This is Richard Hack's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Richard Hack's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Richard Hack
Recent Activity
Interesting points from the Russian Defense Ministry press conference: 1) They spotted what appeared to be an SU-25 near MH17. Ukraine has a model of SU-25 that CAN reach that altitude despite Ukraine denials. Since the militia reported Ukraine jets "shadowing" commercial airliners at least a month ago, this is clearly likely. The Ukraine denied any jets in the area. What else did the jet do is the question... 2) The alleged "Russian" BUK missiles being moved video is actually of Ukraine BUK missiles. 3) Ukrainian BUK missiles were deployed in the area despite the militia having no aircraft for the Ukies to defend against. Arguing that they were there to defend against Russian jets is weak. 4) The US had a missile launch detection satellite right over the area of the crash at the moment of the crash. Obvious corollary questions follow...
The fact that Obama is pushing such a broad AUMF clearly shows that he is in no way being "dragged into" or "reluctant" to get involved in this. This was the plan from Day One. The above mention of Seymour Hersh's 2007 report on plans to take out Syria make perfect sense. In 2006, Dick Cheney was pushing for Israel to attack Iran. Israel could not without first taking out Hizballah and its (then) ten thousand or so rockets. So Israel launched the 2006 fiasco which failed miserably. At that point Colonel Lang pointed out that Israel could only take out Hizballah (if then) by attacking into the Bekaa Valley. That would require crossing Syrian territory, engaging Syrian troops and that means two-front war and casualties. Then the 2007 NIE on Iran came out and ruined Cheney's plans. So at that point a new plan was made: find an excuse to take out Syria. The "Arab Spring" gave them that excuse: foment a rebellion in Syria. Libya was even better: it gave them a precedent for US/NATO military intervention under "R2P". So once the Syrian crisis turned violent, the US rushed to the UN with UN Charter Chapter 7 language to authorize future military intervention. That hit a snag when Russia and China, burned on Syria, opened their eyes and vetoed those Resolutions. So then the US turned to the insurgents and began training them to handle chemical weapons. At the same time it had the insurgents fire first into Turkey, and then into Israel, so that Turkey and Israel would fire back at Syrian troops. But Assad didn't take the bait and refused to retaliate. So then Israel made air raids into Syria claiming to bomb missiles headed for Hizballah in Lebanon - thus raising the Hizballah connection explicitly. Still Assad refused to retaliate. So now came the chemical weapons ploy. Sarin gas was sent to the insurgents from Libyan stocks and homemade versions were produced and utilized in attempts to blame the Syrian government and establish a pattern of repeated use. And now a much larger attack has occurred, prior to which the insurgents were informed and supplies transferred to them to prepare for the event - all under US intelligence control. Which implies that Obama has known about this plan since his election at least and has been on board with it since Day One, contrary to the hallucinations of those who STILL think he's being "dragged into" or "reluctant" to attack Syria. The entire purpose of the Syrian crisis is to enable Syria and Hizballah to be degraded militarily to the point where they will be unable to be effective actors against Israel in an Iran war. This entire situation is ALL about IRAN and getting an Iran war started within the next couple years, presumably by end of Obama's term.
Lally: You're absolutely correct. The ENTIRE point of this Syria "crisis" is to weaken Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon so they will not be effective actors in the upcoming Iran war. Netanyahu does not want to attack Iran and have to deal with 1) Iranian missiles, 2) Syrian missiles, and 3) Hizballah missiles all at the same time... That's a recipe for getting kicked out of office after the war because most of the Israeli population spent every day in a bomb shelter and the economy collapsed as a result... The main goal is to defang Hibzallah. To do this, as Colonel Lang once pointed out, Israel has to attack Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley. To do THAT Israel has to engage Syrian military forces. While Israel COULD do that, it would be easier if those forces were already pinned down by a US/NATO air bombardment. Once that is achieved, Israel will, under some excuse, push an armored division into Southern Lebanon a la 2006. But in addition, a second armored division will push into Syria and engage Syrian troops in assistance with the Syrian insurgents to cover the flank of a third armored division which will go north along the Lebanon/Syria border and then cut left into the Bekaa Valley in a pincer movement with the first armored division. The goal is to either crush Hizballah (preferred but I suspect not likely to be achieved) or at least to push Hizballah forces far enough north that their longer range missiles will not be able to hit most of Israel's larger cities, especially Tel Aviv. After that is achieved (assuming it is), look for Israel finally to attempt to attack Iran. It won't matter that the upcoming Syria bombing campaign is illegal without a UNSC Resolution. The US and NATO will just ignore that little fact. Claim both "humanitarian" reasons and also the resurgence of the "Syria has WMDs" argument (see the news today about alleged Syrian "chemical weapons" and "nerve agents" and "suspected nuclear facilities", i.e., "the usual") and there'll be plenty of excuses for the war. And anyone who thinks it's "conspiracy theory" that the French and British have trainers on the ground in Turkey for the FSA, and that the US is supporting the operation from Incirlik, needs to go check out Sibel Edmonds blog. She has good contacts in Turkey who assure her all this is quite true. The Syrian opposition has already admitted publicly that the West is "turning a blind eye" to the smuggling routes from Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan into Syria. Sooner or later Qatar will be sending the same antitank weapons they sent to the Libyan rebels to the Syria rebels, if they aren't already. Syrian tanks will be useless in an urban environment against Milan antitank weapons. This is why Syrian forces have been forced to use ranged weapons already. And Obama has just said the US will not be "bystanders". And just how do you do that without deliberate military intervention? There ARE NO OTHER options given the situation on the ground. And as long as the insurgents have a safe haven in Turkey, they will continue the chaos in Syria. The US claims the right to bomb the Taliban in Pakistan because of "safe havens", but doesn't complain about the same "safe havens" for insurgents in Syria. There will be an air campaign against Syria by or during summer. Count on it. And that will be followed by an Israeli attack on Lebanon AND Syria.
