America's New Middle East Agenda

 - by Stephen Lendman

A previous article on Syria quoted Middle East analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, explaining Washington's longstanding plan to "creat(e) an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan."

He explained it also includes redrawing the Eurasian map, balkanizing or reconfiguring countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, perhaps Baltic states, the entire Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, and, of course, Libya to assure Western control of its valued resources, besides already having created three Iraqs. The strategy involves "divid(ing) and conquer(ing to serve) Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region."

Currently it's playing out violently in Libya, addressed in numerous previous articles as Western intervention heads closer to invasion, knowing air strikes alone can't topple Gaddafi unless a "lucky" one kills him. It's a key administration goal despite official denials, while defending the right to bomb his compound having no other purpose than assassination.

Notably on April 26, Los Angeles Times writer David Cloud headlined, "NATO widens air war in Libya, targeting key sites in Tripoli," saying:

Predator drones are being used "to strike directly at the pillars of the regime, including (Gaddafi), in the heart of Tripoli," according to a senior NATO officer, explaining:

"This is a shift, absolutely. We're picking up attacks on these command-and-control facilities. If (Gaddafi) happens to be in one of those buildings, all the better," stopping short of saying he, in fact, is the target.

Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized the attacks, saying:

"They said they didn't want to kill Gaddafi. Now some officials say: 'Yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi.' Who permitted this, was there a trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no matter who he is?"

Putin denounced the efforts, saying they exceed the UN resolution's mandate. As a result, Libya asked Russia to convene a new Security Council meeting to address illegitimate NATO action, functioning as the insurgency's air force, taking sides instead of staying neutral in Libya's internal affairs.

China also objects to Western military "advisers" intervening, special forces aiding insurgents besides CIA and MI 6 agents doing it also for months. Now Britain will deploy troops on Tunisia's border with Libya, inching closer to invasion. UK Defense Minister Liam Fox justifies it, saying Britain's prepared for the "long haul," adding:

"It is essential that the international community gives a very clear signal to the Libyan regime that our resolve isn't time-limited....Politically, economically, militarily, we are moving forward," stopping short of explaining key Western goals.

They're unrelated to humanitarian intervention or protecting civilians, the bogus reasons always given (besides WMDs or other spurious security threats) to attack, conquer, colonize, and plunder targeted countries. Now it's Libya's turn at the same Syria experiences Western destabilizing intervention, perhaps ahead of "shock and awe" and whatever else US/NATO planners have in mind.

In fact, the Obama administration threatens the entire region, using "constructive chaos" to create "an arc of instability, chaos, and violence," affecting all Eurasian countries to solidify unchallengeable US control.

Moreover, at a time when "Let them eat cake" arrogance trumps growing public needs, America plans more than ever military spending. In addition, Britain's Fox said the Libyan campaign won't "be limited by pounds, shillings and pence" to conclude the mission successfully.

Nor do royal weddings costing her majesty's subjects a shocking $10 billion, including official understated expenses, security, and declaring a national holiday, depriving millions of Brits of a day's pay they can't afford to lose.

Kill Gaddafi

In America, congressional calls are increasing to assassinate him, Washington's favored regime change method besides externally instigated coups. In recent days, figures like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called for:

"cut(ting) the head of the snake off. Go to Tripoli, start bombing Gaddafi's inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters....The people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering 'will this be my last?' The military commanders supporting Gaddafi should be pounded. So I would not let the UN mandate stop what is the right thing to do."

He wasn't asked to explain how violating UN Resolution 1973, its Charter, as well as international and US law is "right" when daily war crimes keep mounting. Nonetheless, others in Congress agree, including Senator John McCain, preferring winning on the ground only because it's chancy "taking him out with a lucky air strike." Senator Joe Lieberman also says he's "got to start thinking about whether they want to more directly target (him) and his family."

