Corporate-financier interests driving US foreign policy have long ago conspired to use Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremist forces to create a Pan-Arabian mercenary force with which to fight their enemies. Warned about in 2007 in a prophetic 9-page report by veteran journalist, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh, then exposed through documented evidence over the course of the past four years, and now incontrovertibly unfolding before the world’s eyes, this criminal conspiracy against world peace and all of humanity can be seen in its full, horrific form.
The war special interests in the United States along with its co-conspirators plan to wage across the planet encompasses not only the Middle East and North Africa, but also Russia, China, and beyond. It threatens the lives, peace, and prosperity of all on Earth. If it is not exposed, and the special interests driving it not undermined, uprooted, and purged from humanity, none will escape the dark days that inevitably lie ahead.
The Unheeded Warning
It was in 2007, in the New Yorker, that veteran journalist Seymour Hersh published his lengthy, prophetic report, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” Within it, Washington, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv were exposed amidst a criminal conspiracy to use sectarian extremists in a proxy war against Iran and its allies in Syria and Lebanon. The impending conflict was described as “cataclysmic.”
The report stated explicitly that (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
And because the conspiracy was exposed during the administration of US President George W. Bush, attempts by the establishment to compartmentalize current, and increasingly more obvious support by the US of Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” by characterizing it as a misstep or even “treason” by the administration of US President Barack Obama, is merely a political ploy. It is clear that instead, the policy and its execution across two supposedly diametrically opposed political parties, is an example of “continuity of agenda.”
And while the political “right” in the United States in particular feigns outrage and suspicion over the Obama administration’s ties and support for sectarian extremist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood and factions with direct ties to Al Qaeda, it was exposed in Hersh’s 2007 article that the Bush administration had in fact initiated this support. Obama keeping the Oval Office’s chair warm while this policy continues.
Hersh’s report would state:
There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.
[Walid] Jumblatt said he understood that the issue was a sensitive one for the White House. “I told Cheney that some people in the Arab world, mainly the Egyptians”—whose moderate Sunni leadership has been fighting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for decades—“won’t like it if the United States helps the Brotherhood. But if you don’t take on Syria we will be face to face in Lebanon with Hezbollah in a long fight, and one we might not win.”
This support would manifest itself both in Egypt and Syria, where the Muslim Brotherhood, its political networks, and armed groups built within them, served as the foundation of unrest and violence that took place under the cover of regional US-engineered political subversion often referred to as the “Arab Spring.” In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would succeed temporarily in seizing power. In Syria, the Brotherhood would trigger violence and eventually devastating, protracted war.Perhaps throughout Hersh’s 9-page report, the most sobering warning came from a former CIA agent in Lebanon. Hersh’s report would state:
Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites.
And this is precisely what is now unfolding all across the Middle East and North Africa. A cataclysmic conflict driven by sectarian extremists waging war on minority groups across the region, with only Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah left to defend them – and with the United States and its allies doing everything imaginable to stop them from doing so.
Clearly the “French and the United States,” cannot reprise their role as protectors of the region’s minorities, since they have openly thrown in their lot – as predicted by Hersh in 2007 and as is evident today – with Al Qaeda and ISIS.
ISIS is Al Qaeda – And America is Backing them Both
Attempts to compartmentalize political responsibility for the rise and perpetuation of extremists across the Arab World is not the only game being played by Western special interests. They have also attempted to compartmentalize the extremists themselves.
In Syria, Al Qaeda in the form of Jabhat al-Nusra, has been the prevailing armed faction throughout the conflict, beginning in 2011. This isn’t according to the Syrian government and “Bashar al Assad’s propaganda,” this is according to the US State Department itself which listed them as a foreign terrorist organization in 2012. In their official statement, “Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq,” they reported:
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes. AQI emir Abu Du’a is in control of both AQI and al-Nusrah. Abu Du’a was designated by the State Department under E.O. 13224 on October 3, 2011, and by the United Nations under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on October 5, 2011. Abu Du’a also issues strategic guidance to al-Nusrah’s emir, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, and tasked him to begin operations in Syria.
For readers who may have believed the US State Department’s claims that “al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes,” they may be shocked to discover that now, apparently, al-Nusra is considered by the US and its allies among the “legitimate Syrian opposition.”
In order to make this possible, Nusra is carrying out a public relations campaign with the aid of American and European media monopolies – including Reuters who in their report titled, “Insight – Syria’s Nusra Front may leave Qaeda to form new entity,” would claim:
Leaders of Syria’s Nusra Front are considering cutting their links with al Qaeda to form a new entity backed by some Gulf states trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad, sources said.
