Announcement

**bsteadman** · 06-17-2014, 11:50 PM

Obama Considers Military Cooperation with Iran Terror Regime

The New American
Alex Newman
6/17/2014

Excerpt:

Under the guise of beating back Sunni jihadists in Iraq who are benefiting from Obama’s “regime-change” policies in Syria, the administration is openly considering U.S. military cooperation with the Iranian regime to prop up Tehran’s ally in Baghdad. Neoconservative U.S. lawmakers are pushing the wild idea, too. Ironically, perhaps, the Assad regime’s Syrian warplanes, using intelligence supplied by Iran, have reportedly been pounding the hardline Sunni Islamist forces that seized control over wide swaths of Iraq in recent days. In other words, U.S. foreign policy in Iraq is now aligned with the regimes in Syria and Iran — the same officially listed “state sponsors of terror” that the Washington, D.C., establishment has been seeking to overthrow for years as part of the “axis of evil.”

Already, the chief of Iran’s feared Quds military force and thousands of Iranian troops are in Iraq working to stop the quick advance of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). The radical Sunni jihadist group, of course, has been among the many barbaric beneficiaries of massive assistance from the U.S. government and its Sunni Arab and European allies in Syria — part of the failing effort to depose Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Obama, meanwhile, announced the deployment of several hundred U.S. troops to Baghdad, supposedly to help provide security at the American embassy from ISIS militants. He also claimed the administration would not put “boots on the ground” in the latest civil war.

Separately, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry suggested military cooperation with the theocracy in Tehran was a very real possibility. As part of the supposed effort to beat back the fresh insurgency running wild in Iraq, Obama and the Iranian Mullahs apparently have “shared interests.” When asked in an interview with Yahoo News whether the administration would cooperate with Iran in Iraq, Kerry said: “We need to go step-by-step and see what in fact might be a reality, but I would not rule out anything that would be constructive in providing real stability.” There is a good chance of open cooperation between the two governments and militaries, he suggested.

“We're open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and ability of the government to reform,” Kerry added in the interview, apparently oblivious to the cruel irony — and perhaps ridiculousness or even criminality — of the unfolding U.S. foreign policy disaster in the Middle East. After Kerry’s comments, a Pentagon spokesman was quick to deny that there are plans in place to work with Iran on Iraq.

Last week, though, despite recent official reports suggesting that Iranian authorities have been backing Shiite militias in Iraq and undermining U.S. government goals, a State Department spokesperson claimed the Obama administration and the dictatorship in Iran “certainly have a shared interest” in fighting ISIS. Even if the administration does not directly cooperate with the Iranian and Syrian regimes, they will still presumably be on the same side in the Iraqi conflict. According to news reports, semi-official discussions between the Obama administration and Iranian officials actually took place on the sidelines of a nuclear summit in Vienna.

The U.S. government, Kerry continued in the Yahoo interview, is “open to any constructive process here that would minimize the violence, hold Iraq together, and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart.” Of course, no mention was made of the fact that those “outside terrorist forces” were benefiting from U.S. arms and funding across the border in Syria despite Obama’s pledge to only support “moderate” jihadists. Obama is also apparently looking at “every option that is available” in Iraq, including possible drone strikes, Kerry added. Not intervening in foreign quarrels, as the Founding Fathers advised, appears to be off the table at this point.

Even some neoconservative Republicans who have been banging the war drums against Iran for years — largely the same group of RINO warmongers that backed Obama’s arming and funding of the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian “rebels” now overrunning Iraq — were busy pushing for an alliance with Tehran. Speaking on CNN, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the top anti-constitutional warmongers in a Congress that is packed with them, compared working with Iran in Iraq to disastrous U.S. government support for communist mass-murderer Joseph Stalin in World War II. The ruthless despot in Moscow “was not as bad as Hitler,” Graham claimed without explaining his calculus. Of course, the U.S. government’s building of the Soviet war machine directly contributed to the enslavement of billions of people and the extermination of at least a hundred million — probably many more. “The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn't fall,” Graham opined.

On the other hand, neocon Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), who appears to have a bizarre soft spot for the Sunni jihadists in Libya and Syria, disagreed with forming an alliance with Iran to fight ISIS. Among other concerns, he pointed to the Iranian regime’s support for Shia jihadists and its ties to various forces fighting on behalf of Syrian “President” Assad. In contrast with arguments pushed by Graham and the Obama administration, McCain claimed that the U.S. government’s interests did not “align” with the Iranian regime’s in this case. With the Republican neocon faction at odds with each other over what to do, it appears that the globalist foreign policy establishment has at least in some sense lost control over the fruits of its never-ending foreign interventionism — unless chaos and death was the desired outcome.

