The CIA continues to collude with radical Islam.

Following a recent “revelation” in the New York Times,  corporation media has finally started to reveal what has been foretold by most with an ounce of honesty and historical knowledge of CIA and Gulf state covert activity in the middle east. That fact is that the CIA, together with intelligence agencies from Gulf autocracies such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, aswell as no doubt many a wealthy donor from the U.A.E. With tacit cooperation and involvement from Turkish and highly likely, UK and French secret services have been directly coordinating, funding, and shipping huge amounts of arms, which are then funneled illegally through Jordanian and Turkish border regions to self ascribed ‘rebels’ in Syria.

US ‘anonymous officials’ have stated that US intelligence officers “helped Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia”. A procurement originally uncovered by blogger Brown Moses and released via the NYT. The NYT article also states that US intelligence officers apparently “vetted” rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons. One thing the report skirts briefly is that US officials state the arms procurement operation has been ongoing since “early 2012”. Two prominent issue arises from this admission, and the fact this report states the Croatian operation, believed to have started in Oct/Nov 2012 was an “increase” in an arms smuggling program that began in at least “early 2012”.

The first issue is what directly correlates with this CIA arms program, and that is a synonymous increase in both civilian casualty and refugee numbers, particularly in the regions that have served as staging grounds for rebel insurgents to enter Syria. The second issue, and what is the most obvious sign of the repeat failure to implement this destructive, age-old strategy with any nuance of responsibility, is who exactly has received the lions share of the weapons? And which groups have been bolstered since the arms program commenced?

Since 2012 numbers of refugees crossing the borders of Turkey and Jordan have increased dramatically, as have casualty numbers in both populated border regions and towns, intense fighting has become a staple of supply routes funneling from Turkey and Jordan into Syria, resulting in mass exodus in regions and the levelling of entire residential blocks in towns and cities close to the borders. One overarching tactic is promoting this outcome, and that is rebel groups using border towns and villages close to CIA/GCC/Turkish “nerve centers” that enable rebels to stage attacks, resupply and receive medical treatment, as staging grounds to attack Syrian government forces. In turn the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) retaliate, often with disproportionate force and have often targeted residential areas, the government claims it is only targeting “terrorists”, but the evidence clearly suggests that the SAA’s targeting isn’t as precise as it claims to be. One must also seriously question the objectives of western-advised rebel forces, that continually set up camp in residential areas, and also continue to attack them.

The second prominent issue of what is now by the US’ own admission at least a 15 month CIA arms program into Syria, is exactly which groups of ‘rebels’ have directly benefitted from these weapons, contrary to State department rhetoric on “non-lethal” aid to “moderate” rebels, the huge rise in Salafi ideologues within the ranks of the militants can no longer be subverted or ignored, this also came to prominence toward the end of 2011. Are these things linked? One theory and obvious advantage to groups becoming or adopting Salafist ideology or branding is to appeal to hardcore Gulf donors. This tactic appears to have paid off, and whether the Syrian protesters yearning for democracy and self-determination who took up arms in early 2011 were intending on allying with Salafist extremists or not, that is certainly the case today, and the Salafist ideology is the one winning the recruitment battle. Mutual cooperation of supposed “moderate” rebel groups with hardcore Salafist battalions in several highly visible and key operations such as Taftanaz and the recent taking of Raqqah show “moderate” forces have no qualms fighting alongside extremistss. Indeed, when the western backed leader of the opposition states “we are all Jahbat al Nusra”, confusion may be excused as to what exactly the “opposition” represents. A secular democracy does not seem high on the agenda.

We learn in Aron Lund’s essay titled “The Rise of the Syrian Islamic Front” in which he documents the main Salafist battalions currently operating in Syria, that in early 2013 eleven Salafist battalions have now formed under the SIF as an umbrella group, Jabhat al Nusra was invited to the party, but declined to join the coalition presumably on the basis of its strict recruitment policies and intolerance of “moderation”. With numbers of fighters estimating in the region of 30,000 fighting for various Salafi dominated rebel groups throughout Syria, Ahrar al Sham and the SIF present a formidable fundamentalist militia.  Ahrar al Sham, is thought to dominate the leadership of the SIF, which for all intents and purposes looks like a Gulf attempt at a front for the Salafi dominated groups to appeal to precious Western benefactors fearful of public reaction to State support for what are supposedly “enemies” of the “civilised world”.