Sources within and close to Nusra said that Qatar, which enjoys good relations with the group, is encouraging the group to go ahead with the move, which would give Nusra a boost in funding.
Of course, Nusra is already harbored, aided, armed, and abetted by NATO, using NATO territory in Turkey as a base of operations. And while Reuters attempts to portray Nusra as “the enemy of our enemy,” claiming the rebranding and boost in funding would help them fight the “Islamic State,” by all accounts Nusra and ISIS are already one in the same.
What’s worse is that this trick of portraying Al Qaeda as a bifurcated movement at odds with itself to compartmentalize and use the same organization for multiple, and at times, opposing objectives, was
already seen during the US occupation of Iraq.
The New York Times in its article, “Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says,” would admit:
Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.
The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.
The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.
Indeed, the “Islamic State in Iraq” was fictional. It was Al Qaeda all along, just like the “Islamic State in Syria and Iraq” or “ISIS” is also fictional, a functionary of Al Qaeda and the foreign interests sponsoring it.The reality of this couldn’t be illustrated any more perfectly than with the case of Libyan terrorist Abdelhakim Belhadj. Having been a member of the “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” or LIFG for decades, he would literally travel to Afghanistan where he would fight American soldiers in the wake of 9/11. He was even captured and enrolled in the United States’ infamous “rendition program.” Upon release from prison in Libya, he would promptly organize and lead armed rebellion against the government Muammar Qaddafi, with extensive NATO arms, cash, and even air cover. A 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report examining the demographics of foreign fighters caught in Iraq fighting then occupying US troops would reveal that the NATO-backed rebels in Libya led by Belhaj were in fact fighters drawn from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed by both the US State Department and UK Home Office as a foreign terrorist organization.
In essence then, the United States and its NATO partners knowingly and willfully handed the nation of Libya and its people over to Al Qaeda. Despite Belhaj’s documented terrorist past and present, US politicians would meet with him, showering upon him accolades, praise, and continued political and military support. Among these politicians were US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who met and literally shook Belhaj’s hand while standing upon the ruins of Libya.
That McCain and Graham are both Republicans supporting terrorism, alongside a Democrat US President also allegedly supporting terrorism, illustrates perfectly that special interests own and control both sides of the political aisle, using opposing rhetoric to appeal members on either side, while both sides carry forward the exact same agenda.
More recently, US news sources claimed Belhaj was now leading Libya’s branch of ISIS. The Washington Times would report in an article titled, “U.S. backed rebel reportedly leads Islamic State in Libya,” that:
Major news out of Libya as Abdelhakim Belhadj, the former head of the al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and a major player in the U.S.-backed overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi, has reportedly joined the Islamic State and is leading its forces there. This according to The Blaze National Security journalist Sara Carter on Twitter, and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge in a Fox News report.
Western news sources had reported as early as November of last year that many of the so-called “rebels” in Libya had begun forming under the banner of ISIS. CNN in an article titled, “ISIS comes to Libya,” claimed:
The black flag of ISIS flies over government buildings. Police cars carry the group’s insignia. The local football stadium is used for public executions. A town in Syria or Iraq? No. A city on the coast of the Mediterranean, in Libya.
Fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are now in complete control of the city of Derna, population of about 100,000, not far from the Egyptian border and just about 200 miles from the southern shores of the European Union.
The fighters are taking advantage of political chaos to rapidly expand their presence westwards along the coast, Libyan sources tell CNN.
This means that US politicians served a direct role in propping up ISIS in Libya, whether they claim it was incidental rather than intentional – a cautionary tale to be told as these very same politicians attempt a repeat performance in Syria and beyond.
The rebranding of NATO’s terrorist proxies in Libya and attempts to literally back and arm Al Qaeda’s Nusra front in Syria portend an impending conflict of a scale yet to be seen – one involving Libya’s neighbor Egypt, and Syria’s neighbor, Iran.
The “Cataclysmic Conflict” Yet to Come
Egypt narrowly escaped subjugation by the West through the very same Muslim Brotherhood networks used to destabilize and destroy Syria. After initially bending to the sociopolitical currents unleashed by the 2011 “Arab Spring,” the Egyptian military sprung back, ejecting the Muslim Brotherhood from power amid a military coup.
Egypt’s new military-led government moved with merciless lighting speed in suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood domestically. Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members, including leaders have been rounded up, tried, and sentenced to death. The military-led government has exhibited zero tolerance both for militant groups within their borders, and street demonstrations agitated by US NGOs and used for cover behind which militants operate.