Bipartisan support in both Houses concurs, as well as Obama, despite official denials. In fact, current efforts may be to accomplish Ronald Reagan's failed 1986 objective. At the time, White House press secretary Larry Speakes called killing Gaddafi "a fortunate by-product of our act of self-defense," against what he didn't explain nor apologize for murdering 37 Libyans, including his daughter, as well as injuring dozens more, mostly civilians, those always harmed most in wars and other conflicts.

Earlier, however, House and Senate members from both parties criticized Obama for not seeking congressional authorization for war, saying it exceeded his constitutional authority, but stopping short of wanting attacks stopped.

In fact, under the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, only Congress may declare war, what hasn't happened since December 8, 1941 against Japan, making all US wars since illegal. Obama once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. In addition, as a presidential candidate in December 2007, he told the Boston Globe:

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

That was then. This is now as Republicans and Democrats plan authorizing it after the fact either by resolution or a symbolic "sense of the House and Senate" motion or confirmation.

If so, it will legitimize the illegitimate as Congress can't invalidate UN Charter provisions explaining under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.

In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council.

Moreover, so-called "humanitarian intervention" amounts to modern-day colonialism to achieve geopolitical objectives. Besides, America never showed concern for human rights in pursuit of strategic aims.

Notably, dovish US diplomat, advisor, and father of Soviet containment George Kennan (advocating diplomacy over force) explained what became America's post-WW II foreign policy. In his February 1948 "Memo PPS23," he stated:

"....we have 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. (It makes us) the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships (to let us) maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national society. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction...."

"We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism....We should (stop talking about) unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans (ideas and practices), the better."

As a result, when America intervenes militarily, it's for policy goals, never for human rights or humanitarian priorities, rhetoric notwithstanding.

Why Gaddafi Is Targeted

Previous articles explained that he wasn't fully on board, or put another way, "with the program." Specific reasons are explained below.

(1) He opted out of AFRICOM, one of nine global Pentagon commands, to control the Africa and the Mediterranean Basin, including its strategic energy transit routes and choke points, crucial to keep open for world economies. All African countries participate except Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Eritrea, and Libya. He also backed an initiative to create a United States of Africa, whereas Washington wants easily exploitable divisions.

(2) Besides ranked ninth in the world with 42 billion proved barrels of oil reserves (and large amounts of gas), its untapped potential is believed much greater. Moreover, being nearly sulfur-free, it's even more valued for its extremely high quality. At issue isn't access, it's control over who develops, produces and receives it in what amounts.

(3) In January 2009, Gaddafi wanted to nationalize Libyan oil, but his timetable faced internal resistance. According to Pravda.ru's March 25, 2011 article titled, "Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil," he considered the option because of low oil prices at the time, saying:

"The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously. Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production."

In February 2009, he asked for public support to distribute Libya's oil wealth directly to the people. However, senior officials feared losing their jobs "due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption." He was also advised about the possibility of capital flight.

As a result, Libya's Popular Committee voted 468 - 64 to delay nationalization plans, even though a 251 majority viewed the change as positive.

Note: Gaddafi didn't consider how powerful insiders manipulate all markets up or down for profit, including oil, irrespective of demand. It's brazen fraud but goes on all the time, especially on Wall Street in collusion with Washington.

(4) Libya's Great Man-Made River (GMMR) is developing an ocean-sized aquifer beneath the desert for irrigation, human consumption, and other uses. At 2007 consumption rates, it could last 1,000 years. No wonder Gaddafi calls his Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) the "Eighth Wonder of the World."

At issue, of course, is privatizing it, making water unaffordable for many, perhaps most Libyans. In other words, neoliberal control will exploit it for maximum profits, not equitable use as a public resource.

(5) Ellen Brown's April 13 article titled, "Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking?" raised another, easily overlooked, issue. Who controls Libya's money, the lifeblood of every economy? In 1970, Henry Kissinger said, "Control oil and you control nations. Control food and you control people." He neglected to add, control money and you control everything because without it economies collapse.

At issue is whether it's public or private like most nations, including America under the Federal Reserve that isn't federal and has no reserves as Ron Paul explains.

