) to extend their political influence and domination of the petroleum industry.
“All political leadership of the time depended on Islam for legitimacy and all political leaders were pro-British. Islam was a tool to legitimize the rule, tyranny and corruption of Arab leaders. To the West, Islam was acceptable; it could be and was used,” writes Arab author Said K. Aburish (see his A Brutal Friendship – The West and the Arab Elite).
Once again, the West is using Islam to control and extend its sphere of influence in this most vital and strategic area of the world. Shia Islam, primarily in Iran, is in direct conflict with the globalist agenda and therefore must be rolled back, as the neocons and their Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies advised in an influential policy document, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, later regarded as the neocon manifesto. The 1996 document, prepared for then Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a team of American neocons, including former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, called for taking out Iraq, undermining Syria and weakening the influence of Iran.