U.S. is Allied with and actively Supports Al-Qaeda

Iran Review
Interview with: James F. Tracy
By: Kourosh Ziabari

Professor James F. Tracy

American political commentator believes that the United States has been constantly allied with Al-Qaeda and supported it militarily and financially.

"Major media have recently had to acknowledge that US-NATO interests are aligned with Al Qaeda in Syria, of course overlooking the fact that the US and Sunni States also recruited and armed these soldiers of fortune. What the Obama administration has sought to do with the alleged murder of Bin Laden in May 2011 is to close the chapter on the old, villainous Al Qaeda and open a chapter on the new and friendly Al Qaeda. This narrative is slowly unfolding, while Americans are instructed on a different bogey to fear, which now appears to be homegrown terrorism," he said in an exclusive interview with Iran Review.
Prof. James F. Tracy is the Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, where he teaches courses on media history and the role of journalism in the public sphere. Tracy's scholarly work and commentary on media and politics have appeared in numerous academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative media news and opinion outlets. He is editor of Democratic Communiqué, journal of the Union for Democratic Communications, an affiliate of Project Censored, and a regular contributor to GlobalResearch.ca. Tracy's latest work assessing Western press coverage of US-NATO military ventures and the human costs of war appears in Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2013 (Seven Stories Press, 2012).

Prof. Tracy took part in an interview with Iran Review to answer some questions regarding the influence of advocacy organizations on the U.S. government and the mutual relationship between these entities, the further limitation of civil liberties and individual freedoms in the United States, the challenges ahead of progressive, alternative journalism in the United States, Western mainstream media's coverage of Iran and Syria affairs and the prospect of U.S. military expeditions in the Middle East.

Q: What do you think about the role of influential American think tanks and public diplomacy and advocacy organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations or the National Endowment for Democracy in creating unrest and instability in the countries which are opposed to the United States policies? Do you find traces of their footsteps in the ongoing violence in Syria? Do they have plans to destabilize Iran so as to realize their mischievous objective of regime change in Tehran?

A: One can contend that the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Endowment for Democracy are much more than advocacy organizations. The question suggests the popular view that Western states and especially the United States are above such organizations in terms of decision making power and responsiveness to the populations they purportedly serve.

This is the idealization of a transcendent governing apparatus upheld in public opinion and touted in Western mainstream media. This is the myth the CFR specifically perpetuates about itself and the liberal state. In fact, the CFR is a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and it has more or less dictated US foreign policy from within entities such as the US State Department since before World War Two.

This is not to say that every member of the CFR is involved in such maneuvers. Some are in the organization because they're flattered to be asked and they see it as prestigious and fashionable, or they wish to network with other influential figures. Yet it is no mistake that membership is exclusive and participants all occupy strategic positions of power in major global corporations, in academe and the media, and in government, and thus can be mobilized to exert their influence as the CFR inner circle desires. They also openly share in the ideology of weakening the nation state and privileging global-regional and international bodies, such as the European Union and the United Nations.

It is through such organizations that they can get their policies enacted with little if any interference from the common people or their representatives at the national level. The CFR's interests and activities, alongside the interests supported by the major philanthropic foundations such as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundations, and the Gates Foundation, are demonstrable manifestations of the deep state that truly runs the world, has priorities that differ greatly from the bulk of humanity, and has sought to exert itself since the 1920s.

The "Arab Spring" appears to be largely a maneuver of organizations such as the CFR and NED. This was evident from the onset with the high degree of Western media exposure afforded the fairly modest demonstrations 2011 in Tahrir Square that preceded Mubarak's ouster by the Central Intelligence Agency. The same media outlets unquestioningly covered the Western and Sunni-backed deployment of Al Qaeda mercenary forces and NATO airpower against the most modern and socially progressive state on the African continent under the Obama administration's "Responsibility to Protect" cover. A central bank was reportedly created in the back of a mercenary pickup truck. This was a colossal war crime that Western public opinion is left largely in the dark about. It also underscored liberal-progressive hypocrisy and credulousness in the US, evident in the pronouncements of public figures such as Juan Cole and Amy Goodman, who led the cheering section for Libya's destruction. If the Bush administration successfully vanquished the probable leader of the African Union those on the Left would have been in a huff. When one of their purported own oversees such a campaign it's not only condoned but applauded, much like the "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia by Clinton.

