Sunday, August 18, 2013

Proxy War, Not a Revolution

Proxy War, Not a Revolution

(Written August 2013)

In the late 1970's, the CIA decided that a destabilized Afghanistan would benefit their geopolitical goals greatly. As a result, they initiated Operation Cyclone and began training and funding Islamists from countries all over the world to fight against the newly erected Afghan communist government. Not only did they train and fund Islamists, they also radicalized them, by setting up schools in places such as Pakistan to brainwash impressionable youth and send them to Afghanistan upon graduation. Radical organizations such as Osama Bin Laden's MAK were singled out for for bulk funding. The operation was massive; the CIA provided enough money to provide arms for 240,000 men, with Saudi Arabia matching dollar for dollar.

The rebellion against the Communist government in Afghanistan and the Russians after their subsequent occupation was not an organic event. It was not a popular uprising by Afghans, it was contrived, created and manipulated throughout by the CIA and its allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI.

This is what is happening in Syria today. While modern operations are classified and it is more difficult to see the depth of covert activities, enough information has come to light to paint a clear picture.

The Syrian civil war in its current form is not an 'organic' event, it is an operation by the CIA and its allies. They have been funding, training, and shipping in fighters from all across the world to destabilize the country.

* * * *


In October 2011, after a successful No Fly Zone campaign sponsored by NATO and the United States, Libyan rebels succeeded in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi. Less than two months later, in late November of 2011, the new American-friendly regime began providing support to Syria, including sending money, weapons and training to Syrian rebels.1 Shortly afterwords, it was announced that rebels who fought in the Libyan civil war were entering Syria to fight. 2The report estimates about 600 fighters, a small number but still a significant portion, as the Syrian resistance was estimated to be about 17,000 large at the time.3

A New York Times article published on June 21, 2013 titled 'In Turnabout, Syrian Rebels get Libyan Weapons' states:

“Evidence gathered in Syria, along with flight-control data and interviews with militia members, smugglers, rebels, analysts and officials in several countries, offers a profile of a complex and active multinational effort, financed largely by Qatar, to transport arms from Libya to Syria’s opposition fighters. Libya’s own former fighters, who sympathize with Syria’s rebels, have been eager collaborators.”4

The article notes that exactly how much money and weapons are being funneled to Syria is difficult to keep track up, as the 'arms pipeline' is unregistered and without oversight. In other words, it is a 'black market' operation. Another important paragraph from the article:

“The movements from Libya complement the airlift that has variously used Saudi, Jordanian and Qatari military cargo planes to funnel military equipment and weapons, including from Croatia, to the outgunned rebels. On Friday, Syrian opposition officials said the rebels had received a new shipment of anti-tank weapons and other arms, although they give varying accounts of the sources of the recently received arms. the Central Intelligence Agency has already played at least a supporting role, the officials say.”

The article also notes that the weapons being shipped into Syria are coming from Gaddafi's extensive stockpile and that once they are inside Syria, it is unclear what groups are receiving them. When Libya began their support, the death toll of the Syrian Civil War was only 3,500.

* * * *


According to a June 22, 2012 article published in The Guardian, Turkey has been training army defectors on its own territory, and it is from this group of rebels that the Free Syria Army was born, and currently operates under Turkish intelligence.5 This is proxy war to an extreme degree: A revolutionary army literally being operated by a foreign country. Recalling the 'Operation Gladio' chapter, we remember that Turkish intelligence is both an immensely powerful decision making force within the country and is immensely corrupt: It also likely has significant ties to US or NATO intelligence who are likely very influential in the operation of the Free Syrian Army.
In addition, weapons from a variety of United States allies including Saudi Arabia and Qatar are currently being funneled through Turkey into Syria.6

* * * *


Qatar, one of the United States' biggest Middle East allies, is also one of the largest providers of funds for the rebels. The Financial Times has reported that Qatar has provided over $3 billion in support over the first two years of the conflict.7 The article also states that in one year between April 2012 and March 2013, Qatar provided over 70 cargo flights full of arms to be funneled into Syria through Turkey's border.

