The U.S. Government (with France and a few other U.S. allies) bombs Libya, Syria, etc.; and the U.S. regime refuses to accept any of the resulting refugees — the burdens from which are now breaking the EU, and the EU is sinking in economic competition against America’s international corporations.
America’s corporations remain blithely unscathed by not only the refugees that are breaking up the EU, but also by the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia, Iran, and other allies of governments that the U.S. regime is trying to overthrow in its constant invasions and coups.
The U.S. Government makes proclamations such as “Assad must go!” — but by what right is the U.S. Government involved, at all, in determining whom the leaders in Syria will be? Syria never invaded the U.S. In fact, Syria never invaded anywhere (except, maybe, Israel, in order to respond against Israel’s invasions).
Furthermore, all polling, even by Western pollsters, shows that Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair election in Syria. The U.S. Government claims to support democracy, but does the exact opposite whenever they want to get rid of a Government that is determined to protect that nation’s sovereignty over its own national territory, instead of to yield it to the U.S. regime, or any other foreigners.
The U.S. regime even refuses to provide restitution to Syria for its bombings, and for its arming and training of the jihadists — the fundamentalist Sunni mercenaries recruited from around the world — who are the U.S. regime’s “boots on the ground” trying to overthrow Syria’s Government.
Al Qaeda has led the dozens of jihadist groups that have served as the U.S. regime’s “boots on the ground” to overthrow Assad, but Al Qaeda is good enough to serve the purpose, in the U.S. regime’s view of things.
The U.S. regime says that there will be no restitution to Syria unless Syria accepts being ruled by ‘rebels’ whose leadership is actually being chosen by the U.S. regime’s chief ally, the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family, who already own Saudi Arabia, and who (along with the CIA) have been unsuccessfully trying, ever since 1949, to take over the committedly secular, non-sectarian, nation of Syria.
The U.S. regime, and its allies, have used the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to recruit into Syria the 100,000+ jihadists from around the world to fight to overthrow Syria’s secular Government. Even the BBC’s 13 December 2013 detailed report, “Guide to the Syrian rebels”, made clear that the “Syrian Rebels” were, in fact, overwhelmingly jihadist and largely recruited from abroad.
Even a Tony-Blair-founded anti-Assad NGO’s study concluded that “Sixty per cent of major Syrian rebel groups are Islamist extremists” and yet the Blair outfit still supported the overthrow of Assad (just as Blair had earlier participated in the U.S. regime’s destruction of Iraq).
The fundamentalist-Sunni royal Thani family own Qatar and have been the top international funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, just as the fundamentalist-Sunni royal Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, have been the top funders of Al Qaeda. The main difference between the Sauds and the Thanis has been that whereas the Sauds hate Shia, the Thanis don’t.
Thus, for the Sauds, this is a war against the Shia center, Iran, and not only against Syria. This was a coordinated U.S.-Saud-Thani operation, in which Al Qaeda provided the leadership but the Muslim Brotherhood provided the largest recruiting website. The Obama Administration started planning this operation, under Hillary Clinton, in 2010.
As even the neoconservative (i.e., U.S.-empire advocating) Washington Post reported, on 17 April 2011, from Wikileaks, “It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside [by the Obama Administration] at least through September 2010.”
That article mentioned only “former members of the Muslim Brotherhood,” not the Muslim Brotherhood itself; and no mention was made in it to Al Qaeda, in any form. Then, in 2013, the neoconservative Foreign Policy magazine headlined “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution” and was oblivious regarding the neoconservative Obama Administration’s having planned that, in 2010 (but going back even as far as Obama’s inauguration).
But if Obama wasn’t neocon-enough to suit the magazine’s editors, then Trump certainly should be, because Trump continues Obama’s foreign policies but with an even more hostile thrust against the Sauds’ chief target, which is Iran. Above all, the U.S. alliance’s goal has been for the Saud family’s selected (rabidly anti-Shiite) people to take over and run the Syrian Government.
As Global Security has phrased this matter, “The High Negotiations Committee [which is the group who are negotiating against Assad’s government at the U.S.-sponsored ‘peace’ talks] is a Saudi-backed coalition of Syrian opposition groups. The High Negotiations Committee (HNC) was created in Saudi Arabia in December 2015.”
So, this war has actually been the Sauds’ war to take over Syria. And it actually started in 1949, but the U.S.-backed Muslim-Brotherhood-led “Arab Spring” in 2011 gave the U.S. and its allies the opportunity to culminate it, finally. And Europe receives the fall-out from it. This fall-out has been hurting European corporations, in international competition against U.S. corporations. It’s not only political.
The U.S. regime has continued this thrust, under Obama’s successor. U.S. President Donald Trump demands European corporations to end their business with Shiite Iran (which the Saud family is determined to take over), and to end their business with Russia, which America’s own billionaires themselves are determined to take over, just like the Sauds are determined to take over both Syria and Iran.
America is no actual ally of Europe. The Marshall Plan is long-since finished, and America has been taken over by psychopaths who are Europe’s main enemies, not Europe’s friends. Iran and Russia should be Europe’s allies — they didn’t cause any of Europe’s problems. America did.
