Lose One War, Start Another

That’s the subtitle to an Alexander Mercouris presentation today. I would amend it, as I have in the past, to place what’s happening in the Big Picture context of a war for global dominion: Lose on one front, open up another front.

This is a view that I presented some time back, with periodic reminders—most recently, yesterday. The basic outline is that the Anglo-Zionist Empire is in a war for global dominion. The Main Adversary, in this orthodox Mackinder based vision of the world, is Russia—due to Russia’s domination of the the Eurasian landmass stretching from the eastern borders of Europe all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and due to Russia’s “Treasure House” of natural resource wealth. It is only Russia that would be able to form the basis for a Eurasian based coalition (call it BRICS) that could exist in independence from Anglo-Zionist domination. Russia’s weakness, in contrast with the Anglo-Zionist world, is its constricted access to the great oceans and seas. Since the end of WW2, and with even more aggressiveness since the end of the Cold War, the Anglo-Zionist Empire has sought two results: First, to confine Russia and isolate it from easy access to the rest of the world and, second, by thus weakening Russia via isolation and constriction/economic strangulation, to accomplish the partitioning of the Russian Federation. That, in turn, would allow for the domination of the rest of Asia.

Ukraine, of course, has been a key to this anti-Russian crusade—Ukraine provides the Anglo-Zionist Empire with crucial access to the Black Sea basin and Central Asia, as well as being a dagger pointed at the Russian heartland. That also would have restricted Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea and points beyond. The Anglo-Zionists have suffered a strategic defeat on the Ukraine front of this Great War, as we (and they) now know. However, the war continues. The goals remain the same, and so we see the effort to block Russian access to the North Atlantic and, thus, the world through both the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Sea. However, the real key to blocking Russia, BRICS, and Eurasian Integration lies in the destruction of Iran—a crucial strategic partner for Russia and for China as well.

Based on these considerations, I argued that all the talk of the US seeking negotiated settlements in the Middle East are gaslighting. That the US is behind all Israeli aggression and escalation, because the ultimate target is Russia through Iran. This fits in with Zionist ambitions for Jewish regional supremacy, but the Main Adversary remains Russia. Separating Russia and Iran weakens both, so the new front is an Iranian one.

Today I came across two articles that offer support for this Big Picture view and, in addition, listened to two riveting Doug Macgregor interviews that also support this view. First, Brian Berletic references a 2009 Brookings paper which we’ve referenced in the past. First Berletic—note that, implicit in the headings, is the bigger picture. Note, too, interestingly, that Berletic echoes Nasrallah’s view that Israel is, in effect, a US proxy. We’ll see that concept again in the Macgregor interviews.:

Washington Sets Trap for Iran, Will Iran Take the Bait?

Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific, Washington is moving toward an equally dangerous, regional war in the Middle East between its Israeli proxies and a growing list of neighboring states and organizations.

Here is the key part:

Israel: The Original Ukraine-Style Battering Ram 

The nature of Israeli belligerence is transparent, part of a well-documented US policy to provoke wider war across the Middle East the US can then justify intervening in – and war both the US and its Israeli proxies can cite when using weapons and tactics otherwise difficult or impossible to justify – up to and including nuclear weapons.

In 2009, the Brookings Institution in its 170-page paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” would detail various means to coerce, contain, and ultimately overthrow the government of Iran, including waging war against Iran.

The paper admits how difficult it would be for the United States itself to launch military strikes against Iran, stating:

…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. 

It also says:

…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.

An entire chapter was dedicated to the use of Israel to carry out an initial strike on Iran, allowing the US to distance itself from culpability. Titled, “Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” it explicitly states:

…the goal of this policy option would be to destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities in the hope that doing so would significantly delay Iran’s acquisition of an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. However, in this case, an added element could be that the United States would encourage—and perhaps even assist—the Israelis in conducting the strikes themselves, in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto Israel.

…

With this policy in mind, Israel’s steady cadence of increasingly provocative attacks against Iran and its allies is easier to understand. The US, through Israeli provocations, seeks to provoke a wider war the US itself can wade into, appearing to be aiding an ally rather than initiating yet another war of aggression in the Middle East.