* * * *

Saudi Arabia

Reuters reported on May 21, 2013 that Saudi Arabia had just surpassed Qatar to become the largest supplier of weapons and money to Syrian rebels.8 The drive has been led by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the intelligence director of Saudi Arabia.

* * * *

Foreign Fighters from Around the World

The Taliban announced in July 2013 that it is now providing direct support in the form of fighters to aid the fight against Assad.9 They claimed an important goal is to develop ties with Al Qaeda's central leadership, which is also operating within Syria. Between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, foreign fighters from Pakistan, Libya and Tunisia have all joined the opposition. These groups are some of the most potent fighters in the Syrian opposition because of their extensive experience. CNN reported on July 24, 2013 that 250 Taliban fighters had joined the opposition in Syria.

The Al-Nusra front is one of the largest fighting forces in Syria today, estimated at around 5,000 or more, many of them foreigners. They are directly linked to Al Qaeda and are responsible for many of the atrocities of the Syrian war, including upwards of 53 suicide bombings.10 The Front has explicitly stated their desire to erect a Sharia law state once Assad is disposed.

The Guardian has reported that foreign fighters have arrived from Chechnya and Tajikistan.11 On April 24, 2013 they reported that over 500 people from the European Union have trekked to Syria to join the fight.

Haaretz has reported that even Americans are fighting in Syria.12 It certainly explains the mysterious American passport found in the Northern part of the country.13 All in all, fighters from more than 25 different countries have been involved inside Syria.14Reuters has reported the story of a French doctor who spent two weeks in Aleppo and stated that over half of the rebels he treated were not Syrian but foreigners.15

"It's really something strange to see. They are directly saying that they aren't interested in Bashar al-Assad's fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterwards and set up an Islamic state with sharia law to become part of the world Emirate," the doctor said.

CNN will strongly assert that no more than 10% of the fighters in Syria are foreign, but an analysis of methodology raises tons of states:

“Although no reliable data is available regarding the number of foreign fighters in Syria, many sources have discussed their presence. A broad survey of reporting on the issue found at least thirty-three English, Arabic, and French news accounts that mentioned statements by foreign fighters and facilitators in Syria, confirmed deaths of such individuals, or confirmed arrests at the border. Jihadist forums also discuss such fighters, occasionally mentioning individuals who have been "martyred" in Syria (though it is uncertain whether these sources are describing the same individuals or separate cases).”

So there are truly no reliable estimates on how many foreign fighters but one thing is for sure, the number is constantly growing.

* * * *


The number of foreign fighters in Syria, even with estimates likely on the low side, are consistent with the number of foreign fighters who fought in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan starting in the late '70s. The tremendous amounts of foreign aid from US allies and the primary role of Saudi Arabia is also consistent between Operation Cyclone and Syria today. It is almost a mirror image of the Afghanistan civil war 3 decades ago, except bloodier.

The evidence is clear that the Syrian revolution is not an organic uprising but a proxy war for the United States and its allies, pumping foreign fighters, money and arms into the country to destabilize it.

All of the current rhetoric pushing for direct Western intervention along humanitarian lines is laughable; If the West truly cared about humanitarian values, it would not have been actively proliferating the conflict. Before the first shipments of rebels and aid began flowing over the borders, the death toll was a few thousand. Today it is over 100,000.

The United States is deliberately tearing the country of Syria to pieces, not only fracturing the divide between Assad and the rebels but between the rebels and themselves with Islamists and secular fighters.

* * * *

Geopolitics and the Petrodollar

Why would the United States have a vested interest in tearing Syria apart? There are a few hugely significant reasons that never make their way into mainstream discussions.

In 2007, General Wesley Clark sat down with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman and gave a fascinating interview. Clark is a retired 4 Star General who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo war, and had an unsuccessful run for the Presidential nomination as a Democrat in 2004.17

In the interview he discusses a variety of interesting and important topics, such as the drive to invade Iran, the use of cluster bombs, and impeaching George W. Bush. But there is a particularly important moment when he discusses two trips he made to the Pentagon, the first only nine days after the 9/11 attacks.

He is taken by surprise when one of the former members of the Joint Staff that worked under him claimed “We've made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” Clark recalls their full conversation went like this:

I said, "We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don’t know." He said, "I guess they don’t know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

He returned a few weeks later, after the Afghanistan war had begun. He inquired about whether or not there were still plans to declare war on Iraq:

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it’s worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

Clearly the plan was not carried out to fruition, Iraq ended up as a massive quagmire, tying up troops and resources, and there would be no public support for a third military engagement under the Bush administration.

Is it possible that General Clark simply lied about the memo and plans for a succession of regime changes? Yes; after all, it does seem that Clark is a partisan Democrat in his post military career and perhaps he had an agenda of slandering the Bush administration. Or perhaps it was part of a more sinister Psychological Operation.

General Clark's testimony is no 'smoking gun' that wars are planned and consent is subsequently manufactured, but it is still hugely significant; after all, regime changes were accomplished in Iraq and Libya, further destabilization in Sudan led to the emergence of a new state, and Western intervention in Syria is about to ensnare Lebanon and Iran into a wider conflict. It shows that the geopolitical events that have unfolded over the past decade and that are currently underway are predictable.

The biggest reason is the Petrodollar. What exactly does the word mean?

Did you know that OPEC exclusively prices its oil in US Dollars? I'll first explain the history of the arrangement and then its significance.
The stability of the dollar depends on its status as the world reserve currency. Right now, the US dollar makes up nearly two-thirds of global currency reserves. The status was formalized in 1944 with the Bretton-Woods System, a post-war agreement between 44 allied nations to tie the exchange rate of their currencies to the US dollar. At the time, it made sense; the Dollar was tied to the gold standard and the United States was economically dominant where most of the European economies were in shambles.

In 1971, the Nixon formally took the US Dollar off of the gold standard, ending the Bretton-Woods System. There was simply too much money being spent on the Vietnam War and the bloating programs of Lyndon B. Johnson's 'Great Society' for the standard to be practical, and nations such as France were gradually exchanging their reserves of Dollars for physical gold, reducing the US's economic influence.
What occurred next is known as 'Nixon Shock': The United States entered a recession and growth slowed from 7.2% to -2.1%. There was too much money being spent to tie down the value of the dollar to a specific number, although the process was tried for a couple years under the 'Smithsonian Agreement'.18

In 1973 Henry Kissinger, then the Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, hatched a plan to maintain the status of the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency and traveled to Saudi Arabia. An arrangement was made whereby the Saudis would sell their oil in USD, and then invest some of their surpluses in US debt securities, a process known as petrodollar recycling.19 The agreement was mutually beneficial, the United States brought stability to the dollar and allowed it to remain as the global reserve currency, and the United States began providing significant military protection from that point forward, in terms of arms sales, military bases and more, from that point forward.
By 1975, the rest of OPEC had followed suit. Thus, the petrodollar was born, and it is the reason that the US Dollar accounts for nearly 2/3rds of the worlds currency reserves.

What would happen if the petrodollar ended?

Foreign nations would send their reserves of the dollar back to the United States in exchange for whichever currency replaced it in oil sales.
The Fed would no longer be able to print money at will to solve our monetary problems. For example, they are currently adding 85 billion a month to our money supply, which through the process of fractional reserve banking ends up as 850 billion new dollars. Without strong international demand this would be devastating for inflation.
The Fed would have no choice but to shrink the money supply. This would lead to hyperinflation, and the price of oil in the US would skyrocket. When oil prices greatly increase, so does everything else, as oil is essential for our goods transportation infrastructure.
Banks would have to raise their interest rates, because the fed would be forced to raise the Federal Funds Rate. Money exchange would slow to a crawl, everyone currently with an adjustable rate debt would be in deep trouble, and massive layoffs would occur.
The American economy would forever have to be tremendously smaller due to the smaller money supply.
The chain reaction of a smaller money supply would cause the defaulting on many, many loans and possibly facilitating the collapse of the entire banking system.