All of this was carried out, as drastic as many of the measures may seem, with the intention of sparing Egypt the same protracted conflict Syria is now suffering.
The failure of the West’s “Arab Spring” putsch with the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its subsequent inability to stoke sufficient unrest from within Egypt’s borders has led to the sudden and convenient conjuring of ISIS in neighboring Libya. Already, heinous acts of barbarity have been carried out against Egyptian citizens residing in Libya for the sole purpose of stoking sectarian flames within Egypt’s borders.
Egypt has responded by supporting military factions in Libya fighting Belhaj’s sectarian extremists, now operating under the banner of ISIS. Egypt has also conducted airstrikes on Libyan territory itself. As NATO’s proxies commit to ever bolder acts of provocation, the conflict is set only to expand.
What is to come, and the purpose of unveiling ISIS in Libya, is a torrent of terrorism and militancy, backed by NATO, aimed directly at the Egyptian military and – if possible – into the heart of Egypt itself.
Egypt, with a population of over 80 million people, if made to suffer the same sort of protracted conflict Syria is now suffering at the hands of Western backed terrorists, would cost an immeasurable loss in life and destabilize not only both North Africa and the Middle East – across which Egypt’s sphere of influence lies – but also endanger international shipping through the Suez Canal and threaten Europe with an influx of refugees fleeing what would be a war zone of unprecedented modern day dimensions.
Either as part of a strategy to destabilize and destroy Egypt, or to excise from Cairo geopolitical concessions including the abandonment of Syria as well as Egypt’s backing amid increasing hostilities toward Iran, the West’s use of ISIS in Libya is yet another manifestation of what veteran journalist Seymour Hersh warned about in his 2007 report.
ISIS will form the foundation of a regional mercenary force aimed conveniently at the hearts of each and every one of Wall Street and Washington’s enemies, while suspiciously, ISIS spares all of the West’s allies.
The ongoing violence in Libya and Syria is only the beginning. Should Egypt and Iran be mired in the same widespread violence, fueled by billions upon billions in cash, equipment, and weapons flowing from all corners of the Earth into the region, the “cataclysmic conflict” warned about in 2007 will finally come to pass.
It will not end in the Middle East. If successful in establishing hegemony there, the chaos will spread to all corners of the globe. First to southern Russia and western China, then beyond. The question of whether or not one will eventually be affected by this conflict is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
Uprooting the Conspirators
This is not “Obama’s” war. Nor is this a “Republican” or “Neo-Con” war. This is a war for global hegemony waged by the corporations, banks, and institutions upon Wall Street and in Washington that transcend elections and own parties on all sides and in all corners of the current, prevailing political paradigm. Appealing to a political party controlled by these interests is the very definition of futile.
In order to undermine and uproot these special interests, these corporations, banks, and institutions must be replaced by local alternatives – on a national level around the planet, and on a provincial, state, and local level within each nation.
It is not merely “Walmart,” “Pepsi,” or “Exxon” themselves as corporations, but rather the concentration of power, wealth, and influence these corporations collectively represent. Often it is the same board members and financial interests holding stakes in each corporation, and it is this handful of shareholders that in turn, fund policy think tanks behind policy papers engineering wars of aggression, including the current proxy war being waged through “ISIS” and “Al Qaeda.”
Decentralizing these vast monopolies through the creation and proliferation of local alternatives will systematically undermine their capacity to wield the unwarranted power and influence they currently enjoy. Whether it is decentralizing big-retail, big-telecom, big-pharma, or big-auto in general, or targeting specific monopolies like Facebook, there are already people working around the world to make this happen and simply need more people to leave the perpetual distractions and diversions of global politics, and begin paying into localization.
The alternative media has already proven the power of people turning from consumers and into producers, and the redistribution and balance of power and influence it creates. Imagine tackling all monopolies in a similar manner.
While the conflicts ravaging the Middle East and North Africa seem “remote,” the fact that similar chaos is now being sown by NATO on the doorstep of Europe in Ukraine, means that if left unchallenged, it is only a matter of time before these conflicts affect everyone directly, no matter where one lives. Rather than organizing protests or taking up arms in an impossible, fictional future battle against tyranny, decentralizing massive monopolies globally, and building up our communities locally is something we can begin doing today – with something as simple as planting a garden to first reduce our dependency on big-agriculture. In the near future, these activities could become profitable, and before that, certainly satisfying and constructive.
We have nothing to lose by trying, and everything to lose if we don’t.