by Stephen Lendman
Waging war on Syria is prelude to targeting Iran. The road to Tehran runs through Damascus.
It's the Lobby's prime target. It's Israel's. It's America's. First things first. War on Syria rages. Obama plans direct US intervention.
He intends lawless aggression. He decided irrespective of Security Council and/or congressional authorization.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) calls itself "the most influential group on the issue of US-Israel military relations."
It "advocate(s) on behalf of a strong US military, a robust national security policy and a strongU.S security relationship with Israel and other like-minded democracies."
It supports Israeli lawlessness. It backs its regional dominance plans. It endorses war on Palestinians and other Israeli regional enemies.
It wants uncompromised Washington support. It wants it in lockstep with Israeli policy. It's connected to political, military and corporate officials in both countries.
Last April, Michael Makovsky became its new CEO/executive director. He's a former Bush administration official. He was the hawkish Bipartisan Policy Center's (BPC) foreign policy director.
Blaise Misiztal is acting BPC foreign policy director. He and Makovsky target Iran. Last June they headlined "Lessons from Syria for Iran," saying:
America, Britain and France "confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria." Obama drew a "publicly stated red line."
"The lesson learned from Syria is that preventing a nuclear Iran" depends on "actionable" red line enforcement. Doing so requires verifiable "evidentiary standard(s)."
They must be "credible." People must be convinced that crossing the line requires "a response, especially a military one."
Syria is prelude to attacking Iran. America saying "we're not going to accept Iran having a nuclear weapon" lacks teeth. It's "not actionable, verifiable, or credible."
"Poorly designed red lines are difficult to enforce; unenforced red lines erode security."
Last June, Obama hadn't acted directly against Syria. Makovsky and Misztal called not doing so "a teachable moment." They said it's not too late.
Targeting Syria can "draw a new red line that can serve to prevent a nuclear weapons capable Iran," they said.
They stopped short of explaining what they know. Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. Claiming otherwise red herring subterfuge for regime change. Iran's sovereign independence is targeted.
So is Syria's. Fabricated chemical weapons use charges mask Washington's real intention. Israel's supports the same agenda. Its Lobby does as well.
AIPAC's hostile to Syria. It wrongfully blames Assad for insurgent crimes. It claims he supports terrorist groups. It does so maliciously.
Assad stonewalls "international efforts to investigate (his nonexistent) illicit nuclear program," says AIPAC.
On August 29, it headlined "Editorial: Syria Proves Urgency to Stop Iran," saying:
"The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime highlights the danger of allowing the world's most dangerous regimes to possess weapons of mass destruction."
"While Assad has already thrust his country into turmoil and instability, the worst possible outcome for the Middle East would be an Iranian regime equipped with the world's most dangerous weapon."
"An effective Western response to Assad's belligerent use of chemical weapons - and any military action to deter him from using them again - would be jeopardized even further by Syria's dictator operating under the umbrella of a nuclear Iran."
"We cannot allow Assad to operate with the support of his greatest ally in Tehran backed by a nuclear weapons capability."
Iran is AIPAC's prime target. It supports ravaging and destroying Syria. It knows doing so isolates Tehran. It wants its sovereign independence neutralized. It wants it replaced by subservient pro-Western governance.
It wants all regional Israeli rival states eliminated. It supports war as a way to do it. So does the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Its entire history reflects demagoguery and Islamophobia. High-minded mumbo jumbo conceals its odious agenda.
It disseminates pro-Israeli propaganda. It conducts smear campaigns against Israeli critics. It does so under the guise of fighting anti-semitism and supporting human rights equitably.
It menaces world peace. On August 26, it pointed fingers the wrong way. It headlined "Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria 'An Immoral Crime of the First Order,' " saying:
ADL "expressed horror and outrage at the deployment of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, reportedly by the Syrian government, and welcomed the commitment by the United States to hold accountable those responsible for this 'moral obscenity.' "
National director Abe Foxman endorses Israel's militarized occupation harshness. He's silent about its crimes of war, against humanity and genocide.
He's comfortable about Palestinians denied all rights. He considers Arabs inferior. He issued the following statement. It duplicitously expressed "horr(or) and (outrage) at the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria."
He called it "an immoral crime of the first order." He holds Syria responsible for what happened. He does so despite clear evidence of insurgent involvement.
He wrongfully blames Assad for "slaughtering" (his) own citizens. (T)here is no longer any doubt about the brutal and evil nature of Assad and his regime," he said.
"It is a moral imperative that the international community act now to prevent further atrocities in Syria." He left no doubt what he means. He endorses lawless aggression.
He's mindless of the consequences. He doesn't give a damn about how many Arabs die. Israel uber alles alone matters.
Brookings is a corporate financed imperial tool. Its Saban Center is fiercely pro-Israeli. In May 2002, uber Zionist Haim Saban founded it.
On August 27, four contributors headlined "Syria Crisis and Military Action: What Should Be Done, Why and How."
Daniel Byman is Saban's research director. He's a former US government political analyst. He was a 9/11 (coverup) Commission staff member.
Michael Doran is a Saban Middle East Policy senior fellow. He's a former Bush administration National Security Council and Defense Department official.
Salman Shaikh heads Brookings' Doha Center. He's a Saban fellow.
Jeremy Shapiro is Obama's senior advisor to the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia. He's a visiting Brookings Foreign Policy fellow.