As many of your readers are likely aware, Libya is significant because some of the same mercenary forces recruited by US intelligence and Sunni states that were employed there are now deployed in Syria. Like Libya, Syria is also a fairly modern state that is not hostile to the West but is regarded as being autonomous, particularly in its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah. It is also seen as a strategic threat to Israel in terms of Iran, and so must be dismantled before a more concerted campaign against Iran is to take place. I'm inclined to think that those determining policy for the Obama administration want compliant fundamentalist regimes installed throughout the Middle East. This will be disastrous to overall security in the region but I don't believe that's their goal. War is much more profitable and has much greater potential than peace for those who wish to exert control over resources.

Q: In one of your articles, you argue that the United States has become a police state, with such restrictive legislations and programs which the government has put into effect to limit the citizens' personal freedoms and different types of civil liberties, such as the Sedition Act of 1798 which criminalizes the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government and governmental officials. Would you please elaborate more on your notion of the United States becoming a police state?

A: I believe this was "The Paranoid Style of American Governance," where I pointed out that the laws, policies, and organizational structure of the US government, how its exaggerated concern over surveillance and security is arrayed against the American people. The situation is comparable to how an increasingly delusional paranoid might approach human relationships s/he is involved in.  As a result of the 1996 Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act following the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing and the 2001 PATRIOT Act enacted after September 11, 2001 many of the civil liberties Americans have been guaranteed under the Constitution have been stolen, never to return.

Citizens cannot expect to be secure in their persons and papers. We are subjected to humiliating warrantless searches at transportation facilities. As a result of a string of legislation capped off by President Obama's National Defense Authorization Act of December 2011 the government now reserves the right to jail or murder citizens on political grounds. There is little if any recourse because our political representation has to a large degree been bought off by private interests. The US increasingly looks like a totalitarian state and is one major event away from fully resembling the Soviet Union or an Eastern Bloc state circa 1970. The extent of the rollback in civil liberties is very overdone because a majority of Americans are ill-informed, politically unsophisticated, and in many instances even functionally illiterate. Thus they are unaware of the police state's accelerated formation since the mid-1990s and unprepared to contest it. A combined regime of poor public education and the stultifying effects of mass media and culture have dumbed the American public down to the extent that its republic has been taken right out from underneath its nose.

Q: It's widely believed that the United States, as its leaders claim, is a "beacon of freedom" since the mass media are allowed to publish every critical material at will, even if they threaten the national security, in such cases of war with another nation. Is this widely-accepted belief true? Don't the mass media face any restriction or impediment by the government to censor certain stories or withhold from the public sensitive information?

A: The major, agenda-setting US news media—USA Today, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and their broadcast and cablecast amplifiers—that the small strata of semi-politically adept and literate citizens rely on for information are all controlled by interests that are overall supportive of the US police state and US-NATO foreign policy. To return to your initial question, many of the owners or top editors and journalists are also CFR members. Together they perform a central propagandistic function of the state through selective reportage of issues and events, omission of key information, and heavy reliance on "official" government or corporate sources.

Such a set of procedures is worse than outright falsehoods because a falsehood can be disproved and a journalist or news organization called out on the carpet. However, by owning most of the newsgathering and distribution outlets, by using official sources and employing careful editing procedures such media retain credibility in the public mind. In the Soviet Union much of the citizenry knew that by reading Pravda they were being fed outright lies so they learned to "read between the lines" to interpret what was really going on. That requires a degree of political sophistication that is beyond most Americans.

The government and major news media are also being challenged by alternative news media and thus resort to a more blatant form of disinformation that jeopardizes their perceived trustworthiness, which is now at an all-time low. This is the case with their coverage of the US-NATO actions and Libya and Syria—specifically the fact that the US is allied with and actively supporting its alleged arch enemy Al Qaeda.