Ultimately, for this trap to work successfully, Iran must retaliate to one of these many provocations, and do so in a way the US and its allies can portray as disproportionate or even “unprovoked.”

…

Berletic then sketches out the ways in which Iran has thwarted the US led economic war against it and has turned to BRICS as its road to international acceptance. This strategy is an existential threat to the goals of the Anglo-Zionist Great War.

In a much wider sense, as the multipolar world grows in size and complexity and as the US-led international order wanes, Washington’s ability to assert primacy anywhere in the world, including the Middle East, wanes with it. Because of this, Washington is racing against the clock to use what remains of its advantages in economic and military power to eliminate its adversaries before the global balance of power tips further to its disadvantage.

Washington seeks war – by proxy or otherwise – with Iran sooner rather than later. ...

Berletic finishes up his article with a plea that Iran should avoid the provocation traps that the US is setting through its Israeli proxy. It looks like that may be too late.

The next article is by Frederick Kempe, president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. If you want to read up on what kind of background pillars of the Globalist and Anglo-Zionist ruling class have, follow that link.

The Israeli offensive and Iranian missile attack test two visions for the Middle East’s future

Don’t be fooled by the title—this article is only about the Middle East in the sense that a regional war to destroy Iran is seen to be a key to the defeat of Russia, the Main Adversary. Kempe explictly ties all this back to the end of WW2 and the Cold War. He paints a glowing picture of the future for a US - Israeli dominated Middle East, but he has his eye on the Globalist prize. Halfway through he pivots from the Middle East, even tying in the assassination of Nasrallah to that Great War. It’s almost humorous to read Kempe’s gaslighting description of what is in fact Europe’s further descent into self destruction, never learning the lessons of two world wars:

It’s crucial to recall that Europe only built its more positive path after centuries of conflict and on the rubble of two world wars. With Russia’s ongoing war against Ukrainian freedom and independence, Europe’s story of peaceful integration is far from over, but it has advanced far beyond Cold War-era expectations.

It was only through a patient, consistent approach by the United States and its allies to contain and counter the Soviet Union that Western Europe was able to deter Moscow militarily and eventually expand its community of peace and prosperity. It took more than forty years of effort to achieve Cold War triumph.

The approach now toward Iran should take inspiration from that model, ...

It would be premature to declare the death of Nasrallah as the tipping point toward this future. It would be short-sighted, however, not to see this moment as an opportunity to be seized in the struggle against the regional ambitions of Iran and its proxies.

What makes the stakes even larger is the global context of Iran’s increased common cause with Russia, China, and North Korea. Together they seek to undermine the global order that the United States and its partners so painstakingly constructed after World War II. Iran’s new deliveries of short-range ballistic missiles and ongoing supply of armed drones to Russia for its war on Ukraine underscore the global stakes involved.

Finally, I’ve done a partial transcript of a brilliant Doug Macgregor presentation to Judge Nap of what Macgregor has, for months, maintained was an inevitable regional war. This time around, however, Macgregor now strongly argues that the US is the driving force behind everything that’s happening. Macgregor did a similar presentation to Danny Davis, but there are enough differences that I highly recommend a listen to that video, as well.

How dangerous was the Israeli assassination of Nasrallah, using 16,000 pounds of bombs to kill one person and a dozen or so people around him?

I think we need to understand that it could not have happened at all without us. We have considerable ISR assets--Air Force, Army, Navy--engaged in supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its attacks on Lebanon. That's the first thing. We have the capability to harvest very sensitive information--voice and otherwise--that the Israelis simply don't have, and then we can locate these targets, providing very exact data to the Israelis. Which we did. We have to understand that. When you see these kinds of successful operations take place, it's not an Israel-only operation by any means.

Was it dangerous [for Israel] to do this?

Not from the standpoint of Mr Netanyahu. We need to understand something that clearly is not understood in Teheran. I don't think it's understood in Moscow. Mr Netanyahu is waging a ruthless war of extermination against his enemies. He's already told us who they are: the people in Gaza, the Arabs on the West Bank, and the Arabs south of the Litani River who are part of Hezbollah. In the meantime he's also struck a number of very lucrative targets across Syria, so this is a very powerful war that's underway and we're on autopilot. We're just flying in the direction, we're helping it, we're enabling it, we're pushing it. I'm sure you've seen the interview with Colonel Jacques Baud, who talks about the fact that we have been encouraging this behavior from the beginning. I think we have. The American people aren't being consulted and there's really no debate about it because everyone in Washington is quite comfortable with what's happening.

Did the White House encourage the Israeli government to invade Southern Lebanon?

It would appear that they have. That seems to be the widespread consensus. Nothing is happening that Washington has not wanted to happen, and that makes perfect sense for the reasons I just outlined. We control all the resources and we have access to and dispose over very considerable sensitive technologies, so if we don't want something to happen it's not going to happen, and anything that does happen happens because we've allowed it.

What will the consequences to us be? Will it be Russia coming to the aid of Iran, will it be American boys coming home in body bags?

Well I think we have to reckon with some losses in the Middle East. I don't see how we avoid them. We know that we've had losses in Ukraine. It's simply been decided not to report [US casualties in Ukraine] publicly and to dismiss the allegation that Americans have been killed in Ukraine by finding cover stories for them dying in other settings, other places, particularly in the United States. I think things in the Middle East will be different. It'll be harder to provide those cover stories, harder to conceal, and the reason is very simple: this ruthless war of extermination is going to be confronted soon by overwhelming deadly force provided first and foremost by Iran, also augmented and extended by Russia and, I would argue, eventually the rest of the Islamic world. But we've always said this. No one in the region wants a war with Israel and the United States. The only people that are interested in a war in the region consist of Israel and primarily us. That's it. No one else really wants a war, and this has now attracted the attention of everyone in the Islamic World. We've been listening to lots of threats--most of which have gone nowhere--from Turkey. But that is changing now, and the Turks are making it very clear that the catastrophic destruction of Lebanon is not something they're going to stand by and tolerate. They've got three or four million refugees on their territory at the moment. They can't can't take any more. A million people have left Lebanon, more than 7,000 people in Lebanon have been killed, and these are hardly Hezbollah fighters.

All of this is coming together. We're seeing action in Iraq, action in Syria, action in Yemen, and Egypt and Jordan continue to reach a boiling point. Precisely when that will boil over and change the governments is anyone's guess, but I think that's inevitable. So we're on the march to a regional war that always has the potential to go global. The Russians are well prepared to fight now. They're stronger militarily than they have been in 30 years, and the same thing is true, unfortunately, with China. The Chinese don't want any sort of confrontation and they're undoubtedly sweating bullets over the Straits of Hormuz, but the Israelis are determined to hit those Iranian oil facilities and I think we're going to see that, once that occurs, it will bring in the rest of the actors who are actively opposed to Israel.

Please pay close attention to this next part. Macgregor is arguing for the same positions we outlined above—the Anglo-Zionists are engaged in provocation to escalation and have no interest whatsoever in a negotiated peace. None. It’s all fine and good for Iran to signal and demonstrate their capabilities, which are very real. But nobody is listening to them. The Anglo-Zionists want war, come what may, because time is not on their side.

There were claims made that some F-35s were damaged or destroyed along with some F-16s. We have no way of confirming that, and that also seems unlikely. I imagine the Israelis probably launched most of those aircraft in order to ensure they were not on the ground when the missile attack started. Remember, the Iranians signaled the United States and virtually everybody else when they were going to launch. This was another attempt to demonstrate Iran's precision strike capability in a way that would awaken some concern in Washington and Jerusalem. It hasn't. In other words, this was another wasted opportunity on the Iranian side. I think they're going to be hit very, very hard by the Israelis in response. The Israelis do not believe in symmetrical warfare--everything they do is inevitably asymmetrical. If you want to kill the flea you use a jackhammer, you don't use a fly swatter. I think Putin and Xi have been advising the Iranian leadership to embrace restraint on the assumption that if they restrain themselves a war can be avoided and negotiations will take place and can sort things out. I don't see any evidence for that. Israel has failed thus far to achieve its objectives in Gaza, it's also failing in its objectives against Hezbollah, although that is now just started on the ground. How serious it is, I don't know. They have not achieved their objective in Iran, which is to destroy that regime and remove Iran as a great power in the region. Period. So those things are unachieved, and I think there is no evidence that there's any willingness under any circumstances in Jerusalem or Washington to contemplate any sort of talks or negotiations over anything until those objectives are secured.