Under Gaddafi, "the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State owned." In other words, it creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, interest free to be used productively for economic growth, not profits and bonuses for predatory bankers.

However, after Washington's led NATO intervention, the privately controlled Central Bank of Benghazi was established to let Western bankers, not Libyans, run things. Money control indeed appears an important reason for intervening, perhaps most important of all.

(6) On April 24, Manlio Dinucci's Global Research article headlined, "Financial Heist of the Century: Confiscating Libya's Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF)," saying:

Besides money, oil, gas, water, and other reasons, the "Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages" an estimated $70 billion, "rising to more than $150 billion (including) foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more."

Confiscation gives US/NATO interests easy money to use for their own purposes, no matter that doing so amounts to grand theft, an American/Western specialty in league with Wall Street and its European counterparts.

"Constructive chaos" takes many forms, including conquering and colonizing nations, then carving up the corpse for profit to the detriment of its people. That's always imperial Washington's grand plan, playing out disruptively throughout the region and violently in Libya.

A Final Comment

A previous article discussed US intervention in Syria. On April 28, Washington Post writers Joby Warrick and Liz Sly headlined, "Senators press Obama to take strong action against Syria," saying:

Besides ongoin wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya, "Sens. John McCain (R.-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R.-SC), and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) demanded tangible steps to pressure Assad," issuing a joint letter stating:

"The escalating crackdown by Bashar al-Assad's regime against the Syrian people has reached a decisive point. By following the path of Muammar Gaddafi and deploying military forces to crush peaceful demonstrations, Assad and those loyal to him have lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria."

In fact, as the earlier article explained, "peaceful demonstrations" include provocateurs inciting violence that, in turn, trigger a robust government response, resulting in security force deaths as well as civilians expressing legitimate demands for reform.

According to reports, only sanctions so far are being considered. In fact, they made be step one ahead of already being discussed harsher measures. It takes little insight to imagine what kinds.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

posted by Steve Lendman @ 9:56 AM  

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Was it for the oil after all?

Via FLC

Anon reader sent this link:

"... Let’s not be too simplistic. In a leader the Independent was careful to point out that these documents “do not prove that the British government’s invasion was primarily motivated by a commercial desire to profit from Iraq’s oil.” And it would be “too simplistic” to present any single factor as the motivation “for this calamitous misadventure.” The only thing these documents do make clear is that oil was something that ministers were thinking about in those months prior to the invasion, contrary to their pleas otherwise. Most importantly, the Indie added, is that these documents were not reviewed by the Chilcot inquiry, which has been tasked with investigating Britain’s involvement in the Iraq invasion. “That is manifestly unsatisfactory.”..."

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 10:40 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

GORDON DUFF: “PEACE MONGERS” IN SHEEPS CLOTHING



TWO OF THESE AND YOU HAVE A CIRCLE...SORT OF



April 19, 2011 posted by Gordon Duff

THE EXTREME RIGHT MAKES A HARD “LEFT” TURN INTO UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

There are at least two ways to look at the UN/NATO intervention in Libya.  From an egalitarian standpoint, there is a resolution from the United Nations Security Council authorizing the use of force against the Gaddafi regime.  Russia and China could have easily vetoed it but chose to abstain.  They stayed out of it to cover their backsides.  They know what Gaddafi, a known psychopath, is capable of but they also know what the US, Britain, France and Italy can do also.  Gaddafi isn’t the only psychopath.

As to vital national interests, Libya hardly counts.  That the Mediterranean has long been accepted as an “American lake,” does loosely imply both American responsibility and complicity in anything that happens there as multiple interventions in Lebanon attest to. The world has one of those “since you are there anyway….” views about the US in the Mediterranean.

(On a side note, Saudi Arabia decided today to cut oil production, all the while oil is heading for the highest prices in history.  More on this in a bit.  The oil problem isn’t Libya but rather speculation in oil futures meant to bleed the US economy dry.  The recent attack on the dollar is partially driven by oil speculation.)