America’s intelligence agencies tapped (and probably still tap) the phones of Germany’s Chancellor and practically everybody else, and yet the U.S. regime has the gall to blame Russia for interfering in the political affairs of European countries. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle ‘black’, then what is? If anything, the EU’s sanctions should be against doing business with American firms — not against doing business with Russian firms, or with Iranian firms.
Russia is, itself, a European country, which additionally traverses much of Asia, but America is no European country, at all, and yet now is so brazen as to demand that Europe must do America’s bidding — not only against Russia, but also against the Sauds’ main target, which is Iran (the same main target as Israel’s).
Why are Europeans not asking themselves: Who is Europe’s enemy in all of this — what causesthis refugee-crisis?
It’s not Russia, and it’s not Iran, and it’s not China; it is America — which is the true enemy of them all, and of us all — including even of the American people ourselves, because the U.S. Government no longer actually represents the American people. The U.S. is no longer (if it ever was) a democracy.
On June 30th, the U.S. aristocracy’s New York Times headlined “Bavaria: Affluent, Picturesque — and Angry”, and reported “the new angry center of Europe, the latest battleground for populists eager to bring down both Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and the idea of a liberal Europe itself.”
Their ‘reporter’ (propagandist) interviewed ‘experts’ who condemn Europe’s politicians that are trying to assuage their public’s anger against the EU’s open-door policy regarding this flood of refugees from what is actually, for the most part, the U.S. regime’s (and its allies’) bombings — air-support of the boots-on-the-ground jihadist mercenaries.
The combination of this air-support, and of the jihadists, has been the backbone of the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli effort to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government.
Libya was a similar case, but only friendly toward Russia, not allied with Russia, as both Syria and Iran are.
These are ‘humanitarian’ bombings in order to replace a ‘barbaric’ Government — but with what? With one that would be chosen by the Sauds.
The NYT article says — and I add here key explanatory links:
“This is not about economics,” said Gerald Knaus, the director of the European Stability Initiative, [“The Open Society Institute was a major core funder.”] a Berlin-based think tank. “It is about identity and a very successful populist P.R. machine that is rewriting recent history.”
So: the Times was secretly (and they didn’t include any links to help online readers know who was actually funding their ‘experts’) pumping NATO propaganda as if it were authentic and neutral news-reporting, instead of craven service to the U.S. aristocracy that controls the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance. This is the New York Times, that is “rewriting recent history.”
That’s how they do it — constantly (as ‘news’).
And here is some of that “recent history” the Times is “rewriting” (by simply omitting to so much as even just suggest, but which is essential backgound in order to understand the real history behind this important matter):
House of Commons, Research Paper 01/50, 2 May 2001
“European Security and Defence Policy: Nice and Beyond”
On 7 February 2001 the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, emphasised the ESDP’s [European Security and Defence Policy’s] tie to NATO during a press interview, following his meeting in Washington with US National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. He said:
I have stressed that the European Security Initiative will strengthen the capacity of Europe to contribute to crisis management and therefore is welcome to a Washington that is interested in fairer burden sharing, and that Washington can be confident that Britain will insist that the European Security Initiative is firmly anchored on NATO. We are both determined to see that happen, we are both determined to make sure that the European Security Initiative carries out its promise to strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance.119
Though the Sauds, and also Israel’s aristocracy, are mainly anti-Iran, the U.S. aristocracy are obsessed with their goal of conquering Russia. Since Iran, and Syria, are both allied with Russia, the U.S. regime is trying to overthrow those Russia-allied Governments, before going in for the kill, against Russia itself.
That’s what all of these economic sanctions, and the bombings and the backing of Al Qaeda for overthrowing Syria’s Government, are really all about. Is this what today’s Europeans want their Governments to be doing — and doing it for that reason, the U.S. aristocracy’s reason? Despite the huge harms it is causing to Europeans?
Here’s a debate between, on the one hand a retired CIA official who thinks “Our relationship with Israel causes us war with Muslims,” versus Representatives in Congress who are actually representatives of Israel’s Government and definitely not representatives of the American people.
Both sides in that debate are acceptable to the aristocrats who control the U.S. Government, because neither side argues that the apartheid theocratic Government of Israel is an enemy of the American people, nor that the entire problem of Islamic terrorism is fundamentalist-Sunni, and that only Israel gets hit by terrorism that’s from both Sunnis and Shiites — that Shiites (the U.S. alliance’s targets) are no terrorist threat, at all, to Europeans (nor to Americans) — the “Islamist” threat is actually only from fundamentalist Sunnis, which are the very groups that are allied with America’s aristocracy.
Neither side of the ‘debate’ acknowledges that both the Sauds and Israel (and Israel’s lobbyists represent internationally also the Sauds’ interests) are enemies both of the American people, and of the peoples of Europe. These wars that pour Middle Eastern (and also Ukrainian) refugees into the EU, are inter-aristocratic conflicts reflecting inter-aristocratic competitions; and the publics everywhere suffer enormously from them. The gainers from it are very few.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity
The 21st Century