For over a year corporate media tried to cover this up when it was there in plain view. Alternative outlets reported otherwise and in the face of this mainstream media had to eventually relent and admit that the US is indeed supporting Al Qaeda.

As an example, one case involved a US-based alternative media outlet reporting on the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies collectively purchasing over one billion rounds of lethal, "hollow point" ammunition. Major media sought to assuage growing public concern on this by focusing on a single government agency's (the Social Security Administration) purchase of 180,000 rounds of such ammunition, asserting that it was for target practice. This was absolute propaganda likely pitched to these outlets by covert government sources. It's fairly common knowledge among American gun enthusiasts that "full metal jacket" ammo is used on the range because it's far less expensive than hollow point and performs the same function. Nevertheless, the 180,000 SSA story was widely circulated, performing the intended propaganda function, mainly through conscious omission of the most important information that alternative media honestly chose to highlight.

Another argument that I need to make in light of the world wide expanse of news and information now available on the Internet is that the US citizenry doesn't need to rely primarily on USA Today or New York Times editors for what it is exposed to. This remains the case so long as the Internet remains free from government or corporate encroachment and regulation. In this regard there is a wealth of information for those who have the time, discernment, and initiative to seek it out and become informed. Investigative journalists and commentators have much to draw on in terms of analyzing and explaining the meaning and significance of issues and events. This is essentially what newspapers and journals did before the application of scientific objectivity to journalism and the pretentious separation of news from analysis and opinion.

Q: What challenges do the independent, progressive journalists of the United States face today? In one of your articles, you had criticized some of the progressive media for failing to give coverage to important topics such as the truth about the 9/11 attacks. Would you please elaborate on that? In my view, the progressive media outlets such as CounterPunch or The Nation have to some extent broken apart the monopoly of the mainstream media and allowed the free flow of information while the mainstream media steadfastly try to suffocate the truth. Don't you agree?

Subverting Sanctions: Iran’s Strategic Economic Development

Stop Imperialism
Eric Draitser

The ongoing overt and covert war against Iran, instigated by the United States and Israel primarily, seeks to isolate Iran politically, militarily and, most importantly, economically.  The Western imperialists have as their goal no less than full-scale war with Iran, a key regional power and one that the United States has failed to control or otherwise manipulate since the revolution of 1979.  Their attempts to demonize Iran as an international pariah and an irrational actor on the world stage have been repeatedly thwarted, most recently at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, where two thirds of the world stood alongside Iran in condemning the sanctions imposed by the US and its European allies.  However, Iran’s response to the series of aggressions and provocations by the West is not purely a diplomatic one as evidenced by the summit. Rather, Iran is engaging in a process of economic cooperation and mutual development with powerful regional and international partners – a process which could marry the economic future of Iran with that of other nations – thereby countering the continued attempts at economic strangulation by the West.


The Painful Reality of Sanctions

It is easy to think of the sanctions as a tactic in a political and diplomatic chess game between Washington and Tehran: they undoubtedly are part of such a match.  However, the reality of the sanctions is that they are an economic weapon trained directly at the people of Iran, despite whatever rhetoric may emanate from Washington regarding the targeting of the regime.  In fact, the sanctions are one of the most potent weapons in the imperialist arsenal, used by those in power in their attempt to foment chaos and unrest in Iran and topple the government from within.

In an article entitled “Obama’s Counterproductive New Iran Sanctions” published in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution writes:

The Obama administration’s new sanctions signal the demise of the paradigm that has guided Iran policymaking since the 1979 revolution: the combination of pressure and persuasion…the United States cannot hope to bargain with a country whose economy it  is trying to disrupt and destroy… The White House’s embrace of open-ended pressure means that it has backed itself into a policy of regime change.