A key security component, not taken into account by most, is the enmity between Libya and Egypt, nations that share a common religion and absolutely nothing else, that has “fertilized” a decades old “marriage of convenience” between Israel and Libya, one we saw signs of during the early days of the current rebellion.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

That “second” way is to oppose any US involvement.  For some, it makes sense, a clear result of moral and political views.  However, many of the new “peace mongers,” are a different lot, more “chickenhawk” than “dove.”
For the “left,”  reasons could be a love of peace, of which there is none, a sign of less than deep understanding of the issues, or a mistrust and even hatred of the United States and a belief that anything America does is driven by sinister intentions.
There certainly is a long and well established history of America acting with sinister intentions, no question about it.  Suspicion is always reality based.
Then again, we now have inside the “no Libya intervention” group  these very inexplicable “scavengers,” certainly not “predators,” who have taken on the mantle of “moral leadership,” something that may add a new and strange dimension to their resumes.
Our problem is that those leading the pack in damning the United States as a colonialist and aggressor is the same group supporting the policies of endless war in Afghanistan, a new war on Iran, unquestioned support for Israel’s predatory policies and the horrific human rights violations the United States has engaged in for years, kidnapping, torture and blanket assassinations, the “dronings.”

CALL TO ARMS OR GATHERING OF COCKROACHES

Subsequent to US involvement in Libya, orders went out to Americans known as “Israeli firsters.”  With little education and background, particularly for those serving in congress, as we all know only too well, none questioned the idea of helping Israel by supporting a vicious dictator that has spouted violent threats and spewed Antisemitism for decades.  None asked why he has never been targeted, why he has gotten a free ride from the media for so long.
No “deep thinkers” were called on.
Our ‘friends” were to mount a “cover operation” to defend the Gaddafi regime because of its strategic relationship to Israel and its close financial associations with US banking houses and oil companies.  Gaddafi had become a goldmine for, not only “big oil” but defense companies as well.  Libya became the second biggest lobbying force in Washington, next to Israel.  While other nations, like China, are castigated for any involvement in American politics, Libya is given ‘carte blanche.”  For a nation some  imagine to be a threat to the security of Israel,
This was no simple task, particularly in light of recent events.
News reports from every source report the use of cluster bombs, artillery and rockets against civilian target in rebel held areas.  Deaths are mounting up and there is a very real human disaster in the making, no one disputes that.

SEXUAL PERK FOR JOINING
THE "LEFTY" ANTI-WAR CROWD

For those who follow Islamophobic pundits and the Zionist pro-war, “sacrifice Americans without thought” mindset, the idea of going “soft” on a brutal Muslim extremist dictator should seem a contradiction yet no one notices the 180 degree turn around.  Curious.  Perhaps years of conditioning paid off and the armies of rednecks and militia types quickly joined the “loafered lefties” on the “peacenik picket lines.”  Are our “tobbacky chawing” friends looking for “hot hippie chicks?”

This has been a hoot!

WATCHING IT PLAY OUT

Where, then, does the controversy come into play?  Why has the “right,” initially clamoring for an attack on Gaddafi as early as February now done a 1000% turnaround?

Let’s take a look at the positions held by this new anti-war group.

Note that there is no call for leaving Afghanistan, nobody got the word out that Afghanistan is a war too. Call our friends “careless.”

The only war they are against is Libya?  Remember, this is the group that pushed for the attack on Iraq, in fact it is the same group that is pushing actively for an attack on Iran, a military action judged by Pentagon officials responsible for our “war plans” as larger than both Vietnam and Korea combined.

