This article appears in the June 21, 2013 issue of
Executive Intelligence Review. Mike
Billington
Triple Crisis
Raises
Threshold for Global War
by Jeffrey
Steinberg
June 16—The
convergence of three global crises has placed the world on the very edge of a
potential war of extinction. While no one—not even the most deranged
genocidalists within the upper echelons of the Anglo-Dutch imperial
system—necessarily intends to provoke global war, the situation surrounding the
Syria crisis has reached the point that any one of a number of triggers could
ignite the global conflagration.
This danger
was reflected in the past 48 hours by a senior Israeli strategist, an advisor to
the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, who commented that Israel is
"caught in a Greek tragedy," with no clear exit. He warned that Israel could be
driven to carry out a military attack on Russia in the form of the threatened
Israeli destruction of Russian S-300 air
defense systems that have been promised to Syria, fully recognizing
that this could spark a much larger confrontation. The Israeli strategist blamed
especially President Obama, asserting that the U.S. had put Israel in an
impossible situation, starting with the overthrow of Qaddafi in
Libya.
The triple
threat can be summarized as follows:
-
First, the
entire trans-Atlantic financial system has reached a new break point,
characterized by increased market turbulence, the strong likelihood that a
major international financial institution has gone over the cliff.
-
Second, the
multiplying scandals hitting the Obama Administration have created even
further desperation on the part of the President and his inner
circle.
-
Third,
faced with this crisis of his Presidency, Obama chose to redirect attention to
Syria.
A Confluence of
Dangers
The
financial system is at a breakpoint: There is a growing recognition
that the hyperinflationary quantitative easing policies of the U.S. Fed and the
European Central Bank have created an impossible situation in which any effort
to halt the hyperinflation could cause an immediate collapse of the entire
system. The IMF and the BIS both issued stark warnings this week that the
monetary emissions had to continue .
Those committed to "saving" the current system have reached the end of the line,
where there is no possibility of avoiding another financial explosion—except by
reinstating Glass-Steagall bank separation, starting in the United States. The
level of desperation has contributed significantly to the escalation of the
crisis centered around Syria.
Obama
is desperate as scandals close in: The revelation that the National
Security Agency and the FBI have been spying on Americans, in gross violation of
the First and Fourth Amendment guarantees of free speech and due process, has
caused such a public outcry that even some members of Congress have awoken and
are threatening action against Obama. The pile-up of impeachable crimes by this
President has been highlighted by the sequence of revelations over the past
month: Benghazi-9/11; the Internal Revenue Service targeting of an Obama
"enemy's list" of conservative organizations; the spying on journalists from
Associated Press and Fox News; and now, the NSA mass spying on every American
with a telephone, a cell
phone , or an Internet account. Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of
the NSA, and Robert Mueller, the outgoing head of the FBI, were grilled on
Capitol Hill last week, and a group of conservative Republican Congressmen and
Senators, joined by Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein and by the American Civil
Liberties Union, have announced class-action suits against the President over
the mass spying.
Obama's decision to
arm the Syrian rebels raises the threshold for a wider war: A
much-publicized "national security review" of the Syria crisis took place
beginning on June 9, when the National Security Council Deputies Committee,
which includes the CIA, the NSC, the State Department and the Pentagon, held a
number of meetings that culminated June 13 with the announcement by Obama's
national security spokesman Ben Rhodes that the U.S. would begin arming the
Syrian rebels. Rhodes claimed that the U.S. intelligence community had concluded
"with high certainty" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons
against the rebels, resulting in between 100-150 documented deaths.
Within 24
hours of the announcement, the New York Times and Washington
Post were reporting that the decision to arm the Syrian rebels had been
made at least a week earlier, and that the Syria chemical weapons "red line" was
used as the pretext for the escalation in U.S. involvement in the Syria
conflict, which has expanded into a regional war, with increasingly sectarian
dimensions.
It has been
British policy for the past several years to provoke a permanent Sunni versus
Shi'ite war within the Islamic world, as part of the policy of permanent chaos
and population reduction. In April 2013, the Royal United Services Institute
(RUSI), the leading military think tank of the monarchy, released a briefing
paper, "A
Return to East of Suez? UK Military Deployment to the Gulf," boasting that
Britain was resuming its role as the dominant power over the Gulf, a role that
it had turned over to the Americans in 1971.
