Brian Berletic: As In Russia, So In The Middle East

This morning I tried to present a relatively hopeful perspective on the Middle East, based on signs that at least some in the Imperial City on the Potomac are beginning to realize that the Israel Lobby led Zhou regime is playing with geopolitical fire that could rage out of control. That’s true both in Ukraine as well as in the Middle East (and, of course, also in the Far East). Yesterday, in the comments, I pointed to two Judge Nap interviews that I characterized as “dynamite”. They are both relevant to what Brian Berletic is talking about today:

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson : - Starvation Strategy / Aid Workers Executed

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: Is/Was WWIII Pre-Planned?

All Judge Nap’s guests agree on two things: 1) the US is basically behind the terrorist attack at Crocus, and 2) Netanyahu’s aim—most clearly in the attak on the Iranian embassy—is to draw the US into a major regional war in the Middle East with the aim of destroying Iran. Also relevant is Larry Johnson’s post this morning (WEST STEPS UP TERROR ATTACKS ON IRAN) regarding very recent events in Baluchistan (we discussed the US/Israel history of involvement in Baluchistan back in January, Iran Sends A Message).

You can watch/listen to Berletic at the link: Israel's Strike on Iran's Embassy & How the US Seeks to Trigger a Wider War. His basic theme is that what we’re seeing in the Middle East is straight out of the playbook that the American Empire has employed ever since the end of WW2—the use of proxies to destabilize targeted countries or regions. He argues that the Zhou regime’s seeming efforts to distance itself from the Israeli genocide in Gaza should be viewed in that light, that it’s part of a strategy to draw Iran into a major regional war. In his view—which runs counter to the idea that Netanyahu is trying to drag a reluctant US into a major regional war—the US is simply seeking to portray itself as being drawn into war against its will, to portray Iran as the instigator, while in reality the US, through Israel, is provoking a war that it wants.

While I continue to believe that the American Empire is finding itself in over its head—particularly in its inability to break the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea, as well as the impending defeat of its Ukraine proxy and Zhou’s failure to intimidate China—Berletic’s perspective is an important and disturbing alternative viewpoint that should not be ignored. Berletic’s argument is strong, but a counter argument would be that at this particular juncture the US is embroiled in too many dangerous ventures around the world to deliberately provoke a Middle East war—especially given the low level of US preparedness for such a major war. Berletic’s response would doubtless be that the Crocus terror attack is a clear sign that the US is willing to engage in extremely dangerous ventures to pressure its opponents, so why not also in the Middle East? The US has repeatedly miscalculated, so why not one more time?

We’ll start by pasting in Berletic’s outline summary of his video—which is a barebones outline of his argument:

- US policymakers have sought to use Israel as a proxy to provoke a full-scale war with Iran for years;

- While the US attempts to distance itself from Israeli provocations and atrocities including attacks on embassies and the killing of aid workers, the US is chief in enabling Israeli in continuing to carry out such attacks;

- Just as the US created a large-scale conflict in Ukraine to reassert itself over Europe, it is attempting to use conflict to reassert itself in the Middle East and at a minimum prevent the region from uniting and moving out from under Western hegemony;

- The window of opportunity for the US and proxies like Israel to fight and win a military conflict against Iran and its allies in the region is quickly closing, thus efforts are being made to provoke such a conflict sooner rather than later;

- Even in US policy papers in 2009, it was admitted that Iran would likely ignore US-Israeli provocations, including air strikes on Iran itself, meaning that the possibility of a false flag attack blamed on Iran to usher in Washington’s desired war is a possibility;

The heart of Berletic’s argument is that the US regularly engages in a double game—it enables its proxies to commit atrocities and terrorist attacks, while professing non-involvement and condemning the acts they have actively enabled. From this standpoint, the war on Russia utilizes Ukraine as a proxy with a major goal being the destabilization of Europe and reassertion of US dominance over Europe. The destruction of the Nordstream pipeline is a strong argument in that regard (Berletic doesn’t mention that incident specifically, but it’s strong support for his thesis).

Berletic presents the Middle East situation as a fairly straightforward matter of the US seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic in Iran. That’s true enough up to a point. The US certainly used its Iraqi proxy (Saddam Hussein) in a conventional, full scaled war to overthrow the Iranian government. The US and Israel have long supported terrorist and sabotage attacks inside Iran, with the same aim. The US has certainly attempted to enforce a policy of hostility on the part of the Sunni world against Iran, and to enforce the economic and diplomatic isolation of Iran. Are Iranian efforts to expand its influence in the region simply a reaction, or are those efforts part of a long term policy to become a regional power broker? That’s a more complicated matter. An argument can be made that Iran’s developing ties with Russia, India, and China (and BRICS generally) may have altered Iran’s long term aims to some extent, including establishing better relations with arch rival Saudi Arabia.

Turning to the current conflict, Berletic points to the historic roots. He doesn’t mention this, but the origin of Israeli support for Hamas was in Israel’s desire to fragment Palestinian resistance to Israel’s goal of a Jewish state from the river to the sea. Hamas became, in effect, a proxy of the US, Turkey, Israel, and Qatar. Hamas, a Sunni movement, joined in the US/UK/Israel led jihad against the Assad regime in Syria—that coalition also included al Qaeda and ISIS. This fact goes a long way to explain the lukewarm attitude of Hezbollah and Iran toward Hamas, despite their overall support for the Palestinian cause.