I cannot emphasize this enough: The Petrodollar system is not just important, it is the entire basis of which United States economic hegemony is predicated on. This is why the United States has caused or is planning a regime change in the major middle east countries that have moved away from the Petrodollar.

First it was Iraq in the year 2000. Iraq, which has the largest oil reserves in the world, decided to switch to the Euro in an effort to rebuke the United States for their hardline economic sanctions.20 Three years later, the United States invaded and caused a regime change, and within months Iraq returned to selling its oil in USD.21

Libya, with the ninth largest oil reserves in the world, presented a threat to the petrodollar in 2010. Muammar Gadaffi proposed the creation of an African currency called the gold dinar, which would be used for their oil transactions. It was not long before a 'No-Fly Zone' was imposed on Libya and the Gaddafi was removed from power. After the revolution, it took just weeks for the new ruling class to establish a private central bank and continue the selling of oil in dollars.22

Syria switched to the Euro for oil sales in 2006.23 Today, the United States is on the brink of unilateral intervention that is sure to embroil Iran and Lebanon, both of whom hold mutual defense pacts with Syria, into a wider conflict.

The New York Times has reported Iran warned the United States and its allies that direct intervention in Syria would lead to retaliation against Israel.24 Such events would surely break out into widespread war throughout the Middle East.

* * * *


In 2013 and Syria, the stakes are massive. Regime changes in Syria and Iran may be the only way to extend the Petrodollar until a solution is developed that maintains United States worldwide superiority. Make no mistake, the United States wants a devastated and destabilized Middle East that cannot stand up to Petrodollar hegemony, and time is running out for them to accomplish this.

It is not an understatement to declare that the Petrodollar system is necessary for the maintaining of the Political and Financial elite of the United States. And ultimately, Syria is just a stepping stone to get to Iran. While Syria alone might not have been able to destabilize the Petrodollar, an economic alliance between Syria and Iran may very well be the catalyst that shakes the United States dollar off of its status as the world reserve currency.

* * * *


Iran takes the concept of 'Petrodollar Warfare', the idea that the United States is going to war to protect the selling of oil in USD, as a fact. They are under the (quite correct) impression that the international standard of selling oil in USD is a form of neo-imperialism and have taken concrete action to move away from the Petrodollar.25

Iran is very important. They are considered an energy superpower, and sit on top of 10% of the worlds proven petroleum reserves. They also have the second largest natural gas reserves in the world, second only to Russia.2627

Along with Israel, they are the most advanced and stable state in the Middle East. Their dominance threatens Israeli and United States economic interests; for example, in 2012 Iran brokered a pipeline deal with Iraq and Syria that would allow the country to begin exporting its massive gas reserves throughout Europe.28 This pipeline was in direct conflict with a similar proposed pipeline by Qatar, a major US ally.29
They also pose one of the only significant military threats to Israel. When they claim that a Western strike on Syria will lead to 'serious consequences throughout the whole region', it is not a threat to take lightly. Neither are their mutual defense treaties with Syria and Russia.30

Indeed, it is entirely possible that the military strikes now being argued for so passionately by John Kerry could devolve the entire Middle East into a wide war, prompting broad involvement by both the United States and Russia.31 Such a conflict could be referred to in no other terms than World War III.

As sick as it sounds, such an engagement is exactly the covert geopolitical goal that the Pathocracy is hoping for.
In 2008, Iran opened it's “Oil Bourse”, essentially an international oil market, and moved away from the US dollar. By 2010, 85% of Iranian oil sales were in a currency other than the dollar, and plans are on the books to remove the dollar from sales entirely.32

This move has weakened the dollar and will continue to weaken it further. However, Iran alone cannot collapse the Petrodollar system. Rather, it is Iran's relationships with both emerging economic powers such as China and India along with oil exporting countries such as Syria and Venezuela, that have the Western establishment trembling in fear. A full scale effort by Iran and its allies to buy and sell oil in a currency other than the dollarwould surely cause a Western economic collapse. With the current precarious position of banks on the verge of failure and the end of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing in sight, a significant weakening of the dollar would cause a chain reaction of financial collapse that would completely dwarf the 2008 recession. China is currently positioning themselves to replace portions of the global reserve currency and Iran, already under tremendous sanctions, would be mostly unaffected by outside turmoil.