In fact, the
Obama "decision" to escalate American involvement in the Syria war was imposed
on Washington—against the strenuous objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
other government agencies. Long before Obama made his announcement, British
Prime Minister David Cameron had announced that London had concluded that Syria
had used chemical weapons against its citizens and the European Union arms
embargo had to end. Cameron was joined by French President François Hollande in
pressing Obama to break from the "realists" in his Administration, and jump
head-first into the regime-change program against the Assad
government.
Russia: WMD Déjà
Vu
The great
danger emanating from the new phase of the Syria crisis is that it will lead to
a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. Top Russian
officials have warned that the so-called "evidence" of chemical weapons (CW) use
by Assad is unconvincing. Contrary to wild propaganda claims to the contrary in
the Western media, Putin's Russia is not about to throw Syrian President Assad
to the wolves.
Russian arms
deliveries to Syria have increased, and as the result, the Syrian Army continues
to make military advances on several fronts in the war. When Secretary of State
John Kerry met with Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow
in mid-May, the Russians promised that they would not deploy the S-300 advanced
air defense systems to Syria until after the scheduled Geneva II peace
conference.
However, the
recent military gains by the Syrian Army—even without the advanced air
defenses—have added to the desperation in London, Paris, and at the White House
that Assad must be removed from office as soon as possible. The danger of a
head-on confrontation with Russia, as the result of this madness, is exactly
what the Israeli strategist was warning about. In a Washington Post
interview published June 15, Israeli President Shimon Peres made it clear that
he did not favor escalating the crisis, drawing the United State potentially
into another war. His recommendation was for the issue to be handled by the Arab
League, leaving the United States, Russia, China, and Europe out of the picture
altogether.
Regardless of
what level of material support the U.S. provides in the coming days and weeks,
the shift in policy by the Obama Administration has already been seen as a green
light for others. Saudi Arabia has announced that it will be providing
shoulder-held anti-aircraft weapons to the Syrian rebels. The Saudis have
concentrated their financial and military aid towards the al-Nusra Front and
other hard-core jihadist factions of the Syrian opposition; and it can be
assumed that the more advanced weapons will go to the same players. Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi intelligence, who was deeply implicated in
the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., has been pouring resources into the jihadists
in northeastern Lebanon, extending the Syrian war directly into that neighboring
country. Ironically, there is now a de facto Saudi-Israeli military alliance
against Hezbollah, spreading the war beyond the Syrian borders and greatly
increasing the likelihood of a regional or even global war.
Democratic
Party sources with close ties to the Putin circles in Russia say that the
Russian President has given up on any possibility of a "reset" of relations with
the United States so long as President Obama remains in office. This view was
reinforced when Obama named Dr. Susan Rice as his new National Security Advisor.
Rice
was the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, when the United States double-crossed Russia
and China over the Libya regime-change campaign. Rice has gone overboard on
numerous public occasions, assailing Russia and China for continuing to support
the Assad regime. Her arrival at the White House as head of national security
will deepen the distrust and animosity between Washington and Moscow. Kerry is
reportedly furious over the White House actions, which have undermined the joint
effort he initiated with Lavrov to reach a diplomatic settlement of the Syria
crisis.
In the
immediate days ahead, any one of the three simultaneous crises—the
trans-Atlantic financial collapse, the danger of a major miscalculation to
general war around the Syria conflict, and the desperation of President Obama,
facing a barrage of Watergate-type scandals—could push the global situation over
the edge.
ON 31st JULY 2013 IS THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MANILA ACCORD*
ReplyDeleteTHE ONLY LEGAL SOLUTION TO THE SABAH QUESTION IS TO HONOUR THE MANILA ACCORD. How? By pressuring Kuala Lumpur to negotiate with the Philippines. However, there is no way in hell that it can happen if President Aquino has put it in his head not to face the question head on or even just to raise - with a gentle whisper - the Manila Accord with his great friend in Kuala Lumpur, the not-so-smart (but one who has outsmarted our benighted leader Noynoy at every turn), the one and only corrupt, the greedy Bumiputra Affirmative Action-BN leader, ta da da... Najib Razak, the son of the man who initiated the troubles in Mindanao and caused the Philippines to lose many of its sons and daughters in what was then called the Mindanao Secession Wars...
Most of the 20 million Malayans are not that smart, in fact, they are rather stupid, are terribly bone idle, but one wonders how on earth they manage to outwit and outsmart 100 million Filipinos, many of whom boast of a certain degree of sophistication be it in education or in general culture!