This brings us back to the CIA/Gulf weapons, which have not only been seen in several of the groups fighting under the banner of the SIF hands, but also in the hands of US designated terrorist group Jahbat al Nusra. These “coincidences” and the identical footprint of UK/US led strategy of using Gulf funded Salafi/Wahhabi inspired militants in the middle east for 60 years tells us the CIA is tacitly arming, funding and coordinating with Gulf fomented and sponsored extremists all over again. And much to the detriment of the Syrian people. The US, under its self-serving strategic objectives is wilfully arming and funding the very same ideologues it claims to be fighting in the never-ending “war on terror”. Recently on the Iraqi Syrian border, when a convoy of Iraqi army vehicles escorting 48 Syrian soldiers back into Syria was ambushed and all aboard (including Iraqi army escorts) were killed the US State department felt obliged to call it a terrorist attack. This attack was undertaken by the group “The Islamic State of Iraq”, which has direct links to Al Qaeda in Iraq, of which Jabhat al Nusra is an offshoot, who just happen to cooperate with Ahrar al Sham inside Syria. The links between Salafi groups the CIA/GCC are supporting and groups the US itself deems terrorists are once again obvious. The blatant hypocrisy and moral expediency being displayed here is a continuation of western policy in the middle east for the last 60 years. Namely, using Gulf sponsorship and propagation of extremist ideology as a tool to foment radical opposition to enemy govts and in turn undermine and subvert, ideally remove regimes or governments out of the wests (and therefore the GCC’s) sphere of influence.

So, we can now safely assume that western intelligence agencies are once again allowing their Gulf client states to arm Salafist inspired militants to wage war to meet their strategic goals, either that or the CIA “vetting program” was a complete 100% failure, (which hasn’t been rectified or altered in a year, only increased). The type of militants both the KSA and Qatar have been proven to fund and sponsor, and the inevitable power these groups will demand in any post-Assad Syria, along with the intolerant and often extremist policies and ideologies promoted in their respective states do not bode well for the people of Syria.

Media hypocrisy on Israel.

Having read the recents reports on the bogus nature of the recent IAEA “intelligence” leaked to the Associated Press and subsequently reported in exclusive and “big story” nature regarding Irans nuclear program, it is becoming quite apparent that the source of the now ridiculed piece of “intelligence”, the now infamous nuclear graph is not being scrutinised.

Diplomatic Editor Julian Borgers recent report in the Guardian titled- “Israel suspected over Iran nuclear programme inquiry leaks”  is a fine example, and this coming from our supposed left-wing press, the header Screen-shot-2012-11-30-at-11.57.04-AM1insinuates there may be some information as to exactly how or why Israel is leaking such information, but, as with the vast majority of western media it does nothing of the sort and uses the report as another outlet to misinform and subvert the major issues at hand. Instead of enlightening the reader as to what Israel would be doing with a part of a confidential IAEA report we are fed the usual “unamed western diplomat” quotes and falsehoods, from the report…

There is widespread belief among western governments, Russia, China and most independent experts that evidence is substantial for an Iranian nuclear weapons programme until 2003. There is far less consensus on what activities, if any, have been carried out since. The IAEA inquiry has so far not found a “smoking gun”.

Of course anyone with a basic understanding of the IAEA and Iran will know this is a completely false statement, in both the 2007 and 2011 IAEA reports there was no sufficient evidence found to suggest Iran are developing nuclear weapons, why Borger decides to include consensus from before 2003 is anybodys guess, and is most likely used as another irrelevant bit of propaganda8, again skewing the facts and evidence to support the western narrative. Both the CIA and Mossad have both come to the same conclusion-that Iran is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Yet Borger (and the majority of the western press) decides to concentrate his article on what the IAEA havent  found, as opposed to the international intelligence communities’ consensus (minus Congress and Knesset hawks) that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Let alone addressing the issue the headline suggests. This tells a story of its own, but some important questions arise from the aftermath of the bogus graph, mainly, the negligence from western media in scrutinising and questioning the motives of its source.

1.) Why do Israel have access to IAEA report files? The report being confidential and Israel not being a part of the IAEA or NPT should make any discerning reporter ask this question.

2.) Why is western media so quick to use unverified pieces of intelligence from what are obviously biased sources with an agenda? Especially considering the west’s track record with trumpeting false intelligence that leads us into illegal war’s. Are’nt huge media corporations such as AP supposed to be objective?

3.) Why does our supposed left-wing press spout the same inflammatory falsehoods as Fox News et al with regard to Irans nuclear program?

4.) Why, after opening up their reactors to inspection and co-operating with the IAEA is Iran still under such scrutiny? Particularly from western media. When Israel’s nuclear program-now a foregone conclusion is not even up for debate.

5.) Why does Israel have the right to dictate to neighboring states when it continues to hide its own nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT or join the Arab nations in the (MENWFZ)? Not to mention its continued oppression and occupation of the people of Palestine, multiple invasions in the region and continuing aggressive threats to several neighbouring states.

6.) Why do western people consider Iran as hostile? It hasnt invaded another state for over 200 years, lets not get into invasion comparisons. The west and its allies dont come close.

The answer to the last question can mainly be found in the article i refer to, but Borger and many other media outlets have failed to address any of the other pertinent questions. The continual mis-information on Iran’s nuclear program and IAEA reports is becoming more and more apparent to those of us that scrutinise our press. In the corporate MSM it has been so for quite some time, but i feel a distinct ratcheting up of the rhetoric and corresponding “news” here in the UK and a complete lack of attempt at objectivity even within our left-wing newspapers. Continual mainstream support for Israel in the recent Gaza crisis-regardless of evidence and civilian suffering. Lack of any criticism for its nuclear program-completely hidden from the world and the IAEA, censorship of dissidence and protest at Israels actions is all proof of the lobbying and inter-governmental power they hold not only in the US but within UK establishment, its media lackeys be they left or right are only happy to oblige in its continuing parrotting of “unnamed diplomatic sources”, unverified leaked intelligence a.k.a. propaganda and demonisation of Iran.

Nobel Peace Sanctions?

The continuing rhetoric and relentless warmongering from western diplomats continues, amidst the barrage of talk and media propaganda of an imminent “crisis” comes one critical element for the civilian population of Iran. US led sanctions have undoubtedly led to the downfall of the Iranian economy, and as recent history has proven it will be the civilian population that bears the brunt. Western diplomats predict Iran’s foreign exchange reserves will run dry in six months to a year, making it impossible for the country to import or export goods and run its public services. Today it was reported in the Guardian that the head of the charity Foundation for Special Diseases has warned of a serious shortage of vital medicines, for diseases such as haemophilia, multiple sclerosis and cancer. Earlier this month Ban Ki Moon the UN secretary-general had warned in a report that “The sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran have had significant effects on the general population, including an escalation in inflation, a rise in commodities and energy costs, an increase in the rate of unemployment and a shortage of necessary items, including medicine,”. The EU, fresh from winning the Nobel Peace Prize last week don’t appear to be listening with British Foreign Secretary William Hague announcing further escalation to the crippling sanctions.

The aim of the increasingly harsh sanctions are supposedly to curb the Iranian regimes attempts to enrich uranium for the purpose of nuclear warheads. The IAEA in its reports and findings from its inspections at nuclear facilities in Iran have not found any strong evidence to suggest the regime is trying to develop nuclear warheads, the vast majority of any circumstantial evidence has been provided by the US and vehemently denied by Iran. It must also be noted that Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which its nuclear armed US ally neighbour Israel is not, whilst openly admitting they have hundreds of nuclear warheads, again with the tacit approval of the US administration.

Both CIA and Mossad officials have stated their belief that Iran is yet to make a decision on building a nuclear weapon and have considerably scaled back enrichment since 2003, yet three of the four non signatory nuclear armed states, India, Pakistan and Israel  have been unimpeded in developing nuclear arms with the financial and logistical backing of the US.

An example of the human suffering sanctions can cause is not hard to find, the statistics on the sanctions imposed on Iraq prior to the US led Iraq war bear grim reading. In a report by Christian Aid on the Iraq sanctions in 1998 read –“The policy of sanctions has also been used to pursue political goals — for example, the removal of the Iraqi regime — beyond the overt scope of Resolution 687, which contained no prescriptions regarding Iraq’s form of government or the conduct of domestic policy. The Iraqi population’s economic and social rights have been seriously infringed by the impact of a prolonged embargo. In an authoritarian state which continued to hold most of the levers of control, much of the burden caused by the embargo fell on the civilian population.” the report went on to state-“The longer-term damage to the fabric of society has yet to be assessed but economic disruption has already led to heightened levels of crime, corruption and violence.” During the period of sanctions from 1991 to 1998 it is estimated by UNICEF that up to a million people died during the period as a direct result of the sanctions, half of them being children.

Estimates of deaths due to sanctions

Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered. A short listing of estimates follows:

  • Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). “[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago.”
  • Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: “Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under” as of 1998.
  • “probably … 170,000 children”, Project on Defense Alternatives, “The Wages of War”, 20. October 2003
  • 350,000 excess deaths among children “even using conservative estimates”, Slate Explainer, “Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?”, 9. October 2001.
  • Economist Michael Spagat: “very likely to be [less than] than half a million children” because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of “anything resembling a controlled experiment”, and “one potential explanation” for the statistics showing a decline in child mortality was that “they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government.”
  • Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor … cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period” for sanctions-related excess deaths.
  • Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children. A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding “much lower … mortality rates … for unknown reasons.”
  • Iraq expert Amatzia Baram compared the country’s population growth rates over several censuses and found there to be almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent), and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent), suggesting a much lower total.

The effect of sanctions on civilian populations is quite obviously catastrophic, and many believe this is the ultimate outcome in the hope that civilian suffering will foresee a regime change. It has been proven to have the opposite effect, whatever money remains in a sanctioned state will still be held by the regime, the public will just see less of it, as is being seen now in Iran. The sanctions have also increased anti-US sentiment among the civilian population who feel they are the ones being punished for the regimes alleged crimes. The outcome will be a much weaker Iran, which is no doubt the aim whatever the consequence to civilian life. A weaker Iran will principally be an easier target for the US/Israel to attack in the future, and then the civilian population will have even less of a chance of survival, once again civilian life is used as a pawn in the race to control natural resources in the middle east.