Among non-interventionists, however, the ongoing tragedies across the Middle East, resulting in large part from U.S. government meddling, offered more evidence that Washington, D.C., should mind its own business. Former presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who now serves as chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, suggested that the U.S. government should stay out of the latest conflict rather than aid one side — or even both. “We have a choice: Should we work real hard to preserve a government [in Iraq] that may become a very, very close ally with Iran, or should we throw our support with al-Qaida, which we have done in the past?” asked Paul, a major figure in the growing non-interventionist movement. “I don’t want to pick between the two.”
............................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-terror-regime

**bsteadman** · 06-18-2014, 12:24 AM

The stage is being set for World War III

Canada Free Press
Doug Hagmann
6/17/2014

Excerpt:

Today, every American, everyone in the West needs to step away from their backyard barbeques and pool parties and pay close attention, look long and hard at what is being engineered in Iraq, for life as we know it will soon change. For Americans, Iraq is a half a world away. For others, it much closer. For everyone, though, it’s soon to become very personal for all of us.

America, the West and the world is bearing witness to one of the most significant geopolitical events of the last century taking place in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. But few fully understand the enormity of what they are seeing. Even fewer understand the big picture or thinking big enough, as all is not what it appears. We are witnessing the second act of the play about which I’ve previously written, which is the setting of the stage for World War III. Our world as we know it will soon change, and no one will be left untouched by the events that have been orchestrated by the globalist screenwriters and directors.

The average American sees sudden, unexpected chaos, death and destruction in Iraq. Elected leaders, the corporate media and cheerleaders of partisan politics are presenting these events as unfortunate and unforeseeable, or even worse, a consequence of the alleged incompetence by the Renegade-in-Chief and his determined band of outlaws. They are, however, neither based on incompetence nor were they unforeseeable. Rather, we are watching the opening scene of “Act Two,” which is the final cast placement in the run up to World War III as was always intended and long in the making, separated only by a brief intermission due to the public exposure of Benghazi.

Briefly, the first part of the latest play taking place on the global stage began with the fictional tale of the Arab Spring, which was supposedly a spontaneous uprising by freedom fighters against oppressive tyrants. It was neither spontaneous nor engineered at the hands of lovers of freedom. It was a Western intelligence operation designed to change the balance of power for future events, future acts of the play on the world stage. An important act of the play involved Libya and the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, as I detailed in my August 3, 2013 column titled Unmasking the Embassy Threat.

In my earlier column of October 8, 2012 titled Lemmings…At the precipice of WW III, I warned that “we are at the precipice of global conflict, WW III. The killing of Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Libya was merely the prelude, like the opening scenes in a Bond film, but we haven’t yet grasped how it relates to the rest of the script. During the ‘Arab Spring’ we thought we were seeing trailers for several different films before the main attraction, but little did we know how seamlessly the various clips all tie together at the end. The show has already started.” We are now well into the opening act after intermission.

As I wrote, “If the script proceeds as written, the entire geopolitical world and balance of power could, and most likely will, change with this next curtain call. No one will be left untouched by the coming events.” And now, here we are. Following the last curtain call, we are watching the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a U.S. CIA/DOS backed organization, taking over Iraq with relative ease. Cue the video cameras and audience attention to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad for a flashback to the April 30, 1975 airlift. The march of ISIS will proceed as intended, but it will not stop at Baghdad. They are headed for Syria and have their sights set on removing Bashir al-Assad from power.

The evidence of a Western backed operation

It’s unlikely that you will see the multitudes of new Toyota pick-ups or the NATO/Western military armaments currently in use by the Muslim Brotherhood-backed ISIS on your television screen, as the global power brokers would rather keep those telling images from anyone who might be paying close attention in America. It was the current Secretary of State John Kerry, following the lead of his predecessor Hillary Rodham Clinton, answering to the current Renegade-in-Chief and his globalist handlers, who toured the Middle East in late December of 2013 and gave ISIS the green light to “do what they will” as the U.S. would not interfere. Not only would the U.S. take a step back, we would leave our military hardware and armaments intact for ISIS to conduct their blood sacrifices in typical Wahhabi fashion.

It’s unlikely that the corporate media will expose that the development of ISIS was years in the making, first developing in 2004 as “The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad” (JTJ) and then as al Qaeda in Iraq. In 2006, they changed their name to the Islamic State of Iraq and more recently to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as it is known today.

It’s even more unlikely that you will hear about the financing of ISIS, for it is perhaps the most heavily funded terror organization in the world. Even before ISIS overran Mosul last week and pillaged Iraqi banks of hundreds of millions of dollars,ISIS financial documents that were seized during operations in Iraq disclosed that their net worth before they entered Mosul to be at least $900 million. Where did such robust funding come from? A review of their meticulous financial documentation found that much of the wealth possessed by ISIS came from the oil fields they seized in Eastern Syria earlier this year. Yes, Syria. Now their net worth is now over $2 billion, or some speculate about $200,000 per ISIS terrorist. This is no ragtag, unsupported group of spontaneous and opportunistic terrorists, although the Obama-Hillary-Rice-Benghazi narrative is once again in play, this time in Iraq.

Based on the funding and military assets alone, it should be obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention that ISIS is a creation of Western backed intelligence agencies, spearheaded by the U.S., and funded in part through the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that has its own headquarters based inside our own White House, State Department and CIA.
................................................

View the complete article at:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63822

Announcement

Iraq crisis prompts reconciliation between Iran and the West -- The Independent

Iraq crisis prompts reconciliation between Iran and the West -- The Independent

Comment

Comment