Think of this as moral and political schizophrenia.
This new anti-war crowd wants to crush Iran, beginning with attacks on nuclear facilities (reported as “peaceful” by international inspectors), spreading radiation across Asia, followed, of course by a massive ground invasion.   Why do we talk of schizophrenia?  How many contradictory views can a mind with so little reasoning capacity hold at one time?
This is a group that calls America’s actions in Libya, or rather “Obama’s” actions in Libya “war crimes” but, not only supported torture and rendition under Bush but still support it.  Another oversight.  Our new “pro-human rights” advocates seem to have only one human on their list, Colonel Gaddafi.  The rest of the world can be waterboarded, gang raped and tossed into a mass grave like was done in Afghanistan to 2000 POWs early in the war.
This is the group that has lobbied to keep Guantanamo open, then turn around attacking Obama for not closing Guantanamo.

BORN AGAIN ANTI-NUKE ACTIVISTS AND SCANNER LOVERS

Though opposing DU use in Libya, not by Gaddafi who we have found has used Depleted Uranium munitions in his own country against his own people, though that relationship seems somewhat strained of late, but by the US only, our new ‘anti-nuke’ activists seem to hold even more contradictory views.  They love airport scanners and think they are totally safe.  Not everyone agrees with this, however.
In a report from the Daily Mail:

Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research, said about airport scanners:

• he is urging researchers to carry out more tests on the devices to look at the way they affects specific groups who could be more sensitive to radiation.

• the most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma

• If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck,’

• the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body – that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

The same “anti-war” group is now actively against the use of Depleted Uranium munition in Libya.  That the same individuals are closely aligned and many actively lobby for the nuclear power industry, in fact, none have come out for increased regulations even monitoring of nuclear power facilities in light of the disaster in Japan that has flooded the United States with deadly radiation brings up a point of odd contradiction to the point of hypocrisy.
However, Colonel Gaddafi also has depleted uranium munitions.  Has anyone asked if he is using them?  He is certainly using his cluster munitions, genuine certified Weapons of Mass Destruction, reported by Veterans Today early last month and by the mainstream press 4 days ago.
Israel is using Depleted Uranium in Gaza along with cluster munitions and white phosphorous, which causes deadly burns.  That seems to be OK also, anything is OK, anywhere and by anybody as long as it isn’t against Colonel Gaddafi.
You would think Gaddafi had billions of dollars and was buying off New York and Washington wholesale.  Did you know that $35 billion of the “Fed’s” bail out money went to Gaddafi personally? The Bank of Libya got that much bailout money and the Bank of Libya is Gaddafi’s personal ‘piggybank.’  8 years ago, Gaddafi was considered a terrorist.  Now he seems to have become a member of the Rothschilds family.
Imagine the friends in Washington and elsewhere that helped pull that off.
One of the more amusing things we are hearing is about how Obama is plotting to steal oil from Libya by overthrowing Gaddafi.  There is real humor in this, of course.  Until 2004, Gaddafi was on our “axis of evil” list.   Then Gaddafi got an offer he couldn’t refuse.  We offered to kiss his behind if he agreed to grease a few palms here in the US.
Gaddafi became a neocon.
This was the deal:

• Turn Libya’s oil over to British and American companies
• Turn all oil and gas exploration and equipment business over to Vice President Cheney’s company, Haliburnton
• Donate money to GOP candidates
• Donate more money to “friends” in France and Italy
• Join as a full partner in the imaginary Global War on Terror
• We will pretend we have certified your WMD programs as ended and
• You can do as you please from now on, we certainly do!

America has been in Iraq for years, is still there.  Hundreds of supertankers of crude were taken from Iraq through both the Gulf, Basra Lite and the ports south of Ceyhan, Kirkuk Lite.  No one counted, no one checked, they just loaded it up, took it to refineries and sold it to the American people as though they had paid real money for it.  It was paid for all right, 5000 Americans died fighting in Iraq and 3000 more were murdered on 9/11.  They paid for the oil, have no doubt about that.
What kind of threat is Obama making against Libyan oil?
His real threat, if you have been paying attention, is to end Republican Party control of Libyan oil.  Other than defending Gaddafi at any cost, how are the GOP geniuses planning to save America?
They are learning to use photoshop:

YOU WOULD THINK EVEN GADDAFI COULD FIND BETTER FRIENDS THAN THE FOLKS WHO DID THIS

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian