“CREATING INSECURITY”

How will neoconservatives and their Zionist allies push the Trump Administration to create instability in the Persian Gulf as a door to aggression against Iran?

By Charles H. Slim

None of the movements that the US has made in the Middle East has been improvised. Each and every one of them has been planned at least thirty years in advance and in each of them the interest of Tel Aviv has been involved. An excuse was needed and suddenly there was one adjusted to the needs of the moment; all very convenient! The plans to destabilize Syria come from 1983 in full administration of Ronald Reagan and the dismantling of Iraq undoubtedly became apparent from the moment that the Islamic revolution occurred in Iran in 1979 (in the middle of the Jimmy Carter administration). Simply, the "Establishment" of Washington never had a sincere and transparent policy with Arab and Islamic governments and those who believed them in their good auspices fell under a stab. Contemporary history accounts for it.

The US was never an impartial third party in the Arab-Israeli conflict, although this had already been denounced since the early 1980s, when, while mediating to carry out the Camp David agreements, it sent substantial military and economic aid to Israel. Even their actions (naval bombardment of Syrian facilities) against Lebanon in 1983 were more aimed at improving the situation of Israelis in the region than responding to Washington's exclusive interests. At that time some clueless in the Pentagon were questioning: What are we doing there?

If it is true that this was a response to the blasting of the Marines barracks in Beirut that forced the American withdrawal, but it was certainly not the only excuse. Although Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made sincere efforts to establish true ties for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, other dark currents moved in the opposite direction below the same White House that were led by the malicious security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

For Vance, that was like paddling against the current and his efforts to solve a regional problem that maintained instability without a continuity solution and that really worried Jimmy Carter, seemed to fall into nothingness. The truth was that everything Carter had done Reagan and his "Falcons" threw it away.

Those actions justified by the then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger caused many civilian casualties but the control of the press and the ideological loyalty of the companies that made it up, ensured - as expected - silence or in the worst case the contempt and the relativization of those consequences.

In the same 1983, while the White House emissary Donald Rumsfeld visited Damascus, the CIA was already taking the first steps to destabilize the Syrian Arab Republic which, under the Hafez Al Assad government, represented one of the most dangerous rivals for stability From Israel. The same position was taken secretly with Iraq and plans to destabilize it accelerated with the 1990 crisis when Israel saw the golden opportunity to definitively overthrow the Arab country. Here too, Rumsfeld played the role of the White House emissary, bringing Saddam Hussein the promise of military aid to curb Iran.

From there, Iraq would have chemical weapons provided by American and European laboratories which it would use against Iranians and Kurds not only for possessing them but also, because the White House gave its approval. But when Hussein stopped being useful, they simply cooled relations.

Here Washington under the blind and despite the strong role he played with Saddam Hussein's government to try to end the Iranian revolution, he decided it was time to get rid of him and his potential in the region. Ronald Reagan's containment policy had expired. The USSR was no longer a strategic threat and therefore, the gigantic Iraqi army that strikes the clarification was not needed, it bothered Israel.

The crisis between Kuwait and Iraq in 1990 was no accident. That was followed closely by the Americans, so much so that the CIA manipulated the parties and made sure that the Jeddah talks failed. Next step, I manipulate the United Nations and after assuring the failure of any type of negotiation I create an “armed Coalition” that served to cover an interventionist military offensive made up of resolutions of the organism.

Plans to disrupt Syria had to be postponed and efforts centered on Iraq that after two catastrophic wars and its invasion in 2003 was reduced to a failed state. The plans for Syria were retaken by the massive agitation operation in North Africa in 2010 that culminated in the destruction of Libya, another feared enemy of Israel and an annoying cousin of the Gulf monarchs.

Today it is Iran's turn although it is true to mention it, attempts to disrupt it come from the very assumption of Ayatollah Khomeini. But the last ten years until this part the attempts have become more cruel and shameless, and the dirty hand of Israeli intelligence and its western colleagues has been proven in several of these events. The nuclear issue and the development of missiles were central to the excuses for establishing policies of political and economic destabilization, thereby skipping all known international legislation.

Although Tehran demonstrated its willingness to defuse the nuclear situation by signing a memorandum with President Barak Obama called "Joint Comprehensive Action Plan" JCPOA, Trump under the influence of the American Zionist Lobby that reports directly to Tel Aviv, I finish without consultation. It was the sign of the irreducible Israeli influence in the White House and its desperation to try to corner the Iranians so that they no longer have the inescapable political and military influence that hinders their expansionist ambitions in the region.

Iran has put an end to Washington's claims by demonstrating that the concerns they claim from there are not sincere since if they were sincerely concerned about nuclear proliferation in the region they have not taken a single measure against Israel's nuclear arsenal.

As it has been seen throughout the year, attempts to create a Casus Belli against Tehran that involved third countries fell into failures. The sabotages of oil tankers that tried to be enlightened to alleged attacks by the "Iranian Revolutionary Guard", despite the Anglo-Saxon media agitation, failed to move public opinion. The last attempt to recreate an incident that justified a US military intervention was the bombing of the ARAMCO refineries in Saudi Arabia that was initially awarded to the “Hutie” resistance in Yemen and then to a missile launch from Iranian territory. This served as an excuse for Washington to request the cooperation of its European and Arab allies to form a "Coalition" but without finding much enthusiasm and several refusals to participate.

And although the influences of Tel Aviv and Washington on the United Nations are undeniable, they could not avoid the firm opposition of the Russian Federation and China in the Security Council.

This led to the administration of Donald Trump trying a new strategy trying to use the United Nations Charter before an alleged "danger of navigation" through the Strait of Hormuz, forming a new naval Coalition - composed of some of its allies - called “Operation Sentinel” with the presumed purpose of providing security for navigation in the waters of the Persian Gulf that is nothing other than the veiled preparation of future hostile actions. This shows that beyond what types like John Bolton are no longer in the administration does not mean that the neoconservative and Zionist influence does not last on the White House agenda