After continually launching airstrikes inside Syrian territory against Hezbollah and the Syrian military in favor of Western-backed terrorists, Israel is threatening to “go it alone” in order to “contain” Iran. The Israeli Prime Minister claims that Iran’s presence in Syria is aimed at establishing a base next to Israel so that it can destroy Israel in the future. Netanyahu also crowed his tired warnings (absent the cartoonish bomb drawing) that Iran could have hundreds of nuclear weapons in ten years, presumably to launch against Israel and its “allies.”
As he addressed the Jewish Federation of North America’s General Assembly via webcam, Netanyahu said, “Iran is scheming to entrench itself militarily in Syria.”
Netanyahu claimed that the Iran nuclear deal will allow Iran to “produce hundreds of nuclear weapons” in “about a decade.”
Netanyahu urged the “international community” to act to “contain” Iran but pointed out that Israel would not hesitate to act alone. “If we stand together we will achieve it,” he said. “But if we have to – we’ll stand alone. Iran will not get nuclear weapons. It will not turn Syria into a military base against Israel.”
Netanyahu’s claim that the deal “rescinds all the limitations on Iran’s enrichment capacity,” has been disputed by reports regularly presented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s full compliance, the latest such confirmation coming this week. On Monday, a confidential IAEA report, cited by Reuters, reportedly found that Iran did not exceed the limit for enriched uranium stockpiles capped at 300 kilograms, and provided free access for inspection at all nuclear sites. It became the ninth time in a row the UN nuclear watchdog confirmed the Islamic Republic’s conformity with the provisions of the deal.
In his refusal to acknowledge the effectiveness of the deal, Netanyahu is one of a very few world leaders, the others being US President Donald Trump and, recently, French President Emmanuel Macron. Donald Trump notoriously labeled it “the worst deal ever” and refused to recertify Iran’s compliance with the agreement in October. The US Congress now has until mid-December to consider whether to re-impose sanctions on Iran. Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of the possibility of amending the nuclear deal with Iran to cover ballistic missile development by the Islamic Republic, drawing ire from Tehran, which insists that its ballistic missile program and nuclear development are two separate issues.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday that both the Iranian and Russian military presence in Syria was“legitimate… at the invitation of the lawful government.”
Speaking about a Russia-US-Jordan agreement to withdraw “non-Syrian” military units from the de-escalation zone in south-eastern Syria, Lavrov said that “there was no talk of Iran, furthermore, of pro-Iranian forces.” Syrian President Bashar Assad has recently thanked Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for standing behind his government in the battle against terrorism.
“The Syrian Arab Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran are continuing the fight against oppression and aggression and eliminating the threats of terrorism,” Assad wrote in a letter in September, as cited by Press TV.
From the very beginning, I and others like Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report warned that the Iran nuclear deal was merely political theatre setting the stage for an attack on Iran to come after Syria was finished off or significantly weakened. This deal, which Iran never should have had to agree to in the first place, will be used as evidence that the US did “everything in its power” to avoid confrontation but that Iran simply would not abide by any agreements.
Of course, Iran has complied with the agreement in total. Only in the United States do a sizeable number of people believe otherwise.
The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.
The plan involves the description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.
Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads,
…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states,
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
The question of the Israeli role in the possible attack against Iran is also mentioned by Brookings. In fact, in the chapter entitled, “Allowing or Encouraging An Israeli Military Strike,” Brookings not only outlines a potential strategy but essentially admits that the US-Israeli tension being hyped in the Western media is nothing more than a farce. It says,
..the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).
The tentative agreement between the US and Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear program, with Israel wailing in the background, can easily be seen as a playout of the plan described by the Brookings Institution where an attack on Iran will come after it is perceived that Iran has rejected a “superb offer.”
The Israelis are not dissatisfied with the United States nor is the United States dissatisfied with Israel. Both parties are merely playing a role in a carefully scripted act that ultimately involves more war against the enemies of Anglo-American imperialism and the world oligarchy.
Do not be fooled by propaganda. While the Iranians are busy negotiating, the Americans and the Israelis are busy gearing up for war.
Indeed, the Saudis, engaged in their own murderous campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, are apparently ready to join in as well.
In private talks with European sources, the Saudis have expressed their willingness to cooperate with Israel on Iran, including use of Saudi air space by the IDF for a possible air strike, according to a report by Channel 2.
Cooperation with Saudi Arabia would not come free, however. According to the report, the Saudi officials said they would need to see progress between Israelis and Palestinians before having enough legitimacy to allow Israel to use their air space.
The Saudis, of course, while professing a hatred of the Israelis have been working close together for some time, not the least of which in Libya and Syria but as mutual participants in the Anglo-American assault on countries not fully integrated into the global system controlled by private bankers and world oligarchs.
The Israelis are not contemplating an attack against Iran because the Americans have betrayed them and they are most certainly not contemplating an attack out of a legitimate concern for their safety. The Israelis are merely playing their part in a theatre that was constructed some time ago, a screenplay that can be partially read in the Brookings Institution’s 2009 report, “Which Path To Persia?” The idea that Israel would ever “go it alone” in any type of sustained military conflict against Iran or Syria is laughable since Israel would only engage in such a major military adventure with full knowledge that the United States is willing to sacrifice troops and treasure to come to its rescue and do its bidding.
That path has clearly been mapped out by the Anglo-American establishment. It remains to be seen if the American population will allow them to follow it to its destination.
Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.