Washington's ultimate goal in Syria is to transform the country into another failed state, US author Eric Zuesse believes, adding that it's all about oil and gas routes in the Middle East.
In mid-October American journalist Brandon Turbeville pointed to a peculiar fact: while Russia was attacking ISIL and al-Qaeda targets in Syria, US military forces "launched a bombing mission of its own against two power plants Aleppo."
"The power plants were located in al-Rudwaniya east of Aleppo and resulted in power outages affecting the Syrian people, adding to the American tradition of bombing civilian infrastructure instead of ISIS and other terrorist targets in Syria," Turbeville noted, reminding that Washington's bombing campaign in Syria is a brazen violation of international law (in contrast, Russian military forces have been invited by the Syrian legitimate government).
There is only one explanation for the Pentagon's inexplicable military actions: Washington and its Middle Eastern allies are planning to transform Syria into a failed state — another Libya — US author Eric Zuesse stresses.
"The US aim is a failed Syrian state, so Russia will lose an ally… The US aims to destroy Syria; Russia wants to salvage Syria. So: while Russia bombs ISIS and other jihadists, US bombs Syria's infrastructure. A nation without the infrastructure to hold it together is a failed state — America's goal," Zuesse emphasized in his article for Strategic Culture Foundation.
The issue of Middle Eastern natural resources is a burning one.
Some reporters have recently posed a question, of how the Islamic State is capable to produce oil in severe war conditions, employing hundreds of workers to operate numerous wells in the territory occupied by ISIL.
There are more examples of Washington's "cooperation" with jihadists in Syria, Zuesse noted, referring to a report written by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in April 2014. According to Hersh, Obama had arranged for weapons in Libya to be sent to jihadists (including al-Nusra) in Syria.
"By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities," Hersh wrote as cited by the American author.
It seems that what is going on in the Middle East is a part of Washington's famous "controlled chaos" strategy. Russia's military involvement in Syria is contradicting US hawks plans.
That is why Obama does not want to join the Syria-Russia-Iraq-Iran coalition, instead he is trying to defeat it, according to Zuesse.
"Echoing Goebbels, Hillary Clinton said on 18 August 2011, when the United States was starting its remove-Assad operation: "We understand the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle, and we respect their wishes," Zuesse underscored adding that the US political establishment in fact completely ignores these wishes.
Vladimir Putin sent a clear message to warmongers all over the world: Russia will not be dragged into a nuclear war and will always look for a diplomatic solution, Marco Maier wrote for Contra Magazin.
"The West is always trying to demonize the Russian leader and present the country as hostile but, for his part, Putin is always expressly diplomatic, he is always defusing tensions. Above all, it is clear that Putin is not interested in getting Russia entangled in a war with the West," he noted.
Putin clearly understands that a nuclear standoff could only lead to mutual destruction. There can be no winners in a conflict involving this type of weapons, he said at the Valdai discussion forum.
Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony on Thursday certainly confirmed suspicions that she knew that the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate was not a spontaneous protest by individuals enraged by an anti-Muslim video. Rather, as the emails she fought so fiercely to protect from public disclosure reveal, the attack was a pre-planned operation, involving fore- knowledge by the assailants of the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, among other details.
Clinton and the Obama Administration had attempted to place the blame for the attack, which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, on an unplanned protest, a “spontaneous mob.”
However, knowing that Clinton and other Administration officials lied extensively as to the genesis of the attack raises further questions. According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton lied in order to “attempt to avoid blame for a terror attack in a presidential re-election year” The WSJ article maintains that the House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Representative Trey Gowdy, has ferreted out the deception. “What that House committee did Thursday was finally expose the initial deception,” writes WSJ reporter Kimberley Strassel.
But it is hardly credible that Clinton chose to lie in an attempt to keep the Obama Administration from having a “terror attack” in an election year. The Middle East is now roiling in terror attacks and this is not news to anyone. If one looks at the attacks on US Embassies in 2012 alone, one will see that dozens of such attacks took place.
The evidence at hand may suggest further motives, even less acceptable, for the Obama Administration’s propaganda concerning this deadly attack. It is possible that Clinton’s false statements were an attempt to cover up a US hand in the attacks.
It is known now, through the subsequent email and cable releases, that the responsibility for the attack was claimed by Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. In an email to her daughter Chelsea, sent at 11:12 pm the night of the attack, Hillary Clinton wrote: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.”
Not by a spontaneous mob, protesting a YouTube video. But by a group which has already been exposed as having deep and covert ties to the United States intelligence agencies.
Questions must be addressed as to why the Benghazi compound was not guarded. US Embassies abroad are known to be protected by an elite corps of US Marines. Known as the MSG (Marine Security Group), this elite group is pledged to protect US information and persons in Embassies and Consulates. According to the US State Department, “the MSG role is essentially defensive in nature. They serve as an in-house deterrent to limited acts of violence, as well as a defense mechanism to large scale riots. The Marines are expected to delay entry by hostile elements long enough to permit destruction of classified material and to assist in protecting lives of the mission staff until host government forces arrive. They are authorized, under the command of the senior Foreign Service officer present, to use weapons to protect their own lives or mission staff from direct and immediate danger. The specific use of force is outlined in the MSG post guard orders.”
Given the instability in Libya at that juncture, one has to ask why the Benghazi complex was left unguarded. The US and her allies had invaded Libya barely a year and a half prior, toppling Gaddafi’s government in 2011. The country was in upheaval. To leave Benghazi unguarded in the midst of the resultant turmoil seems like a very poor decision. Indeed, the Benghazi staff was aware of the potential for an attack.
Sean Smith, who died in the attack, had posted earlier in the day this prophetic message: Noticing that there was surveillance on the Embassy, he wrote: “assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
Other instances of instability in Benghazi in 2012 were culled from Wikipedia, and include the following:
In April 2012, two former security guards for the consulate threw an IED over the consulate fence; the incident did not cause any casualties. Just four days later, a similar bomb was thrown at a four-vehicle convoy carrying the United Nations Special Envoy to Libya, exploding just 12 feet from the UN envoy’s vehicle without injuring anyone.
The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR) released a video of what it said was its detonation of an explosive device outside the gates of the U.S. consulate on June 5, which caused no casualties but damaged the consulate’s perimeter wall, described by one individual as “big enough for forty men to go through.” The Brigades claimed that the attack was in response to the killing of Abu Yahya al Libi, a Libyan al-Qaeda leader who had just died in an American drone attack, and was also timed to coincide with the imminent arrival of a U.S. diplomat. There were no injuries, but the group left behind leaflets promising more attacks against the U.S.
British ambassador to Libya Dominic Asquith survived an assassination attempt in Benghazi on June 10. Two British protection officers were injured in the attack when their convoy was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade 300 yards from their consulate office. The British Foreign Office withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June.
· On June 18, 2012, the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi was stormed by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libya, allegedly because of “attacks by Tunisian artists against Islam.”
If Benghazi were that hot, and the Obama administration, for reasons that have not been made clear to the public, hung that compound out to dry, Clinton might have a lot more to worry about than simply lying to the public about the attacks in order to protect her President in an election year.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi has more probing to do. Let’s hope the committee members have the courage it takes to complete the job.