"When it is cold in your house"
Former Secretary of State and one of the most well-known political strategists of the United States, Henry Kissinger, has recently, despite his age (2013 turned 90 in May), headed the 100 list of the world's leading intellectuals.Some time ago, G. Kissinger shared his vision of the situation in the world, including in the Middle East. The conversation developed so frankly and defiantly that at some stage the anxious assistants of the political guru could not stand it and harshly asked the journalist to leave the premises.
"The United States is luring China and Russia, and the last nail in the coffin will be Iran, which, of course, is the main goal of Israel. We allowed China to increase its military power, and Russia to recover from Sovietization, give them a false sense of distance, it will speed up their collapse. We look like a sniper who pits a novice to choose weapon, and when he is just trying to do something, it turns out bang-bang. The coming war will be so severe that only a superpower can win, and that’s us, guys. That is why the EU is in such a hurry to transform itself into a full-fledged superstate, because they know what is coming and, in order to survive, Europe will have to become a single cohesive state ... "
"We told the military that we would have to seize seven Middle Eastern countries and seize their resources, and they almost completed this task. Everyone knows what I think about the military, but I have to notice that this time they executed orders with excessive zeal. It remains only the last step, Iran, - it will completely change the balance. How long can China and Russia stand aside and watch how America conducts the sweep? We will start up the Russian bear, the Chinese sickle and the hammer, and then it will have to join Israel. to him I’ll have to fight with all my might to destroy as many Arabs as possible. If everything goes well, half of the Middle East will become Israeli ... "
“Over the past decade, we have trained our young people well on action computer games. It was interesting to look at the new game“ Call of Duty Modern Warfare-3 ”(“ Call of duty: modern war-3 ”). It fully reflects what will happen in near future. Our young people are ready because they have been programmed to be good soldiers. And when they are ordered to go out and fight with crazy Chinese and Russians, they will obey the order ... "
"We will build a new world order; there will be only one superpower, and it will be a world government. Do not forget, the United States has the best weapons, we have such things that no other state has anymore, and we will introduce the world to these weapons when the time will come ... "
It was at this point that the interview was unexpectedly interrupted. Kissinger's assistants hurried to put the journalist out the door.
"It comes from the real world ..."
Senility? Do not tell me. This sudden frankness broke through Kissinger at the end of 2011 of the year, and a few months later in Moscow, 4 of March of 2012 of the year, he met with V.Putin. The conversation lasted for several hours. But Yevgeny Primakov said quite recently about Kissinger: "I consider him (Kissinger) an outstanding politician. Maybe there were only a few of them, especially in the 20th century ... First of all, it seems to me that he always comes from the real situation." So what about the insanity forget.
Nevertheless, some experts, believing that Kissinger could not, in principle, speak so frankly, speak of the falsity of this text. But, first, neither the former secretary of state, nor his entourage have never denied the existence of such a recorded interview. Secondly, below I will show that in fact Kissinger did not say anything particularly sensational.
It is no secret that the American elite is preparing for a big global war. The highest US establishment is unanimous about the need for such a war, where high-precision weapons of the sixth technological order should play a decisive role.
Questions and contradictions arise about when exactly to start such a war. One part of the American elite — the military intelligence community — assumes that the United States needs 5-7 years to best prepare for this decisive clash. Others, whose views are expressed by G. Kissinger, argue that America is ready for such a war: both economically, and ideologically, and technologically.
These contradictions are manifested on a personal level. The main strategist of the interests of the military intelligence community is still Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is also 85 years old. Both Brzezinski and Kissinger, to put it mildly, do not sympathize with each other.
In this interview, Kissinger speaks about Israel and its inevitable war with Iran with great sympathy. But a few months earlier, Zb. Brzezinski said in an interview with The Daily Beast that Israel is trying to get the US involved in a war with Iran. He further stated that "if, nevertheless, Israeli bombers head for targets on Iranian territory, then perhaps our (that is, American) fighters in Iraq will have to take to the air to intercept them."
In August, the same Brzezinski 2013 opposes the military operation in Syria. Thus, I identified with Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wrote in a letter to Congressman Eliot Engeil on August 24 that the administration of Barack Obama opposed even limited military intervention in Syria.
Kissinger speaks of a self-evident alliance between Russia and China, opposing American global ambitions. Meanwhile, over the past ten to fifteen years, Kissinger himself has spent a lot of effort precisely to ensure that such an alliance fails. In contacts with Putin, he spoke of the growing Chinese power, "which sometimes even puts the Pentagon in a stupor." Talking with his Chinese comrades, Kissinger subtly hinted at the insecurity of the Russians.
In the autumn of 2011, the GDP announced that it would run for president again. And the first visit after that he made it to China. During this trip, despite the objectively existing Russian-Chinese contradictions, in fact, the foundations were laid of a real military-political understanding between Moscow and Beijing.
Seven targets
Kissinger mentions seven states in the Middle East whose resources should be controlled by the United States on the eve of global war. Apparently, this is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran.
Back in 80, a plan developed by Oded Yanon, one of the leading analysts of Israel’s military intelligence, was one of the concretizations of such a strategy. Its essence was to, after crushing Israel’s neighbors, turn them into mini-states, directly or indirectly controlled by the Zionist state. This program is gradually being implemented: Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, or have already collapsed or are in a state of disintegration.
Wesley Clark, the former commander of NATO forces in Europe, referred to the Clean Break report, which was prepared in 2000 by one of the prominent neo-Constitutes and future US Under Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. The document set the task of dismantling seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Kissinger’s remarks about the “Seven States” can shed light on the strange circumstances of the “Libyan war.”
In mid-February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 2011, who was due to resign a few months later, speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the following: “If a new US Secretary of Defense orders US troops to be sent to a Muslim country, he should be urgently sent to a psychiatric examination. " And suddenly, literally in two weeks, Washington gave the go-ahead for direct military intervention in Libya. And this despite the fact that Gaddafi, after 11 September 2001, has de facto turned into an ally of Western countries, and the Libyan special services worked closely with the special services of the United States, Great Britain and France.
Why then did it have to be brutally murdered Muammar Gaddafi? Kissinger responds quite transparently: there is a long-term strategic program, and regardless of Gates’s words or Gaddafi’s behavior, it must be implemented.
Figures already placed
Western media in just a few hours made the main world news that allegedly in a suburb of Damascus, Gute, government forces 21 August 2013 used sarin against the civilian population, as a result of which several thousand people were injured and several hundred people were killed.
Exactly a year before that, 21 August 2012, Barack Obama publicly stated that the use of Damascus chemical weapons would become a “red line”, for which Washington reserves the right to use military force against the official authorities of Syria.
This exact coincidence of dates was a kind of “last warning” ... but to whom?
... The most active in recent months have been using the thesis "Assad uses chemical weapons against its population" Saudi Arabia and Israel. The ruling circles of the Zionist state and the Saudi kingdom have close ties with that part of the American elite, which is grouped around the Republican Party. Netanyahu openly supported Mitt Romney in the presidential election last year. The relations between Riyadh and the US Democratic Party over the past forty years resembled the state of either a cold peace or a cold war. Well, and do not forget: it is the Zionist and Saudi lobby that are the most influential outside players in the shadow corridors of power in Washington.
At the beginning of April, Saudi King Abdullah sent a written message to Barack Obama: if Syria and Iran emerge unharmed from the present standoff, then political trust in Washington in the Middle East will be completely undermined. This message has become a kind of ultimatum to the Obama administration, and not even Riyadh’s ultimatum. Without hidden, powerful support in the top American establishment, the Saudis would never have decided on such audacity.
Somewhere in February-March of this year, a very large political coalition was finally formed, which consolidated the most diverse forces. Among them are well-known Republicans, such as Senator McCain, most of the leadership of the pro-Israel lobby, leaders of the Protestant Zionists, influential neocons, other political groups that hung out around the former Bush administration, representatives of American circles who, for various reasons, maintained close intimate financial relations with Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf countries, plus certain powers of the US military-industrial complex. Only by uniting such a coalition could defy the core of the American elite - the military intelligence community (VRS).
It was the HRV that nominated Barack Obama for US presidents in 2008, which, however, managed in the last two years to make several major mistakes in their relationship with this community.
So, who's who? formed as follows. On the one hand - HRV. Its leaders proceed, firstly, from the fact that extreme caution is needed on the BBI, since even one uncalculated step can drag the United States into an uncontrollable, catastrophic power escalation. Second, they believe that the long-term security interests of the United States are most threatened by a rising China.
On the other hand, a temporarily united (in a special network structure) part of the rest of the American establishment. The most dangerous turn in the development of the situation for this coalition is the beginning of a direct and successful negotiation process between the United States, on the one hand, and Iran, Russia and China, on the other, the formation of a new balance of forces in the region.
Therefore, in the current Syrian crisis, this coalition has three main tasks: to prevent a political settlement of Syria; not to give an opportunity to begin negotiations between Tehran and Washington; maximum discredit Obama and his administration.
The leadership of the VRS has for several years advocated the start of a new round of political dialogue with the IRI, on the assumption that it is impossible to build a new regional security system at the BWI without Iran’s participation. After the election of Iranian President H. Rouhani, such interaction became more than likely. It is clear that in this case the significance of Israel and Saudi Arabia for the USA would begin to decrease.
The most sophisticated form of political trap is when a leader finds himself in a carefully constructed zugzwang situation. In this case, any solution only worsens his position. If Obama is pushed to a military solution in Syria, the trap will shut down - a military escalation will begin, which will immediately cease to depend on Washington.
Medieval samurai taught: "In war, always get ready for the worst option!" So, in this situation, the worst-case scenario may look like this. The Americans are starting a "limited military action" against Syria. In response to the military attack on its ally, Tehran blocks the Strait of Hormuz - oil prices soar up to 200 dollars per barrel. The western economy is starting to pop. Simultaneously, there are massive missile attacks on US military bases and military positions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Rockets fall on the territory of Israel from Lebanon. In response, Washington and Israel begin bombing Iran’s territory, including the use of special weapons. Tehran announces the presence of several nuclear charges and the forcing of a military nuclear program. Russia and China jointly demand an end to "military aggression." Washington rejects this demand and threatens with preventive military measures all those who disagree with its policies. Global war becomes inevitable.
On the other hand, if Obama refuses a military solution to Syria, then a direct psychological war will start against him - with accusations of political weakness, criminal concessions to enemies, surrender of friends in the Middle East, etc., etc. Obama's impeachment requirements will appear, seemingly random at first, and then they will become more and more insistent.
Bandar bush
Large strategic projects almost always carry a kind of personal personality framing. The engine of this very strategic project was Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud, who heads the Council of National Security and Intelligence of Saudi Arabia. But, of course, without some of the American VIPs, he alone could not pull this task.
Prince Bandar was the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States for more than twenty years. Due to unlimited financial resources and personal charm, he became "his" in most of the most influential American clans, especially close to the Republican Party. Got a nickname of Bandar Bush for his special proximity to the Bush family. Former American President George Bush Sr. once publicly called Prince Bandar "his son."
Since the beginning of 2013, Saudi special services have been one of the main areas of their subversive activities that have done work on accusing the regime of Bashar al-Assad of using chemical weapons. At the same time there were major punctures. For example, in February of this year, a group of “rebels” was arrested in the Turkish province of Hatay, supervised by the Bandar structures, which shipped a large shipment of sarin to Syria.
In June-July, the first phase of the operation began - the Egyptian President Mursi was overthrown. So the Saudis attacked the Muslim Brotherhood - their main political and ideological opponents in the region. Israel immediately picked up the baton, launching a powerful lobbying campaign around the world in support of the Egyptian military junta. At the same time, mass unrest began in Turkey - a tough warning to both Erdogan and those high-ranking US politicians who support him. The Qatari emir, who "fiercely disliked the Saudis and enjoyed reciprocity in this dislike," resigned early. After weakening Ikhvanov, Turks and Qataris, the main trump cards in the intra Syrian conflict were in the hands of Prince Bandar.
In the same period, Bandar bin Sultan takes on a group of influential (and tamed) American senators in Riyadh, where the situation in Syria and the situation around Iran are discussed in a closed form. Robert John Sawers, director of the British MI-6, comes to him for a rendezvous. Bandar is actively meeting with the leaders of the pro-American Arab pool in the Middle East.
In July, the Saudi intelligence chief travels around a number of European countries, and at the end of this month he arrives in Moscow to meet with GDP. And the visit to Moscow was painted in extremely secret tones.
Bandar bin Sultan promises the Russian president to buy billions of dollars of Russian weapons for 15, conclude a secret agreement on the joint management of the world oil market, eliminate competition from Russian gas in Europe, and save the Sochi Olympics from terrorists. Remember the immortal words of the classic: "And then Ostap suffered!"? Ostap Bender was meant.
In response, the Saudi Bandar demanded only one thing for Putin - Russia should refuse to support Syria. At some point, the prince even began to threaten or frighten: if Russia refuses the Saudi proposal, then “military choice cannot be avoided.”
In other words, Moscow roughly wanted to buy silver coins for 30. Of course, Bandar received a very tough, on the verge of a foul, rebuke from the Russian leader.
But what is strange is that Bandar bin Sultan himself was not upset after the meeting and was in excellent spirits.
If Saudi King Abdullah wanted to negotiate something with V.Putin, why did Bandar fly to Moscow? Why, for example, did the king not send his son, the head of the National Guard, to the much more moderate Prince Muteyib?