The notion that the sanctions are somehow intended to pressure Tehran into coming to the negotiating table and making the necessary concessions is completely fraudulent.  The ruling class in the United States (and Israel) knows full well that sanctions do not work in this capacity. One need only look to recent history for examples of sanctions that crippled nations and destroyed the lives of citizens but had little to no appreciable impact on the rulers – Iraq, Myanmar, etc.  Instead, the sanctions serve as a necessary prelude to either regime change or war.  This policy, aside from being immoral, is a belligerent one, greatly escalating tensions and the possibility of war.

One of the desired effects of the sanctions is the devaluation of the Iranian currency.  The most recent data suggest that the Iranian rial has lost more than half of its value since January, when the sanctions were announced.  This trend has only accelerated since July, when the new sanctions were fully implemented, preventing countries around the world from doing business with the Iranian central bank, a move aimed at destroying the Iranian export economy, particularly oil exports.  In fact, Reuters reported in April that the inflation rate in Iran was hovering around 21.5%.  This was well before the sanctions came into effect in July, after which inflation has increased even more dramatically.

Nowhere are the sanctions more painful than in the oil export market.  According to recent data, Iran’s oil sales in July of 2012 fell to a quarter of sales from July 2011.  In fact, Iran has even admitted that much of the unsold oil is now being stored either in ports or on tankers at sea – a startling revelation that demonstrates quite clearly the difficult economic predicament Iran faces.   Such a significant drop in sales means that state revenues are down, only exacerbating the already difficult economic situation in the country.

However, the sanctions are not intended to cripple merely the commercial economy, they are also designed to erode public confidence in the government and foment unrest.  With the creation of an inflationary crisis, staple foods, medicines, and other basic necessities have become significantly more expensive and in much less supply, naturally generating anger from the Iranian people.  This, combined with the removal of food subsidies at the behest of President Ahmadinejad, has generated a feeling of unease within the general population regarding their economic future which, in turn, has exposed very serious fractures within the political establishment in Tehran.

Despite all of these challenges to its economy and the impact on the population, Iran remains committed to its own mission of independent economic and political development.  The defiance Iran has shown the United States and the imperialist ruling class is rooted in a larger strategy, one that combines economic development with diplomacy, seeking to find an alternative to either continued resistance in isolation or capitulation to the US and Israel.


Energy – Pipelines & Power Lines

The sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union are intended to cripple the Iranian economy by specifically attacking Tehran’s ability to participate in the world oil market. However, it is important to note that the sanctions are not solely directed at actual oil sales but, rather, all the mechanisms necessary for international oil transactions including debt settlement, tanker insurance, and much more.  Indeed, in examining the sanctions in their totality, one begins to see that they are intended to strike at the heart of the Iranian economy and hamper Tehran’s ability to do business of any kind.

Despite all of this, Iran continues to survive economically.  Much of this is due to the fact that Iran has effectively cemented its economic relations with key international actors, particularly India, Pakistan, and China, each of whom has resisted pressure from the United States to scale back their dealings with the Islamic Republic. In fact, Bloomberg recently reported that China has continued to purchase Iranian oil in massive amounts despite the sanctions.  This demonstrates not only that China wants to continue to do business with Iran, but that Iran sees expanded engagement as the only way to ensure their continued economic growth.

In fact, Iran-China trade is booming as many Western companies pull out of Iran due to the sanctions and international pressure. This has left the door open for China to fill the void, having imported more than $45 billion from Iran in 2011. China is not the only international player to increase Iranian oil imports since the embargo.  Countries such as Italy, Japan, and India have also begun to increase their imports of Iranian oil despite the arm-twisting of the US.  These major energy importers view Iran not as a pariah state and threat to world peace as Western demagogy would have one believe.  Rather, they see in Iran the possibility of a long-term strategic and economic ally that, due to political circumstances, could become heavily dependent on them.

Although the energy exports themselves are very significant, it is the delivery infrastructure, especially pipelines, which permanently cements these sorts of mutually beneficial economic arrangements and, consequently, makes the continued isolation and subversion of Iran more difficult.  Perhaps the most important of all the pipelines in which Iran is a participant is the Iran-Pakistan pipeline, also known as the “Peace Pipeline”.  This project will deliver Iranian energy to Pakistan – a nation dealing with a protracted and crippling energy shortage.  The pipeline is crucial to Iranian strategy not only because it will generate much needed revenue for Tehran, but also because of its significance as a symbol of the warm relations between Iran and Pakistan.  Moreover, this project is still in its early incarnation.  One can easily imagine the pipeline being extended into China, thereby becoming China’s direct link to the vast energy resources of the Middle East while providing Iran with the security of a superpower ally.

The Iran-Pakistan project is not the only important pipeline under construction.  In fact, Iran is currently in the process of implementing no less than fifteen new pipeline projects all throughout the country.  This is more than just economic expansion. Instead, it is the necessary modernization of the energy infrastructure of the country, allowing the Islamic Republic to maintain its status as one of the world’s leaders in energy exports while, at the same time, improving delivery capabilities within the country itself.

Energy exports and pipelines are also at the heart of the expansion of relations between Iran and Turkmenistan.  Having emerged in recent years as a world leader in gas exports, Turkmenistan has become a crucial player in the Caspian region, necessitating a close working relationship with the Islamic Republic.  As Iranian President Ahmadinejad recently stated, relations between the two countries must be cultivated and expanded.  This demonstrates not only Iran’s desire to have friendly relations with its neighbors, but also Tehran’s recognition of the dangers of isolation in the region, particularly at a time when Caspian energy exploration and development are still in the early stages.

Oil and gas are not the only forms of energy that Iran is looking to export in order to subvert the US-led sanctions.  One of the most critical aspects of Iranian energy exports is the sale and delivery of electrical power, particularly to Pakistan which, as already mentioned, suffers from a painful and perpetual energy shortage.  Iran is poised to become Pakistan’s energy benefactor as there has been renewed interest in upgrading and expanding the shared energy infrastructure of the neighbor countries.  It was recently reported that an Iranian firm is planning a one gigawatt power project in Pakistan that will connect the Iranian port at Chabahar with the Pakistani port of Gwadar.  This is a hugely significant deal because it will provide much needed electrical power to Pakistan while solidifying, in physical form, the close relations between the two countries.  However, what this project also indicates is the growing importance of Iranian ports, especially Chabahar, as well as other infrastructural and technological projects, to the future of Iranian economic development.


Beyond Energy

One of the most common misconceptions regarding Iran is the belief that the future of the Islamic Republic’s economic development rests solely on the energy sector.  On the contrary, Tehran is in the process of developing a number of ports and other projects that will spur growth and development in the coming decades.  The first and most important of these projects is the Iranian port of Chabahar.  Situated on the coast of Iran, Chabahar is intended to be a port of regional and international importance.

Tehran recently announced that it will invest $25 billion into the Chabahar port to transform it into one of the great energy hubs of the world.  Naturally, China figures prominently in this vision, as it looks to Chabahar for that coveted land-based access to the Indian Ocean.  However, China is not the only regional player that is interested in the port.  Recently, Iranian representatives met with their Indian and Afghan counterparts to discuss regional trade and the role of Chabahar.  In light of this meeting, it is clear that Chabahar is fast becoming one of the most important ports in Asia.  Additionally, the port would make Iran an integral player in commercial shipping, providing access to the Iranian market to international companies that would otherwise be impossible.  This opening of Iran via the Chabahar port undoubtedly figures prominently in Tehran’s plans to integrate itself into the world economy on its own terms, rather than those dictated by the Western imperial powers.

Iran is not solely relying on Chabahar. In fact, Iran has recently announced more than $4 billion of investment into a number of Iranian ports.  This level of investment demonstrates Iran’s willingness to invest in its own economic future while, at the same time, showing outside observers that development is not just an idea, it is a reality.  These ports, Tehran hopes, will transform the country into a shipping center that could rival those of the Gulf monarchies and make Iran an indispensible partner for the region and the world’s powers.