According to Byman:
"A limited bombing campaign against Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure is likely to produce the worst of all worlds."
Doing so won't "significantly (alter) the balance of forces on the ground."
"So even if the United States is able to stop Syria from using chemical weapons this will save few Syrian lives. The war will continue unabated."
If Assad retains power, "it would heighten American weakness."
Byman urges greater US intervention. "Changes on the ground, not limited air strikes, are what will make Assad's regime more likely to fall," he said.
Doran called token bombing "the wrong way to start a war." America "is crab walking into a deep commitment in Syria. To ensure success, the Obama administration must rethink its basic strategy."
"The only way to resolve the conflict is to topple Assad." Failure to do so "will more likely lead to a quagmire."
According to Shaikh:
Intervening in Syria "half-heartedly" won't help. "Doing something" after Assad "use(d) chemical weapons is not enough, especially when it may be seen as doing something so as to avoid doing any more. That would send the wrong signal to Assad."
Shapiro wants Assad's "killing machine" stopped. "The horrific chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21 has only increased the frustration."
"(T)he logic of the administration's implicit admission that US credibility is on the line in Syria implies a steady march toward greater intervention.
Iran is Brookings' prime target. In June 2009, it titled a report "Which Path to Persia?" Byman and four other Brookings staffers contributed. They included:
Martin Indyk: former US ambassador to Israel/Obama Israeli-Palestinian peace talk negotiator.
Kenneth Pollack: former CIA analyst and National Security Council staff member; current Council on Foreign Relations member and Brookings Saban's research director.
Michael O'Hanlon: former Congressional Budget Office national security analyst; current Brookings senior fellow for defense and military policy.
Bruce Riedel: former CIA counterterrorism specialist; former assistant to the President; former senior director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council; current Brookings foreign policy senior fellow.
Suzanne Maloney: former State Department policy advisor; current Brookings foreign policy senior fellow.
They addressed the following options:
• militarily disarming Iran;
• air strikes;
• allowing or encouraging an Israeli attack;
• regime change; and
Their introduction stressed "trouble with Iran." They asked how should America respond? They falsely claimed Iran's well along toward developing nuclear weapons. They provided no verifiable evidence.
They said Iran supports regional "terrorist groups." They claimed "incontrovertible" evidence showing "Iran has aided groups seeking to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain (and arguably Lebanon and Israel as well) at various times."
Again, no verifiable proof was provided. There is none. They made other baseless accusations. They backed them up with no facts.
Brookings contributors are extremely hawkish. They want the Islamic Republic destroyed. They want pro-Western puppet governance replacing it.
They feel the same way about Syria. They're comfortable about lawless aggression to achieve it. So do Haaretz editors disgracefully.
On September 1, they headlined "A military action aimed at proving that Obama is a man of his word."
They accept Obama and Kerry lies about Syria using chemical weapons. "It is impossible not to nod in complete agreement in the face of the moral truths laid out by the secretary of state," they said.
Where was America "when more than 100,000 people died in attacks using conventional weapons on Syrian neighborhoods and cities?"
"Why, for more than two and a half years, when each day and month thousands of people could have been saved, did Washington make do with censures and sanctions?"
"Do the people who die care which weapons were used to kill them?"
"(I)f and when" Obama attacks Syria, his "main purpose will be to prove (he's a man) of his word.."
"(O)nly incidentally (will he) eliminate some of (Syria's) military capability. It will be an operation without a strategy, without a plan that could signal the next phase."
Haaretz editors say Israel's not involved in what's ongoing. In 2013, it targeted Syria multiple times. It did so earlier. It's partnered with Obama's imperial project.
Haaretz editors are on the wrong side of history. They ignore inviolable rule of law principles. They wrongfully blame Assad for insurgent crimes. They do so for Washington's war. They're complicit for not supporting the right thing.
Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy got it right. He headlined " 'Moral superpower?' Give me a break," saying:
"It's impossible to claim that the United States, a country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II in Asia, South America and the Middle East, is driven by moral considerations."
Israel uses toxic and other banned weapons against Palestinian and other enemies. Does America express outrage?
Do Israel or Western nations object about Washington's longstanding use of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons against enemies?
Most Israelis support attacking Syria, said Levy. Are they motivated by concern for ordinary Syrians?
"Strike the Arabs; it doesn't matter why, it just matters how much - a lot," said Levy. "Once again," despite no verifiable evidence, America prepares for war.
Levy cited Syrian nun Sister Agnes-Mariam de la Croix. She's currently in a Jerusalem monastery. She describes things differently from most others.
"There are some 150,000 foreign jihadists in Syria, she says, and they are responsible for most of the atrocities," said Levy.
"The Assad regime is the only one (able to) stop them, and the only thing the world must do is stop the flow of fighters and arms to them," said Sister de la Croix.
"I don't understand what the world wants," she added. "To help Al-Qaida? To establish a jihadist state in Syria?"
Obama's intervention will strengthen them. "That is what the world wants? Another Afghanistan?"
Obama's intention assures "disaster," said Levy. Haaretz editors should read what he says. Perhaps they'd apologize for supporting lawless aggression.
Obama made up his mind. He plans it with or without Security Council and/or congressional approval. It's high time he was held accountable. He committed serious crimes of war and against humanity.
He hasn't had enough. He plans more. Doing so risks embroiling the entire region in conflict. It risks WW III.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.