It seems pretty clear [that Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein are in favor of a major regional war]. I don't see any evidence to the contrary. So they're not representing the supposed interest that exists--if it exists at all--inside the Beltway in Washington for a negotiated outcome. On the contrary, they are completely aligned with what I just described right, so I think the Iranians have wasted time, money, and resources. They should prepare for an all out assault, which is coming. The same thing is true for Hezbollah. So the time for restraint, as far as [Iran and Hezbollah] are concerned, I think is over. But they'll have to figure that on their own.

There's a struggle inside Iran right now between the new regime, which is actually moderate in its outlook and wants to align itself with what we would consider to be normality in the world and normality in the region, and people in Iran who are on the other side of that argument, the so-called hardliners. [The hardliners] are saying, 'You're fools! You've lost your minds!' [Iranian hardliners] ... are saying [to the moderates like the new president, Pezeshkian, who favor negotiating], 'What, are you crazy? the Israelis and the Americans are coming for you! They are going to destroy you! Why are you holding back?'

What is President Putin doing while this is happening? Is he talking to the new president of Iran, saying be restrained, or, How can I help?

There is some evidence that the former Chief of Defense defense minister, Shoigu, may well be on the ground in Iran, along with the current Russian Prime Minister and thousands of Russian technicians and military advisers trying to put together and maintain this elaborate air and missile defense network along with probably other weapon systems that have been provided. So I think the Russians are there and they've told the Iranians, 'We will stand by you,' but at the same time I think Putin has always been predisposed to advise caution and restraint. Now, that's actually worked thus far very well, I would argue, in Ukraine. It's Ukraine that is dying, it's Ukraine that is bled to death, it's the American military establishment and its equipment that has failed miserably to successfully halt any Russian advance. But the situation in the Middle East is quite different, so giving that advice is probably not necessarily the right advice at this point. At the same time, you have XI in China. He does not want the Strait of Hormuz to be closed, and he's worried about the destruction of the oil facilities in Iran and access to those Strait. I mean, why would the Israelis allow business as usual through the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz if they're at war with Iran? I think it's pretty clear that they're not going to hold back, and that's why I'm saying that that battle in Teheran is being fought out as we speak. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think ultimately the hardliners are going to win.

The Israeli economy is in ruins--there's no question about that. It'll take a long time to recover from all of this, but that's not terribly important as long as [Israel] swims in a sea of American cash. If you look at the credit ratings in Israel, Israel's credit rating is tied to ours. We essentially underwrite Israeli economic strength, power, and stability. We underwrite their currency, we underwrite everything. So as long as this continues I think the Israeli population is certainly 80 plus percent behind what Mr Netanyahu is doing. I don't think that is a reflection of whether they like him or not. That's another matter entirely. But I think what he's doing is something they strongly support. [Israelis] want to rid themselves of the "Arab problem"--the Palestinian Arab problem. They want to get rid of it. They want to rid themselves of the Hezbollah problem. Now, we can sit here, we can go back into the past, and we can debate how it got this way and how the Israelis shot themselves in the foot several times, cultivated the emergence of their own enemies. It doesn't make any difference. This is what they want to do. And remember that if you can move into Lebanon where they're headed now, you also exert considerable control over the water table, and water resources in that region of the world are as important as gold. That would put them in a very strong position, the deeper they go into Lebanon. Ultimately their operations in Syria are the same. Again, this is why I say that, ultimately, when all is said and done, we will watch Turks enter this conflict. The Turks will not sit there and do nothing in perpetuity, and we will see Jordan and Egypt explode. It's coming, but it's coming very slowly.

There's one last thing I'd like to say that people need to keep in mind. There are many ways to define genius. Both Goethe and Einstein said genius consists in knowing when to stop. The truth is that the Israelis are on the edge of the abyss, and we are with them--encouraging them to jump off the cliff and into the abyss. However good they may think things look at the moment, whatever advantage they think they've achieved is temporary. Over time the massive enormity of opposition to them in the region is only going to metastasize and grow, so knowing when to stop is genius. I keep looking for it in Washington, in Kiev, and in Jerusalem. I can't find it.