Cheney Plans for chaos

[Tarek1990]

Please read this frightening article about Cheney plan to destabilise the whole Middle East Region


This article appears in the December 8, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. British Push Puppet Cheney
To Trigger Global Chaos

by Jeffrey Steinberg
Within hours of Air Force II returning to Washington from Saudi Arabia, Executive Intelligence Review issued a memorandum, "Behind Cheney's Trip to Riyadh." The document revealed that the Bush Administration has launched a new berserker "diplomatic" initiative, which, if successful, would likely trigger a new Hundred Years' War, starting in Southwest Asia, but soon engulfing much of the planet in chaos.
The Cheney scheme to promote a so-called "Sunni alliance" to counter Iran's growing Shi'ite dominance over the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean region, is the latest handiwork of a crew of outright British agents, who have employed the thuggish Vice President and his deadly wife, to wreck the United States from within, as a step towards undoing the entire nation-state system.
On the surface, the argument could credibly be made that the immediate target of the Cheney trip to Riyadh—the latest victim of a Cheney preemptive strike—was his long-time political rival cum arch-enemy, James Baker III. Cheney's push for a Sunni military alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv against Iran was, after all, kicked off literally moments before the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group held its final meetings, before presenting its findings to the White House and the outgoing Congress on Dec. 6. Those findings were widely reported to include the call for a regional peace conference and the beginning of direct diplomatic talks among the United States, Iran, and Syria.
But the reality is different. By the time the Baker-Hamilton study group was seated around the conference table at the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington, the "Ultimate Decider," President Bush, had already "decided." He shot off his mouth at the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, declaring that the United States will not consider withdrawal from Iraq until "victory" has been achieved, and will not talk with Iran or Syria.
Moreover, State Department official Nicholas Burns had told reporters travelling with the President that the goal of the NATO summit in Riga, apart from the push for increased NATO troop deployments in Afghanistan, would be to forge closer security ties between NATO and the leading American allies in the Pacific Far East, and in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean. In the case of the Persian Gulf, Burns singled out the Gulf Cooperation Council, the alliance of Sunni oil sheikhdoms, as the best vehicle for NATO extension. Qatar and Kuwait, two GCC members, have already been engaged in quiet talks with NATO, on increasing defense cooperation, according to one well-placed Arab source.
And on Nov. 29, Nawaf Obaid, an advisor to the Saudi government, penned a Washington Post op-ed, threatening that Saudi Arabia would intervene to arm the Sunni population in Iraq, were the United States to withdraw its troops. "To be sure," Obeid warned, "Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks—it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse."
Fomenting Chaos

In point of fact, there never was a Bush Administration "policy review" on the Middle East. Senior Washington sources have reported that the United States is doing exactly what Jordan's King Abdallah II warned against on Nov. 26, in an appearance on CBS-TV: fomenting three civil wars in the region—in Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories, and in Iraq.

• In Lebanon, the U.S., in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, is covertly arming the Sunni Muslims, in preparation for a showdown with Hezbollah, the Shi'ite political movement whose militia defeated Israel's military invasion in the July 2006 Lebanese War.
  
  According to one eyewitness account, truckloads of arms are being distributed in Beirut after midnight every night. What's more, al-Qaeda elements, operating in northern Lebanon, are reportedly conduiting arms to the Lebanese Sunni—with the see-no-evil approval of Washington and Riyadh. Current events inside Lebanon are reminiscent of Henry Kissinger's mid-1970s orchestration of the first Lebanese Civil War, which began with a string of targetted assassinations, and was stoked by a massive clandestine infusion of weapons to all sides.
  
  
• In the Palestinian territories, the United States, in league with Jordan, is covertly arming and training Fatah militia factions, with the aim of orchestrating a showdown with Hamas. Furthermore, every effort at establishing a Palestinian national unity government, with Hamas and Fatah, has been shot down by the Bush Administration, giving Israel the green light to continue to withhold tax payments to the Palestinian Authority, thus creating a cauldron of poverty and rage. On Dec. 1, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced that the unity talks had totally broken down, and that he could call early elections.
  
  
• In Iraq, the Bush Administration is fueling the downward spiral into full-scale civil war and ethnic cleansing—including an effort to induce Shia versus Shia fighting. Just hours before the scheduled meeting of President Bush with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 29, the White House disclosed a classified memorandum by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, questioning the Iraqi Prime Minister's ability to deliver. The memo—which was "leaked" to the New York Times by a "senior administration official" who also briefed the author of the Times story, Michael Gordon—stated, in part: "His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
  
  The White House leak guaranteed that the Bush-Maliki meeting would be a fiasco. Reportedly, the President pressed the Iraqi Prime Minister to crack down on Shi'ite leader Muktadr al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, a preposterous demand, given that Sadr had delivered the decisive votes to get Maliki the Prime Ministership in the first place, and his militia is larger, more disciplined, and better armed than the official Iraqi Army. To further fuel Shia versus Shia communal violence, President Bush announced on Dec. 2 that he would be hosting Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the president of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), at the White House. There, he will reportedly press Hakim to turn his Badr Brigade against the Mahdi Army. Sheer madness!

Bernard Lewis's 'Wet Dream'

While the hands and feet of this "three civil war" fiasco may be American, the authorship of the Armageddon drive is distinctly British. It is no secret that Vice President Cheney operates under the influence of three notorious British agents: Dr. Bernard Lewis, Dr. Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz. For Lewis, the British Arab Bureau Zionist spook who originated the "Clash of Civilization" lunacy in 1990, a Sunni versus Shi'ite conflict in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean region, would be the ultimate British imperial "wet dream." Lewis has been Cheney's key "advisor" on Arab and Islamic affairs, frequently participating in private dinner seminars at the Vice Presidential Residence at the Naval Observatory.
Washington Post author Bob Woodward wrote in his latest book, Denial, that Cheney admitted to him that Henry Kissinger, the author of the Malthusian National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), has been his most frequent outside advisor on national security and foreign policy affairs—particularly Iraq. In May 1982, Kissinger boasted, at a public event at Chatham House, the London headquarters of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), that he took his cue, as Nixon and Ford's National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, "from the British Foreign Office," often working directly off Foreign Office draft documents. In the same speech, Kissinger waxed eloquent on the imperial virtues of Winston Churchill, while denouncing the "moralizing" of Franklin Roosevelt.
And while ground zero for the planned chaos is the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean, the primary target is not the oil patch: It is the United States. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialist faction, the Venetian-modelled structure behind the antics of Lewis, Kissinger, and Shultz, is dedicated to a world empire, built on the rotting corpse of the nation-state system. To achieve that goal, the United States, itself, must be destroyed—internally through economic and social disintegration, and globally, through a string of horrific policy fiascos. That is what is behind the latest insanity from Bush and Cheney. They are the dupes in a high-stakes British game to destroy the United States once and for all.
For these oligarchs, the prospect of a United States surviving the Bush-Cheney Presidency, with its constitutional institutions intact, is unacceptable. They fear a revival of the American System, and understand that the resounding electoral defeat of Bush and Cheney on Nov. 7, was a mandate for impeachment, and a demand for fundamental changes in economic and national security policy.
Furthermore, they know that their vision of a one-world empire, led by an Anglo-Dutch-centered financier oligarchy, is unattainable, without a massive reduction in world population. They therefore welcome a new Hundred Years' War. They relish the prospect of global chaos, asymmetric warfare, and waves of disease and famine.
They do not seek an American giant, flexing its muscle while tugging on a British leash. They want the United States Constitutional ship to sink in the depths of the ocean. Why else would anyone have engineered George W. Bush and Dick Cheney into the White House?

[Tarek1990]

Did somebody between you noticed the weapons disribution to the 14th feb pple?
If so please mention it in this thread
this article is written by American ppl they are not syrians nor iranians I have more from a british writer living in israel talking about this chaos issue, but first let see if you have any local informations

[Tarek1990]

This is another report about the same plan in the Middle east and it's interesting to read it
Do America and Israel Want the Middle East Engulfed By Civil War?

End of the Strongmen

By JONATHAN COOK
in Nazareth.
The era of the Middle East strongman, propped up by and enforcing Western policy, appears well and truly over. His power is being replaced with rule by civil war, apparently now the American Administration's favoured model across the region.
Fratricidal fighting is threatening to engulf, or already engulfing, the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. Both Syria and Iran could soon be next, torn apart by attacks Israel is reportedly planning on behalf of the US. The reverberations would likely consume the region.
Western politicians like to portray civil war as a consequence of the West's failure to intervene more effectively in the Middle East. Were we more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or more aggressive in opposing Syrian manipulations in Lebanon, or more hands-on in Iraq, the sectarian fighting could be prevented. The implication being, of course, that, without the West's benevolent guidance, Arab societies are incapable of dragging themselves out of their primal state of barbarity.
But in fact, each of these breakdowns of social order appears to have been engineered either by the United States or by Israel. In Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, sectarian difference is less important than a clash of political ideologies and interests as rival factions disagree about whether to submit to, or resist, American and Israeli interference. Where the factions derive their funding and legitimacy from -- increasingly a choice between the US or Iran -- seems to determine where they stand in this confrontation.
Palestine is in ferment because ordinary Palestinians are torn between their democratic wish to see Israeli occupation resisted -- in free elections they showed they believed Hamas the party best placed to realise that goal -- and the basic need to put food on the table for their families. The combined Israeli and international economic siege of the Hamas government, and the Palestinian population, has made a bitter internal struggle for control of resources inevitable.
Lebanon is falling apart because the Lebanese are divided: some believe that the country's future lies with attracting Western capital and welcoming Washington's embrace, while others regard America's interest as cover for Israel realising its long-standing design to turn Lebanon into a vassal state, with or without a military occupation. Which side the Lebanese choose in the current stand-off reflects their judgment of how plausible are claims of Western and Israeli benevolence.
And the slaughter in Iraq is not simply the result of lawlessness -- as is commonly portrayed -- but also about rival groups, the nebulous <IMG align=right border=0>"insurgents", employing various brutal and conflicting strategies: trying to oust the Anglo-American occupiers and punish local Iraqis suspected of collaborating with them; extracting benefits from the puppet Iraqi regime; and jockeying for positions of influence before the inevitable grand American exit.
All of these outcomes in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq could have been foreseen -- and almost certainly were. More than that, it looks increasingly like the growing tensions and carnage were planned. Rather than an absence of Western intervention being the problem, the violence and fragmentation of these societies seems to be precisely the goal of the intervention.
Evidence has emerged in Britain that suggests such was the case in Iraq. Testimony given by a senior British official to the 2004 Butler inquiry investigating intelligence blunders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was belatedly published last week, after attempts by the Foreign Office to hush it up.
Carne Ross, a diplomat who helped to negotiate several UN security council resolutions on Iraq, told the inquiry that British and US officials knew very well that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and that bringing him down would lead to chaos.
"I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said, adding: "At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."
The obvious question, then, is why would the US want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel?
Until the presidency of Bush Jnr, the American doctrine in the Middle East had been to install or support strongmen, containing them or replacing them when they fell out of favour. So why the dramatic and, at least ostensibly, incomprehensible shift in policy?
Why allow Yasser Arafat's isolation and humiliation in the occupied territories, followed by Mahmoud Abbas's, when both could have easily been cultivated as strongmen had they been given the tools they were implicitly promised by the Oslo process: a state, the pomp of office and the coercive means to impose their will on rival groups like Hamas? With almost nothing to show for years of concessions to Israel, both looked to the Palestinian public more like lapdogs rather than rottweilers.
Why make a sudden and unnecessary fuss about Syria's interference in Lebanon, an interference that the West originally encouraged as a way to keep the lid on sectarian violence? Why oust Damascus from the scene and then promote a "Cedar Revolution" that pandered to the interests of only one section of Lebanese society and continued to ignore the concerns of the largest and most dissatisfied community, the Shia? What possible outcome could there be but simmering resentment and the threat of violence?
And why invade Iraq on the hollow pretext of locating WMDs and then dislodge its dictator, Saddam Hussein, who for decades had been armed and supported by the US and had very effectively, if ruthlessly, held Iraq together? Again from Carne's testimony, it is clear that no one in the intelligence community believed Saddam really posed a threat to the West. Even if he needed "containing" or possibly replacing, as Bush's predecessors appeared to believe, why did the president decide simply to overthrow him, leaving a power void at Iraq's heart?
The answer appears to be related to the rise of the neocons, who finally grasped power with the election of President Bush. Israel's most popular news website, Ynet, recently observed of the neocons: "Many are Jews who share a love for Israel."
The neocons' vision of American global supremacy is intimately tied to, and dependent on, Israel's regional supremacy. It is not so much that the neocons choose to promote Israel's interests above those of America as that they see the two nations' interests as inseparable and identical.
Although usually identified with the Israeli right, the neocons' political alliance with the Likud mainly reflects their support for adopting belligerent means to achieve their policy goals rather than the goals themselves.
The consistent aim of Israeli policy over decades, from the left and right, has been to acquire more territory at the expense of its neighbours and entrench its regional supremacy through "divide and rule", particularly of its weakest neighbours such as the Palestinians and the Lebanese. It has always abominated Arab nationalism, especially of the Baathist variety in Iraq and Syria, because it appeared immune to Israeli intrigues.
For many years Israel favoured the same traditional colonial approach the West used in the Middle East, where Britain, France and later the US supported autocratic leaders, usually from minority populations, to rule over the majority in the new states they had created, whether Christians in Lebanon, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, or Hashemites in Jordan. The majority was thereby weakened, and the minority forced to become dependent on colonial favours to maintain its privileged position.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, for example, was similarly designed to anoint a Christian strongman and US stooge, Bashir Gemayel, as a compliant president who would agree to an anti-Syrian alliance with Israel.
But decades of controlling and oppressing Palestinian society allowed Israel to develop a different approach to divide and rule: what might be termed organised chaos, or the "discord" model, one that came to dominate first its thinking and later that of the neocons.
During its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel preferred discord to a strongman, aware that a pre-requisite of the latter would be the creation of a Palestinian state and its furnishing with a well-armed security force. Neither option was ever seriously contemplated.
Only briefly under international pressure was Israel forced to relent and partially adopt the strongman model by allowing the return of Yasser Arafat from exile. But Israel's reticence in giving Arafat the means to assert his rule and suppress his rivals, such as Hamas, led inevitably to conflict between the Palestinian president and Israel that ended in the second intifada and the readoption of the discord model.
This latter approach exploits the fault lines in Palestinian society to exacerbate tensions and violence. Initially Israel achieved this by promoting rivalry between regional and clan leaders who were forced to compete for Israel's patronage. Later Israel encouraged the emergence of Islamic extremism, especially in the form of Hamas, as a counterweight to the growing popularity of the secular nationalism of Arafat's Fatah party.
Israel's discord model is now reaching its apotheosis: low-level and permanent civil war between the old guard of Fatah and the upstarts of Hamas. This kind of Palestinian in-fighting usefully depletes the society's energies and its ability to organise against the real enemy: Israel and its enduring occupation.
The neocons, it appears, have been impressed with this model and wanted to export it to other Middle Eastern states. Under Bush they sold it to the White House as the solution to the problems of Iraq and Lebanon, and ultimately of Iran and Syria too.
The provoking of civil war certainly seemed to be the goal of Israel's assault on Lebanon over the summer. The attack failed, as even Israelis admit, because Lebanese society rallied behind Hizbullah's impressive show of resistance rather than, as was hoped, turning on the Shia militia.
Last week the Israeli website Ynet interviewed Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen and co-founder of MEMRI, a service translating Arab leaders' speeches that is widely suspected of having ties with Israel's security services. She is also the wife of David Wurmser, a senior neocon adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Meyrav Wurmser revealed that the American Administration had publicly dragged its feet during Israel's assault on Lebanon because it was waiting for Israel to expand its attack to Syria.
"The anger [in the White House] is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its [Iran's] strategic and important ally [Syria] should be hit."
Wurmser continued: "It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in the Middle East."
Neocons talk a great deal about changing maps in the Middle East. Like Israel's dismemberment of the occupied territories into ever-smaller ghettos, Iraq is being severed into feuding mini-states. Civil war, it is hoped, will redirect Iraqis' energies away from resistance to the US occupation and into more negative outcomes.
Similar fates appear to be awaiting Iran and Syria, at least if the neocons, despite their waning influence, manage to realise their vision in Bush's last two years.
The reason is that a chaotic and feuding Middle East, although it would be a disaster in the view of most informed observers, appears to be greatly desired by Israel and its neocon allies. They believe that the whole Middle East can be run successfully the way Israel has run its Palestinian populations inside the occupied territories, where religious and secular divisions have been accentuated, and inside Israel itself, where for many decades Arab citizens were "de-Palestinianised" and turned into identity-starved and quiescent Muslims, Christians, Druze and Bedouin.
That conclusion may look foolhardy, but then again so does the White House's view that it is engaged in a "clash of civilisations" which it can win with a "war on terror".
All states are capable of acting in an irrational or self-destructive manner, but Israel and its supporters may be more vulnerable to this failing than most. That is because Israelis' perception of their region and their future has been grossly distorted by the official state ideology, Zionism, with its belief in Israel's inalienable right to preserve itself as an ethnic state; its confused messianic assumptions, strange for a secular ideology, about Jews returning to a land promised by God; and its contempt for, and refusal to understand, everything Arab or Muslim.
If we expect rational behaviour from Israel or its neocon allies, more fool us.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming " Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net