And here are just the eastern tricks lie. Bandar knew perfectly well that the relationship between Putin and Obama not only did not add up, but even deteriorated markedly. And this whole 31 talk of July in such a blatant form had to demonstrate GDP, which Bandar says on behalf of American official circles. Moreover, the Saudis did not hide it. Bandar told Putin that any agreement reached would be supported by Washington. That is, one of the special tasks of the Saudi prince was to try to further exacerbate relations between the leaders of the United States and the Russian Federation.
The next phase of the almost failed operation
So, strategic provocation began on August 21. However, the vague video images of the effects of the use of chemical weapons in Guta, as the British Daily Mail newspaper wrote, were difficult or impossible to verify. But here again the Israelis appeared on the scene again. It turned out that the military intelligence unit 8200 provided data "on the chemical attack of the Assad regime against civilians." What are these "facts", still no one knows. But the representative of the Israeli military intelligence Aviv Koshavi specifically traveled to Europe and the United States to share "valuable information."
It should be noted right away that Bashar Asad could not use chemical weapons against his population for at least five reasons.
First, this, sooner or later, could have a very significant effect on the reduction of the social base of support for the regime. Secondly, Syria built up its stock of chemical weapons (with the support of the Soviet Union) as a counterweight to the Israeli nuclear potential. The use of these weapons in a civil war essentially devalues the strategic deterrent effect. Thirdly, over the past few months, the Syrian army has achieved a significant change in its favor of the situation on various fronts without any chemical weapons. Fourth, the use of Damascus chemical weapons against its own population would inevitably lead to a deterioration in relations with Moscow and Beijing. After all, both Russia and the PRC have obligations as great powers for global security, including for the implementation of the 1992 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Chemical Weapons. Finally, fifthly, the Assad regime would hardly have decided on such an obvious stupidity on the eve of the previously agreed arrival of UN inspectors to the country.
Despite the fact that 61% of Americans opposed the military action in Syria, the concentration of American military forces began in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Amman, August 25 held a meeting of the chiefs of staff of ten countries, whose armed forces at that time expressed a desire to take part in the intervention against Syria.
The peak of tension fell on the night of 29 on August 30, when information was spread all over the world that the US missile attack on Syria would begin at that time. But then, despite the continuation of the harsh verbal threats from the United States, the situation began to gradually discharge. Against the military operation were 12 NATO countries. The House of Commons voted against the participation of Britain in the war against Syria. In Germany, the question of a military operation was not even submitted to parliamentary hearings. Against military adventures made by the EU.
The leadership of the current US administration began to gradually realize that the so-called. The “chemical attack” is in fact a carefully thought-out provocation, including against the very current owner of the White House. To gain time, the White House appealed to Congress (which will convene only on September 9) in order to obtain legal permission to conduct a military rally against Damascus. The same factor - the delay in time - is connected with the fact that UN experts returning from Damascus will prepare a final report for the SC for at least two weeks.
The outlined detente of the situation around Syria is also related to the fact that from the very beginning, Moscow and Beijing took a tough stance in the UN Security Council. At the same time, V.Putin, as commander-in-chief, ordered the strengthening of the Russian naval grouping in the Eastern Mediterranean. And being in the Russian Far East, he said that it was the provocation that caused the aggravation of the situation in Syria.
At the same time, special representatives of the Obama team through confidential channels tried to find out and predict Iran’s reaction to a possible "limited American strike on Syria." For example, quite unexpectedly, the Sultan of Oman Qabus bin Said visited Tehran, where he met with the spiritual leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. Rahbar harshly warned the Americans that a military action against Syria would almost immediately lead to serious regional destabilization.
In the short term, here in the Middle East, the implementation of one of two scenarios is most possible.
The first option - to some extent, the repetition of so-called. "Hormuz Crisis" December 2011. There were also numerous threats, political hysteria on the verge of paranoia, fleet movements, etc. But the blow to Iran never took place, the war was avoided.
The second, less optimistic scenario is that in the coming 7-10 days a much larger provocation may occur with the aim of forcing the United States into a military conflict in the Middle East. Moreover, such a provocation may occur not only in Syria, but also, for example, on the Turkish-Syrian border, or directed to any American base (for example, in the UAE).
In any case, as Kissinger blurted out, in the strategic scenario, it is Syria and Iran that remain the main targets for those who are trying to accelerate the approach of global war.
***
When it's cold in your house
When your vineyard is skinny,
Know what is sweeter than whispering love
Quiet rustling of pistachio groves.
Information