It is this reason that the United States is currently pushing for intervention in Syria. Not only do they want to prevent an alliance between Syria and Iran for making the basis of a strong international push away from the Petrodollar, they want to use Syria as a stepping stone for intervention in Iran.

If Iran declines to respond militarily to a Western attack on Syria, they will find another way; perhaps linking them to chemical weapons use.

Mark my words: an invasion of Iran is on the books. Whether it will happen in 6 months or 6 years is the question, not 'if'. And the Petrodollar is not a minimal interest, it is the most important objective for the stability of the financial elite in United States history.
Some important food for thought: The disconnect between the rhetoric of Middle East intervention in mainstream media and politics mirrors the disconnect between propaganda and reality in a wide swath of issues, from the economy to the history of our country. It is a case study in thousands of people acting in a concerted effort to keep silent the truth.

1The Telegraph, “Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels,” November 25, 2011

2Albawaba, “Libyan fighters join "free Syrian army," forces,” November 29, 2011

3The Washington Institute, “Foreign Fighters Trickle into the Syrian Rebellion,” June 11, 2012

4New York Times, “In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons,” June 21, 2013

5The Guardian, “Syria's opposition has been led astray by violence,” July 22, 2012

6The Guardian, “Syrian rebels claim receipt of major weapons shipment,” August 25, 2013

7Financial Times, “Qatar Bankrolls Syrian Revolt with Cash and Arms,” May 16, 2013

8Reuters, “Saudi edges Qatar to control Syrian rebel support,” May 31, 2013

9The Hindu, “Pak. Taliban presence turns Syria into a theatre of global jihad,” July 16, 2013

10Wikipedia Article on the Al Nusra Front

11The Guardian, “Syria: the foreign fighters joining the war against Bashar al-Assad,” September 23, 2012

12Haaretz, “UN warns 'foreign fighters' filtering into Syria, echoing Jordanian fears,” December 20, 2012

13Business Insider, “An American Passport Found In Al Qaeda Camp In Syria,” July 23, 2013

14Business Insider, “Militants From More Than 25 Countries Have Joined The Battle In Syria,” June 4, 2013

15Reuters, “Jihadists join Aleppo fight, eye Islamic state, surgeon says,” September 8, 2012

16CNN, “Al Qaeda's potent force in Syria,” August 30, 2013

17Democracy Now, “Gen. Wesley Clark Weighs Presidential Bid: "I Think About It Everyday",” March 2, 2007

18Wikipedia Article on the Smithsonian Agreement

19The Majalla, “Joined at the Hip,” September 15, 2011

20Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, “Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro,” November 1, 2000

21Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, “Iraq Returns to the International Oil Market,” (PDF Warning)

22CNBC, “Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank,” March 28, 2011

23Reuters, “Syria Switches to Euros Amid Confrontation with US,” 2006

24New York Times, “Strike on Syria Would Lead to Retaliation on Israel, Iran Warns,” August 28, 2013

25Asia Times, “What the Iran 'Nuclear Issue' is Really About,” January 21, 2006

26Wikipedia Article on Oil Reserves in Iran

27Wikipedia Article on Petroleum Reserves in Iran

28Al Jazeera, “Syria's Pipelineistan War,” August 6, 2012, “IRAN-IRAQ: Pipeline to Syria Ups Ante in Proxy War with Qatar,” February 22, 2013

30International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, “IRAN, SYRIA ENTER MUTUAL DEFENSE PACT.”

31U.S. News and World Report, “John Kerry, Chuck Hagel Pitch Syrian Strike to Congress,” September 23, 2013

32Global Times, “Iran plans to exclude dollar, euro from foreign transactions: minister,” January 15, 2013