The Islamic Republic has also turned its eyes to the sky in search of development.  Iran has recently launched a full-fledged space program and is currently constructing a national space center to be used for the launch of satellites by itself and other Muslim countries.  Iran’s foray into the space sector benefits the country in a number of ways.  First, and perhaps most importantly, this development is a major propaganda victory for Iran.  It catapults the country into the top tier of world powers, gaining Tehran the respect of nations around the world.  Beyond the propaganda however, the development of a space program provides fertile ground for Iranian science to make other technological breakthroughs in a number of different sectors.  Lastly, the space center helps integrate Iran into the region and Muslim world by making it an attractive partner for other nations wishing to launch satellites or other projects.  The space center, like the ports and pipelines, helps Iran overcome the isolation imposed upon it by the US, Europe, and Israel.

Iran has had to endure an unprecedented international assault in recent years.  Because of the unwillingness of the government and the Iranian people to bend to the will of the Western imperialist ruling class, the Islamic Republic has been attacked quite literally from all sides.  Having to endure a covert war of sabotage and terrorism while being demonized internationally, Tehran has managed to repel these attacks to this point.  Despite economic hardship caused by the US-imposed sanctions, Iran continues to keep an eye toward development and progress.  As the world saw recently at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit, Iran is not as isolated as the US and Israel would like to see.  On the contrary, Iran looks to other nations of the world for partners while taking the initiative to build its own future.  Of course, nothing infuriates the forces of international finance capital and imperialism more than economic independence.  For this reason, Iran will remain the bogeyman for much of the Western world while working to shape its own economic future.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City.  He is the Founder and Editor of StopImperialism.com as well as host of the Stop Imperialism podcast.  He is a frequent contributor to Russia Today, the Center for Research on Globalization, and many other sites and publications.

Council on Foreign Relations Marshals Public Opinion to Tout Syrian Destabilization

Global Research
James R. Tracy

In a recent article the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) declares Americans are “appalled by the depredations of the [Bashar al-]Assad regime and seek its removal from power.” Short of committing troops, the US "[p]ublic wants tough action ... including the imposition of tougher sanctions, and the creation of safe havens to protect civilians,” the CFR's Stewart M. Patrick writes.

There are two underlying problems with this claim. First, the CFR is furtively exerting its own policy objectives by pointing to opinion polls the body has had a direct hand in creating. Second, the CFR is gauging the sentiment of a vastly disinformed public on a Syrian destabilization policy the organization vigorously advocates.

The more authoritative polling of US and international opinion cited in the piece was conducted by the CFR, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CFR's Chicago affiliate), and the University of Maryland’s Program on Policy Attitudes (PIPA). Despite its scholarly veneer, PIPA director Steven Kull and half of the research group’s board of advisers are CFR members. In addition, PIPA receives financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.[1]

Since its inception in 1921 the CFR has claimed to be “an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher.” Yet over the years the entity has recruited political and corporate leaders closest to the levers of institutional power, exerted decisive influence on US foreign policy throughout the twentieth century, was a central proponent of the postwar national security state, and “believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established,” according to CFR historian Carroll Quigley.[2]

The CFR’s efforts to measure and tout public opinion regarding Syria is of particular concern since it has been a strong advocate of destabilizing the Assad regime through recruitment and support of death squads comprised of foreign Al Qaeda and Libyan Islamic Fighting Group mercenaries. “The influx of jihadis,” the CFR recently gloated, “brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results.”

This strategy has continued ceaselessly since February 2011 when the so-called "Arab Spring" began throughout the Middle East. An almost identical strategy was carried out concurrently in Libya, resulting in the August 2011 overthrow of the Muammar Qaddafi regime and its replacement with a fundamentalist Islamic state.

The CFR’s use and interpretation of opinion polling to justify continued terrorism against the Syrian people is illustrative of the psychological and rhetorical trickery employed by Anglo American power elites and their intellectual mouthpieces. Such efforts are intended to muddy the issues, confuse journalists, and thereby disorient the broader public—the same public the organization now solicits to endorse even more widescale bloodshed and destruction. For example, the CFR's Patrick claims Americans and their European counterparts are strangely “ambivalent” over what the next steps in Syria should be. “Americans support a no-fly zone in theory, though oppose bombing air defenses—a necessary component of establishing a no-fly zone.”