To this day Israel continues to support al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, as witness its recent air strikes on Aleppo. The point is twofold: 1) generally speaking the US and Israel have always been willing to enable terrorism of the most egregious type (including the Chechens in Russia), and 2) Israel specifically has supported Hamas over the years—for its own purposes. For over a decade, Berletic argues, Netanyahu has supported Hamas, knowing that it was building up an irregular military capability—even allowing the importation of construction materials that were clearly designed to build up Hamas’ military infrastructure. This allowed Palestinian anger to be funnelled into an ultimately self defeating enterprise, rather than a more constructive effort, while at the same time radicalizing Israeli public opinion in support of Netanyahu’s policies. Berletic doesn’t say this directly, but I take him to be implying that the controversial October 7th Israeli breakdown was not an accident. Rather, it was an attempt to create a crisis that could be turned to the accomplishment of the Zionist project’s maximalist goals (as well as turn Netanyahu into a virtual savior, saving him from prison).

However, this plan could only work if the US was drawn into it. The reason was simple. Israel is not capable of defeating Hezbollah and/or Iran on its own—not only US support but direct US military involvement would be necessary. This, to me, is the hard sell part of Berletic’s argument—that the US has been part of this plan, perhaps driven to desperation by the Iranian/Saudi rapprochement and gravitation toward BRICS. To support this thesis Berletic turns to a 2009 Neocon policy paper published by the Brookings Institution:

WHICH PATH TO PERSIA?

Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

Obviously, a lot may have changed in US policy toward Iran since 2009. In the video Berletic makes a strong case that US policy has remained constant, but I think a counter case could be made against the idea that this paper is the inspiration for a currennt ploy to provoke an all out regional war with the goal of regime change in Iran. On the other hand, a glance at the table of contents confirms the willingness of the Neocons—who have controlled US policy throughout the relevant years—to engage in terror and all sorts of destabilization efforts. Behind some of the bland sounding words, it’s easy to see what was being enabled over the years:

Introduction

The Trouble with Tehran: U.S. Policy Options toward Iran

Part I

Dissuading Tehran: The Diplomatic Options

Chapter 1: An Offer Iran Shouldn’t Refuse: Persuasion

Chapter 2: Tempting Tehran: The Engagement Option

Part II

Disarming Tehran: The Military Options

Chapter 3: Going All the Way: Invasion

Chapter 4: The Osiraq Option: Airstrikes

Chapter 5: Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike

Part III

Toppling Tehran: Regime Change

Chapter 6: The Velvet Revolution: Supporting a Popular Uprising

Chapter 7: Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority And Opposition Groups

Chapter 8: The Coup: Supporting a Military Move Against the Regime

Part IV

Deterring Tehran: Containment

Chapter 9: Accepting the Unacceptable: Containment

Conclusion

Crafting an Integrated Iran Policy: Connecting the Options

Many of these options have been tried over the years—short of invasion and air strikes. Containment, attempting to foment minority unrest (Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Baluchis), direct sabotage, preparations and war gaming of the Osiraq option, probably attempts to foment a military coup. It’s an interesting argument, but it doesn’t conclusively demonstrate that the current Gaza genocide is intended to bring about the Final Solution to “The Trouble With Teheran.” With the direct inspiration of the US. That’s the sticking point. Berletic is arguing that the US is inspiring this move on Iran, using Israel as a proxy. I would argue that The Trouble With Teheran is more an Israeli problem—the US, ultimately, can live with Teheran. That would be the argument in favor of what the Iranians themselves have publicly suggested: that it’s Netanyahu who is trying to draw the US into war.

But Berletic gets the last word. He starts out quoting the Brookings paper. Keep in mind that the authors are arch-Neocons who are trying to paint Iran as an enemy of the US … without mentioning Israel, which is their real concern:

"For the United States the Islamic Republic of Iran has been an enemy for 30 years, one that has sought to thwart US policies in the Middle East, such as advancing the Arab Israeli peace process and creating stable Regional security agreements." Which is all nonsense. Even the people writing this surely don't believe that. “Crisis after crisis has arisen between Iran and the United States, but Iran has never been and almost certainly never will be an existential threat to the United States." And what what they're really trying to say is that the US wants to dominate the Middle East and they can't, because Iran is a powerful independent player in the region and it refuses to allow itself and its allies to be subjugated by the United States. Somehow the United States believes that that justifies labeling Iran an enemy and seeking to destroy the government in power in Iran.

…

Please keep all of this in mind as additional events are sure to follow. Keep all of this in mind when analyzing this. Do not allow your emotions to cloud your judgment and your objectivity. The US encourages Israel. The administration in Israel conducts deliberately provocative operations aimed specifically, deliberately, at civilians, at aid workers, at embassies, to stir people up emotionally so they cannot think objectively. To cloud their minds from what is and to allow the United States to move this policy forward—this policy of dragging the whole region into war.