The other solution is for Sabah to withdraw from the UK-engineered Malaysia Federation. There seems to be a trend towards that today but will all of Sabah agree? Not sure - Sabahans are just like Filipinos, they are easily conned by nice words, by good bribes and fight each other most of the time. They are rather laid back (understatement) so will take a bit of push from somewhere.
The ultimate solution, one might say, is war. But according to our benighted leader, that's out of the question and we agree with him. We not only do not have the material capability to go to war with Kuala Lumpur, it is almost a certainty that most of our people will be anti such move. Besides, we have seen how PH reacted to the 'excursion' headed by SJKIII's brother - many of our politicians almost peed in their pants when the Lahad Datu stand off happened... So let's say, that war is not an option.
If only we didn't have the Kiram 'intramurals' (the bickering, the infighting, the 'faking' - usurping of sultan title, etc, etc.,) perhaps, things would be slightly different. The saying that "united we stand divided we fall' is, as always, true.
*Section 12 of the Manila Accord - UN TREATY 8029, signed by three heads of states before the creation of the Malaysia Federation namely, Suharto of Indonesia, Rahman of Malaya and Macapagal of the Philippines, stipulates the following:
12. The Philippines made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia is subject to the final outcome of the Philippine claim to North Borneo. The Ministers took note of the Philippine claim and the right of the Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the principle of the pacific settlement of disputes.
They agreed that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder. Moreover, in the context of their close association, the three countries agreed to exert their best endeavours to bring the claim to a just and expeditious solution by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the Bandung Declaration.
Related post: http://defenders-philippine-sovereignty.blogspot.com/2013/04/signing-of-manila-accord-1963-on-31st.html
ON 31st JULY 2013 IS THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MANILA ACCORD*
ReplyDeleteTHE ONLY LEGAL SOLUTION TO THE SABAH QUESTION IS TO HONOUR THE MANILA ACCORD. How? By pressuring Kuala Lumpur to negotiate with the Philippines. However, there is no way in hell that it can happen if President Aquino has put it in his head not to face the question head on or even just to raise - with a gentle whisper - the Manila Accord with his great friend in Kuala Lumpur, the not-so-smart (but one who has outsmarted our benighted leader Noynoy at every turn), the one and only corrupt, the greedy Bumiputra Affirmative Action-BN leader, ta da da... Najib Razak, the son of the man who initiated the troubles in Mindanao and caused the Philippines to lose many of its sons and daughters in what was then called the Mindanao Secession Wars...
Most of the 20 million Malayans are not that smart, in fact, they are rather stupid, are terribly bone idle, but one wonders how on earth they manage to outwit and outsmart 100 million Filipinos, many of whom boast of a certain degree of sophistication be it in education or in general culture!
The other solution is for Sabah to withdraw from the UK-engineered Malaysia Federation. There seems to be a trend towards that today but will all of Sabah agree? Not sure - Sabahans are just like Filipinos, they are easily conned by nice words, by good bribes and fight each other most of the time. They are rather laid back (understatement) so will take a bit of push from somewhere.
The ultimate solution, one might say, is war. But according to our benighted leader, that's out of the question and we agree with him. We not only do not have the material capability to go to war with Kuala Lumpur, it is almost a certainty that most of our people will be anti such move. Besides, we have seen how PH reacted to the 'excursion' headed by SJKIII's brother - many of our politicians almost peed in their pants when the Lahad Datu stand off happened... So let's say, that war is not an option.
If only we didn't have the Kiram 'intramurals' (the bickering, the infighting, the 'faking' - usurping of sultan title, etc, etc.,) perhaps, things would be slightly different. The saying that "united we stand divided we fall' is, as always, true.
*Section 12 of the Manila Accord - UN TREATY 8029, signed by three heads of states before the creation of the Malaysia Federation namely, Suharto of Indonesia, Rahman of Malaya and Macapagal of the Philippines, stipulates the following:
12. The Philippines made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia is subject to the final outcome of the Philippine claim to North Borneo. The Ministers took note of the Philippine claim and the right of the Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the principle of the pacific settlement of disputes.
They agreed that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder. Moreover, in the context of their close association, the three countries agreed to exert their best endeavours to bring the claim to a just and expeditious solution by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the Bandung Declaration.
Related post: http://defenders-philippine-sovereignty.blogspot.com/2013/04/signing-of-manila-accord-1963-on-31st.html