"Truth in media IS dying"? You're a few decades late and quite a few dollars short... Truth in media has been dead since at least William Casey stating quite seriously that the CIA controls ALL the mainstream media... If you want a clear example, look at the coverage of Syria... ALL accounts claim Homs was bombarded Saturday with "hundreds" of dead. But Pepe Escobar in Asia Times published the account of a Syrian Christian he described as utterly trustworthy who declared their family went to Homs on Saturday...and there was nothing going on. EVERY account you see about Syria is coming from the West-supported activists. Then the Russians are castigated for vetoing a UN resolution which demanded that Assad pull back ALL his forces to their home bases WITHOUT demanding that the insurgents lay down their arms. As the Russian envoy said, no government would accept that deal. And today there are reports the Pentagon is planning military intervention in Syria "if Obama calls on that option". And State's Neuland says, "all options are on the table" for military intervention in Syria. Where have we heard THAT line before? My prediction is very simple: The US and NATO will be bombing Syria by summer. In the process, Israel will use the suppression of Syrian military forces by the US and NATO to enable a surprise attack on Hizballah in Lebanon. One armored division will push north into southern Lebanon, a second will push into Syrian territory to protect the rear of the third armored division which will proceed up and left to flank Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley. Once Syria and Hizballah have been weakened (assuming the US/NATO/Israel succeed - which is not a certainty), the next step, probably beginning next year or some reasonable time after the previous events, will be either Israel launching a unilateral attack on Iran in order to drag the US into a war with Iran, OR the US President will begin ramping up a naval BLOCKADE of Iranian oil exports (once the oil EMBARGO has been proven to have failed.) Such a blockade will force Iran to retaliate, just justifying an all-out regime change war.
In fact, apparently during the run up to the 2007 NIE on Iran, the DIA explicitly made this argument: that Iran decided sometime in the 1990's out of concern over the news that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program to do what the DIA characterized as a "paper study" on obtaining nuclear weapons. In my view, Iran proceeded to do "due diligence". Threatened by the possibility of Iraq achieving nuclear weapons, Iran set up a "research database" concerning what they needed to do with their nuclear technology to make obtaining a nuclear weapon feasible (i.e., what kinds of enrichment, what kinds of centriifuges, how to protect the systems, etc.) and how to obtain the designs for a nuclear weapon. The important point here is that Iran was not concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal or the U.S. arsenal because the Iranians knew they could never compete with those. HOWEVER, once Iraq was destroyed in 2003, clearly there was no longer a need for an Iranian nuclear program. And the Iranians also knew that such a program would do nothing to improve their regional geopolitical influence, but instead would harm it. So then Khamenei makes his fatwa declaring Muslim possession of nuclear weapons haram. And what little program they had was stopped. Iran still has the means to do a "break out", which is inherent in the mastering of the fuel cycle. And I'm sure the Iranians are aware of that. But Iran has made it very clear that they do not need, do not want, and have no intention of actually building nuclear weapons and would prefer a nuclear free Middle East.
Toggle Commented Jan 15, 2012 on The 2003 Iranian Overture at Sic Semper Tyrannis
Apparently the ONLY evidence connecting this stupid plot to the Iranians is the $100K in funds sent from an Iranian bank. Let's be clear about this. ANY competent computer hacker can infiltrate your organization and make wire transfers out of your accounts. It happens every day. So how hard would it be for the intelligence agencies of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia to frame Iran with such a wire transfer? I submit not hard at all. If you can get Stuxnet into a closed nuclear network, you can send a wire transfer. And the FBI should know that. Therefore the reaction to this plot is politically motivated. Then there is the question of "rogue elements" in the Iranian intelligence organizations. Asia Times has an article today which says there are no such "rogue elements". The Iranian intelligence organizations are tightly controlled. More importantly, any such element which ended up embarrassing Iran publicly like this would get in hot water with the leadership. It's a non-starter notion. The one suggestion I heard which might make some sense is the idea that this plot was INTENDED to fail in order to send a message to the US, Israel and the Saudis not to push Iran too far with regards to assassination its nuclear scientists or other issues. But this suffers from the same problem as the "rogue element" notion: if Iran were to want to send a message, it wouldn't be done in such a way as to reverberate back on them publicly. It would be on "back channel". Given Iran hasn't been accused of hitting anyone in other countries for some 17 years and never in the continental United States, we have to assume this plot is a false flag operation from one of the "usual suspects": Israel, the Saudis, or the US in that order of probability. The REAL questions are: to what degree was the US involved in this and how high up did it go? If we declare Khamenei "had to know" about this plot, then the same question needs to be asked about Obama. The fact that Obama is pushing this is on a par with his pushing of the non-existent "nuclear weapons program" issue with Iran. Regime change is clearly the goal and this fake plot is obviously intended to ratchet up a casus belli for a military attack on Iran.
Richard Hack is now following The Typepad Team
Oct 13, 2011