Why are they after Syria now?
06 November, 2012
By Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal
Of course, no one requires any reply directly or indirectly, because the reason is quite obvious.
After Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya the NATO-UNSC evils now target Iran. These western rogue states think once Iran is destabilized, its ally Syria would automatically collapse. This is their exaggerated ambition.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has an extensive maritime coastline bordering onto the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea. Persian Gulf is the gateway to Middle East oil. Close to 17 million barrels of oil per day transit through the Strait of Hormuz in tankers, from the Persian Gulf en route to the Arabian sea and the Indian Ocean. Iran not only has an extensive coastline along the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, it also has a significant naval fleet of destroyers, frigates and submarines. In recent years, it has developed its naval power with Russian assistance in response to US threats. Its entire coastline is militarized.
Importantly, the Persian Gulf is a strategic waterway which is of particular relevance to US Command and Control (CC). The Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf are heavily militarized. The US Fifth Fleet operates out of Manama, Bahrain. US Central Command (USCENTCOM) operates out of Qatar. America and its allies have several naval bases adjacent to Iranian territorial waters.
Iran is an ally of Syria but it does not have a border with Syria. For Iran's commodity trade to reach the Mediterranean by land through Syria would require transit through Iraq (under US military occupation) and/or Turkey, a US ally and NATO stronghold.
The obvious reason for NATO targeting Iran and Syria has been clearly spelt out by one of hawkish presidential candidates. "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us" (Mitt Romney, presidential debate, October 23, 2012)
But once in White House the president is directly controlled by the CIA and Pentagon – simultaneously. That is when a new president takes charge, it is these agencies that resume puppeting the presidency. President's ignorance of geography or geopolitics or politics of Mideast is not an issue presidents should worry too much, after all they just agree with the CIA-Pentagon actions. George W. Bush at the height of his election campaign in 2000 thought the Taliban was a "rock group": That's how well-informed about the outside world the prospective U.S. president is. B But once in White House he is directly controlled by the t go by the CIA-Pentagon actions.
American presidents have an army of Ivy League advisers who brief them as to where the enemies of America are located geographically at a given time. As the president is made busy with challenging the "enemy", the Big Oil and Wall Street take key decisions, these foundational elements are channelled to the White House through handpicked senior officials and presidential advisers, who respond foremost to the demands of dominant corporate interests.
Who can question them or their mischievous actions taken in the name of US president?
But, without presidential knowledge of geopolitics and more specifically of geographic waterways, "military mistakes" with far-reaching consequences are more likely to occur. Already, the deadly consequences of invasion of Afghanistan by NATO terror gangs led by USA-UK terror twins have disastrous for the humanity.
But even as the CIA-Pentagon evils go on rampage against their perceived fake "enemy", the US presidents just continue to enjoy their paid holidays their choicest locations.
That is the fate not just of the Americans alone, but entire world!
But now the Sunni Arab nations somehow think that the NATO would never attack them because they all love Arabs too much. Did Afghanistan ever think that the Russian-American-European rogue states would occupy it one day, killing millions of Muslims on some pretexts?
Did Gen Musharraf while letting the NATO rouges use Pakistani soil to attack neighboring Islamic Afghanistan for extra military aid, foresee the CIA agenda for Pakistan?
Still worse, had Jinnah who founded Islamic Pakistan to ensure existence and prosperity of Muslims foreseen decadence of that nation within about 50 years because of a corrupt system and faulty selfish leadership that uses the power and nation's resources for their own benefits?
More bluntly, had Jinnah indeed laid foundations for a beggar puppet state without real sovereignty as the world looks at that nation now?