Behind the War On Terror: On engineered chaos and the Balkanization of the Middle East

SHARE

SHAFAQNA – For well over a decade the United States has positioned itself as Liberty’s champion, the one power willing to lead a global anti-terror effort at such a time when nations found themselves besieged, overwhelmed by a radical tide. From Libya to Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan, Washington claimed it would pacify and stabilize, reconstruct and develop those lands which the plague of Wahhabism had claimed as its dominion. For 15 years, Western powers have argued the War On Terror to sow destruction across the Greater Middle East, playing radicalism as a rationale for military interventionism.

Under cover of democracy-building and political stabilization both the African and Asian continents have witnessed unprecedented unrest, and bloodshed – the witness of a grand colonization scheme disguised as democratic emancipation. Sold to their patrons’ agenda, corporate media have carefully blanketed their audience under layers of misinformation and latent ethnocentrism, carefully building a narrative of hate against those nations which dared call out Western capitals for their lies and manipulations.

And though most will remain oblivious to ground realities, truth has nevertheless sipped through the cracks, offering a rather disturbing mirror to this grand war against terror we were all told would guarantee our global well-being. If anything 2015 might soon be remembered as the year neocons globalist military agenda was exposed – courtesy of both Russia and Iran.

It was Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament’s international affairs committee, who back in October 2015 created a veritable media firestorm when he took to Twitter accusing Barack Obama of not bombing ISIS. “McCain accused us of striking out at US-trained insurgents… However, since they have either run away or joined al-Qaeda, hitting them is a mission impossible,” Pushkov wrote on his Twitter account.

Following on his Twitter comment, Pushkov reinforced his views during an interview with France’s Europe 1 Radio, when he emphasized: “The US-led coalition spent a whole year pretending they were striking ISIL targets but where are the results of these strikes?”

If Pushkov’s accusations exploded social media, prompting internauts to theorize on America’s covert strategy and ultimate end-game in the Greater Middle East, others before him, did speak of America’s anti-terror posing before – although somehow their words did not resonate with the same clout.

Why you may wonder? Maybe quite simply because our global consciousness was not ready just yet to face up to those realities we’d rather ignore. For if indeed the truth will set you free, truths have also a way of forcing you to act, when maybe you would be content not to. Bottom line is this: truth takes courage and courage I’m afraid remains a rare commodity.

But if many chose still to bury their heads and closed their ears, many have been those who have chosen to stand a tide to treachery, shining a light onto the real face of terror – or rather, faces of terror.

If the Black Flag army remains a well-known enemy, there are those powers which stand still in the shadows.

In February 2015, long before Russia came to directly accused Turkey of aiding and abating Wahhabi-inspired radicals, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), admitted that the US bombing campaign against ISIL had been primarily smoke and mirrors. “Obama’s strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working (because) the US bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained,” Boot wrote in an article for Newsweek.

Figures compiled by the CFR reveal the US has dropped 43 bombs on ISIS per day since the campaign began. In stark contrast, the Pentagon dropped 6,163 bomb per day on Iraq in 1991, and 1,039 in 2003. In 1995, in Serbia, which country never ever posed any direct threat to the United States, a total of 60 bombs per day were rained down on enemy positions.

Why would the US offer such military restraint, when its officials continue to advocate for greater powers against terror – this elusive threat which has grown into a military force so great that armies have ran before its advances?

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Tammam Salam offered an interesting answer to that very question: “There is clearly no seriousness to the war against ISIL. The objective is not eliminating the Islamic State [ISIL] but rather an effort by the West to force their presence in the region and worsen the situation there.”

Salam’s essentially theorized that terror stands not a threat but a covert neo-colonial military tool.

It is exactly this theory Professor Michel Chossudovsky, the author of The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015) has argued in his writings, postulating that terror was actually a very Western creation – a modern Trojan Horse designed to erode at the socio-political fabric of the Islamic world. “From the very outset, this air campaign has NOT been directed against ISIS. The evidence confirms that the Islamic State is not the target. Quite the opposite … The air raids are intended to destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria,” noted the professor in February 2015.

The US it would appear is actively working towards the weakening of Iraq and Syria’s state institutions ahead, some have theorized of a forced-balkanization of the Greater Levant – another version of the Sykes-Picot agreement which would allow for the occupation of sovereign nations by Western forces.

However far-fetched such a theory maybe, it has been a long time in the making – harking back to 2006 to be precise.

The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term: “Greater Middle East.”

“This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the US Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon,” wrote political analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.

To which he added: “This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.”

Those are the realities of the war on terror! Those are the agendas which lie behind the mass rampage and mass slaughter of religious communities. Terror was designed so that a new geopolitical reality could be introduced.

By Catherine Shakdam – This article was published first in the American Herald Tribune.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here