A much more honest and forthright line of questioning might include, “Do you believe the US and its allies should be providing the bulk of material and logistical support to Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups so they may carry out grievous atrocities against the Syrian civilian population en route to establishing a nightmarish theocratic state in Syria and throughout the Middle East?”

Notes

[1] As James Petras observes, "The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source." Given that the CIA is actively supporting Syria's rebels, it is not unreasonable to surmise that interpretations of American public opinion may also be incrementally introduced into the public mind to eventually justify overt military action.

[2] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, GSG and Associates, 1966/1975, 955.

James Tracy is Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. He blogs at memorygap.org.

The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking?

Guardian
Charlie Skelton


The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look …

The director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rami Abdulrahman,
 speaks on the phone in his home in Coventry on December 6, 2011

A nightmare is unfolding across Syria, in the homes of al-Heffa and the streets of Houla. And we all know how the story ends: with thousands of soldiers and civilians killed, towns and families destroyed, and President Assad beaten to death in a ditch.

This is the story of the Syrian war, but there is another story to be told. A tale less bloody, but nevertheless important. This is a story about the storytellers: the spokespeople, the "experts on Syria", the "democracy activists". The statement makers. The people who "urge" and "warn" and "call for action".

It's a tale about some of the most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business. The mainstream news media have, in the main, been remarkably passive when it comes to Syrian sources: billing them simply as "official spokesmen" or "pro-democracy campaigners" without, for the most part, scrutinising their statements, their backgrounds or their political connections.

It's important to stress: to investigate the background of a Syrian spokesperson is not to doubt the sincerity of his or her opposition to Assad. But a passionate hatred of the Assad regime is no guarantee of independence. Indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out.

Though it is not yet stated US government policy to oust Assad by force, these spokespeople are vocal advocates of foreign military intervention in Syria and thus natural allies of well-known US neoconservatives who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now pressuring the Obama administration to intervene. As we will see, several of these spokespeople have found support, and in some cases developed long and lucrative relationships with advocates of military intervention on both sides of the Atlantic.

"The sand is running out of the hour glass," said Hillary Clinton on Sunday. So, as the fighting in Syria intensifies, and Russian warships set sail for Tartus, it's high time to take a closer look at those who are speaking out on behalf of the Syrian people.

The Syrian National Council

The most quoted of the opposition spokespeople are the official representatives of the Syrian National Council. The SNC is not the only Syrian opposition group – but it is generally recognised as "the main opposition coalition" (BBC). The Washington Times describes it as "an umbrella group of rival factions based outside Syria". Certainly the SNC is the opposition group that's had the closest dealings with western powers – and has called for foreign intervention from the early stages of the uprising. In February of this year, at the opening of the Friends of Syria summit in Tunisia, William Hague declared: "I will meet leaders of the Syrian National Council in a few minutes' time … We, in common with other nations, will now treat them and recognise them as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people."

The most senior of the SNC's official spokespeople is the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani.

Bassma Kodmani

                                                                  Bassma Kodmani of the Syrian National Council

Here is Bassma Kodmani, seen leaving this year's Bilderberg conferencein Chantilly, Virginia.

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky

"World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldous Huxley)

Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government. 

Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)

In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid) 

Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project. 

The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.

But there is more than meets the eye. 

Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.

There are also reports from published email exchanges (unconfirmed) that Wikileaks had, at the outset of the project in January 2007, contacted and sought the advice of Freedom House. This included an invitation to Freedom House (FH) to participate in the Wikileaks advisory board: 

"We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption

2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH

3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members

4. general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and decentralised operations and political framing" (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007). There is no evidence of FH followup support to the Wikileaks project. Freedom House is a Washington based "watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world". It is chaired by William H. Taft IV who was legal adviser to the State Department under G. W. Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration.