The Syria Endgame: Strategic Stage in the Pentagon’s Covert War on Iran

Since the kindling of the conflict inside Syria in 2011, it was recognized, by friend and foe alike, that the events in that country were tied to a game plan that ultimately targets Iran, Syria’s number one ally. [1] De-linking Syria from Iran and unhinging the Resistance Bloc that Damascus and Tehran have formed has been one of the objectives of the foreign-supported anti-government militias inside Syria. Such a schism between Damascus and Tehran would change the Middle East’s strategic balance in favour of the US and Israel.
If  this cannot be accomplished, however, then crippling Syria to effectively prevent it from providing Iran any form of diplomatic, political, economic, and military support in the face of common threats has been a primary objective. Preventing any continued cooperation between the two republics has been a strategic goal. This includes preventing the Iran-Iraq-Syria energy terminal from being built and ending the military pact between the two partners.

All Options are Aimed at Neutralizing Syria

Regime change in Damascus is not the only or main way for the US and its allies to prevent Syria from standing with Iran. Destabilizing Syria and neutralizing it as a failed and divided state is the key. Sectarian fighting is not a haphazard outcome of the instability in Syria, but an assisted project that the US and its allies have steadily fomented with a clear intent to balkanize the Syrian Arab Republic. Regionally, Israel above all other states has a major stake in securing this outcome. The Israelis actually have several publicly available documents, including the Yinon Plan, which outline that the destruction of Syria into a series of smaller sectarian states is one of their strategic objectives. So do American military planners.

Like Iraq next door, Syria does not need to be formally divided. For all intents and purposes, the country can be divided like Lebanon was alongside various fiefdoms and stretches of territory controlled by different groups during the Lebanese Civil War. The goal is to disqualify Syria as an external player.

Since 2006 and the Israeli defeat in Lebanon in that year there was renewed focus on the strategic alliance between Iran and Syria. Both countries have been very resilient in the face of US designs in their region. Together both have been key players for influencing events in the Middle East, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Their strategic alliance has undoubtedly played an important role in shaping the geo-political landscape in the Middle East. Although critics of Damascus say it has done very little in regard to substantial action against the Israelis, the Syrians have been the partners within this alliance that have carried the greatest weight in regards to facing Israel; it has been through Syria that Hezbollah and the Palestinians have been provided havens, logistics, and their initial strategic depth against Israel.

From the beginning the foreign-supported external opposition leaders made their foreign policy clear, which can strongly be argued was a reflection of the interests they served. The anti-government forces and their leaders even declared that they will realign Syria against Iran; in doing so they used sectarian language about returning to their “natural orbit with the Sunni Arabs.” This is a move that is clearly in favour of the US and Israel alike. Breaking the axis between Damascus and Tehran has also been a major goal of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms since the 1980s as part of a design to isolate Iran during the Iraq-Iran War. [2] Moreover, the sectarian language being used is part of a construct; it is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of Orientalist conjecture and desires that falsely stipulate that Muslims who perceive themselves as being Shia or Sunni are inherently at odds with one another as enemies.

Among the prostrating Syrian opposition leaders who would execute the strategic goals of the US has been Burhan Ghalioun, the former president of the Istanbul-based and foreign-sponsored Syrian National Council, who told the Wall Street Journal in 2011 that Damascus would end its strategic alliance with Iran and end its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians as soon as anti-government forces took over Syria. [3] These foreign-sponsored opposition figures have also served to validate, in one way or another, the broader narratives that claim Sunnis and Shiites hate one another. In synchronization the mainstream media in the countries working for regime change in Damascus, such as the US and France, have consistently advertized that the regime in Syria is an Alawite regime that is allied to Iran, because the Alawites are an offshoot of Shiism. This too is untrue, because Syria and Iran do not share a common ideology; both countries are aligned, because of a common threat and shared political and strategic objectives. Nor is Syria run by an Alawite regime; the government’s composure reflects Syrian society’s ethnic and religious diversity.

Israel’s Stake in Syria

Syria is all about Iran for Israel. As if Tel Aviv has nothing to do whatsoever with the events inside Syria, Israeli commentators and analysts are now publicly insisting that Israel needs to deal with Iran by intervening inside Syria. Israel’s involvement in Syria, alongside the US and NATO, crystallized in 2012. It was clear that Israel was working in a conglomerate comprised of the US, Britain, France, Turkey, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon’s minority March 14 Alliance, and the NATO-supported usurpers that have taken over and wrecked the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.  

Although it should be read with caution, it is worth noting the release of the hacked correspondence of Strategic Forecast Incorporated’s Reva Bhalla to her boss, George Friedman, about a December 2011 meeting in the Pentagon between herself (representing Stratfor), US, French, and British officials about Syria. [4] The Stratfor correspondence claimed that the US and its allies had sent in their military special forces to destabilize Syria in 2011 and that there actually were not many Syrian anti-government forces on the ground or, as Bhalla writes, “there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train.” [5] The Daily Star, which is owned by Lebanon’s Hariri family which has been involved in the regime change operations against Syria, soon after reported that thirteen undercover French officers were caught by the Syrians conducting operations inside Homs. [6] Instead of a categorical no to the information about the captured French officers, the French Foreign Ministry’s response to the public was that it could not confirm anything, which can be analyzed as an omission of guilt. [7]

Days earlier, Hezbollah’s Al-Manar station revealed that Israeli-made weapons and supplies, ranging from grenades and night binoculars to communication devices, were captured alongside Qatari agents inside the insurgent stronghold of Baba Amr in Homs towards the end of April and start of March. [8] An unnamed US official would later confirm in July 2012 that the Mossad was working alongside the CIA in Syria. [9] Just a month earlier, in June, the Israeli government began publicly demanding that a military intervention be launched into Syria, presumably by the US and the conglomerate of governments working with Israel to destabilize Syria. [10]

The Israeli media has even begun to casually report that Israeli citizens, albeit one has been identified as an Israeli Arab (meaning a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship), have entered Syria to fight against the Syrian Army. [11] Normally any Israelis, specifically those that are non-Jewish Arabs, which enter Lebanon or/and Syria are condemned or prosecuted by Israeli authorities and Israeli news reports focus on this aspect of the story. Yet, it has not been so in this case. It should also be mentioned that the Palestinian opponents of Israel living inside Syria are also being targeted, just as the Palestinians living in Iraq were targeted after the US and UK invaded in 2003.

Syria and the Objective of Making Iran Stand Alone

The journalist Rafael D. Frankel wrote a revealing article for the Washington Quarterly that illustrates what US policymakers and their partners think about in Syria. In his article Frankel argued that because of the so-called Arab Spring that an attack on Iran by the US and Israel would no longer trigger a coordinated regional response from Iran and its allies. [12] Frankel argued that because of the events inside Syria an opportunity has been created for the US and Israel to attack Iran without igniting a regional war that would involve Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. [13]

Frankel’s line of thinking was not lost on circles in either NATO or Israel. In reality his line of thinking springs forth from the views and plans of these very circles. As a psychological enforcement of their ideas, his text actually found its way to NATO Headquarters in Brussels in 2012 for reading material. While the latter, Israel, released its own intelligence report about the subject.

According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the intelligence report by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has concluded that Syria and Hezbollah will no longer be able to open a second front against Israel should it go to war with Iran. [14] During the Israeli report’s release, one senior Israeli official was quoted as saying “Iran’s ability to harm Israel in response to an attack on our part declined dramatically.”[15]

Many news wires, papers, and writers with hostile positions towards both Syria and Iran, such asThe Daily Telegraph, immediately replicated the Israeli report’s findings about Iran and its regional allies. Two of the first people to reproduce the findings of the Israel report, Robert Tait (writing from the Gaza Strip) and Damien McElroy (who was expelled from Libya in 2011 by that country’s authorities during the war with NATO), summarize how significant the findings of the report are by effectively outlining how Iran’s key allies in the Levant have all been neutralized. [16]

The Israeli report has triumphantly declared that Syria has turned within and is too busy to join ranks with its strategic ally Iran against Tel Aviv in a future war. [17] The ramifications of the Syrian crisis have also placed Iran’s Lebanese allies, particularly Hezbollah, in an unsteady position where their supply lines are under threat and they have been politically damaged through their support of Damascus. If anyone in Lebanon should side with Iran in a future war the Israelis have said that they will invade through massive military operations on the ground. [18]

The new Egyptian government’s role in aiding US objectives under President Morsi also becomes clear with what the Israeli report says about his supportive role: “The foreign ministry report also predicted that Egypt would stop Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, from helping Iran by launching rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.” [19] This adds credence to the view that Morsi was allowed by the US and Israel to broker a peace between the Gaza Strip and Tel Aviv, which would prevent the Palestinians there from standing with Iran during a war. In other words the Egyptian truce was setup to bind the hands of Hamas. The recent announcements about moves by Morsi’s government to engage Hezbollah politically can also be scrutinized as an extension of the same strategy applied in Gaza, but in this case for unbinding Iran from its Lebanese allies. [20]

There is also clamouring for steps to be taken to de-link Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, from its Christian allies in Lebanon. The German Marshall Fund showcased a text essentially saying that the Lebanese Christians that are allies to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran need to be presented with an alternative political narrative to replace the one where they believe that Iran will ultimately run the Middle East as a great power. [21] This too is tied to further eroding Iran’s alliance system.

Mission Accomplished?

The conflict in Syria is not merely an Israeli affair. The slow bleeding of Syria has other interested parties that want to smash the country and its society into pieces. The US is foremost among these interested parties, followed by the Arab dictators of the petro-sheikhdoms. NATO has also always been covertly involved.

NATO’s involvement in Syria is part of the US strategy of using the military alliance to dominate the Middle East. This is why it was decided to establish a component of the missile shield in Turkey. This is also the reason that Patriot missiles are being deployed to the Turkish border with Syria. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) and NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue are components of these plans too. Additionally, Turkey has ended its veto against the further integration of Israel into NATO. [22]

NATO has been reorienting itself towards asymmetrical warfare and greater emphasis is now being put on intelligence operations. NATO strategists have increasingly been studying the Kurds, Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians. In the scenario of an all-out war, NATO has been preparing itself for overt military roles in both Syria and Iran.

Iraq is being destabilized further too. While Iran’s allies in Damascus have been weighed down, its allies in Baghdad have not. After Syria, the same conglomerate of countries working against Damascus will turn their attention to Iraq. They have already started working to galvanize Iraq further on the basis of its sectarian and political fault lines. Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are playing prominent roles in this objective. What is becoming manifest is that the differences between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims that Washington has cultivated since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now been augmented by Kurdish sectarianism.

It appears that many in the Israeli political establishment now believe that they have succeeded in breaking the Resistance Bloc. Whether they are correct or incorrect is a matter of debate. Syria still stands; the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (which was by far the most active Palestinian group fighting Israel from Gaza in 2012) and other Palestinians will side with Iran even if Hamas will have its hands tied by Egypt; there are still Tehran’s allies in Iraq; and Syria is not the only supply line for Iran to arm its ally Hezbollah. What is also very clear is that the siege against Syria is a front in the covert multi-dimensional war against Iran. This alone should make people reconsider the statements of US officials and their allies about having concerns for the Syrian people merely on the basis of humanitarianism and democracy.

Bilderberg Group Dominates Bloomberg Billionaires Index

Bilderberg Group, an organisation founded in 1954 by the global elite has once again dominated the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

So what is the Bilderberg Group? The Bilderberg Group is a secretive organisation who meets on a yearly basis to discuss political and economic issues that pertain to theGlobalist Agenda. Many of the members of the Bilderberg Group are derived from both Government and Private organisations.

All Bilderberg Group meetings are held in secret, with no official record of who attends, the agenda and what deals have been agreed.

Records of Bilderberg Group participant lists are usually smuggled out from within the organisation by insiders and / or are published in their ‘official’ website (Many names are missing from their official list of attendees).

Ever since the Bilderberg Group was founded, very few records of the organisations agenda have ever been publicized. In fact, since 1954, there has been a media blackout on Bilderberg Group reporting.

Only recently have Activists been successful in forcing the main-stream media to report on Bilderberg Group meetings. 

The following tables reveal official Bilderberg Group members who have been listed on theBloomberg Billionaires Index.

Rank	Name	Estimated Net Worth	Bilderberg Group Attendance (Year)
2	Bill Gates	$63.4 Billion	2010
4	Warren Buffett	$49.8 Billion	2009
8	Larry Ellison	$40.7 Billion	1999
9	Bernard Arnault	$29.8 Billion	1992
20	Jeff Bezos	$24.1 Billion	2011
26	George Soros	$21.6 Billion	1999

So why should we be worried about the Bilderberg Group? THE primary concern with the activities of the Bilderberg Group is not the fact that the global elite are meeting with heads of states and government officials (That’s never going to end), it’s the fact that they meet in secret, behind closed doors without any record of what was discussed and or agreed.

Why did John Kerry (Appointed by President Obama as the next Secretary of State), Mark Carney (Newly appointed Governor of the Bank of England), Henry Kissinger, John Micklethwait (Editor-in-Chief, The Economist) and Robert Zoellick (President, The World Bank Group) have to meet in secret in 2012 (Chantilly, Virginia, USA)?

What were they talking about? What was their agenda? What promises were made (why and to whom were they made)?

If you have never heard of the Bilderberg Group, the following resources are available:

• http://www.theglobalistreport.com/bilderberg-group-facts/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
• http://www.theglobalistreport.com/bilderberg-group-main-stream-media/
• http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php
• http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-story-of-the-bilderberg-group-and-what-they-may-be-planning-now/13808

Between 1954 and 2009, coverage of the Bilderberg Group was virtually non-existent. Considering the power and influence that Bilderberg Group members have at their disposal, who knows precisely how the Bilderberg Group has influenced the world we live in.

Iran arms all surface, sub-surface units with electronic warfare systems: Cmdr.

Senior Iranian commander Rear Admiral Amir Rastegari says all the surface and sub-surface units of Iran’s Navy are equipped with electronic warfare systems.

“The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has equipped all of its surface and sub-surface units with these systems (electronic warfare systems),” the spokesman for Iran's ongoing Velayat 91 naval drill said on Monday. 

Rastegari added that the maneuvers involved conducting operations to detect enemy signals, including communication systems and radar signals, analyzing and processing them and tracking down the emission source of the signals.

Iran’s Navy launched six-day naval maneuvers on December 28 in order to display the country’s capabilities in defending its maritime borders. 

The specialized maritime maneuver covers an area from “east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Sea of Oman and north of the Indian Ocean as far as the 18th parallel north,” according to Iran’s Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari. 

The Iranian Navy successfully test-fired the latest version of the indigenous surface-to-air missile Ra’d (Thunder) and launched its indigenous short-range cruise missile dubbed Nasr (Victory) on the fourth day of the major military exercises. 

Over the past few years, Iran has held several military drills to enhance the defensive capabilities of its armed forces and to test modern military tactics and equipment. 

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly assured other nations, especially its neighbors, that its military might poses no threat to other countries, stating that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence. 

Russia sends more warships to Syria: Reports

Russia has reportedly sent a warship carrying a marines unit to Syria’s Mediterranean port of Tartus, where Moscow has a naval base.

Citing military sources, Russian media reported on Sunday that the Novocherkassk landing ship left the port of Novorossiisk in the Black Sea and is due to arrive at Tartus in the early days of January.

Two other warships, the Azov and Nikolai Filchenkov, have also reportedly been dispatched to Syria from Russian naval bases since Friday.

Reports say Moscow is preparing a plan to evacuate Russian nationals living and working in Syria in case the situation in the country worsens.

Two weeks ago, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that a fleet of Russian warships had been sent from the Baltic port of Baltiysk to the Mediterranean Sea near the Syrian waters.

It said the flotilla includes the frigate Yaroslav Mudry, the landing ships Kaliningrad and Alexander Shabalin, as well as two other vessels.

Russia, a key ally of Syria, has a small naval maintenance facility at Tartus port.

US preparing for military invasion in Syria: Israel

A senior Israeli official says the United States is gearing up for a possible military intervention in Syria to prevent Syria's alleged chemical weapons from being used against civilians or falling into wrong hands.

Israel’s Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon told Israel Radio on Thursday that Israeli officials were in close touch with their American counterparts about the latest developments in Syria. 

He added that at the current juncture there was no fear that Syria would use its alleged chemical weapons against Israel. 

Ya’alon refused to comment on media reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had secretly met with Jordan's King Abdullah in Amman to discuss Syria's alleged stockpile of chemical weapons.

During the meeting, Netanyahu proposed a coordinated Israeli-Jordanian lightning air strike to destroy Syria's alleged stockpile of chemical weapons. 

Jordanians, however, have reportedly declined the option over concerns that it would cause chemical fallout around the target sites. 

Israel then proposed a second option, a comprehensive joint military incursion into Syria. The operation would include at least 8,000 soldiers entering Syria from different directions to neutralize the alleged chemical weapons sites. 

The Jordanians did not support the Israeli proposals, but they did not completely reject them either. 

Foreign-backed militants, however, have reportedly formed a company which has already used chemical weapons in battle against Syrian armed forces. However, in their propaganda, they have tried to incriminate the Syrian army for using such weapons against civilians. 

On December 22, Syrian rebels used chemical weapons against the Syrian Army in the town of Daraya, located eight kilometers southwest of Damascus. At least seven Syrian soldiers were killed after they were attacked by a chemical weapon which produced a toxic yellow gas. 

Syrian militants have also threatened to contaminate Syria's drinking water supply in a bid to kill all Alawite Shias and the supporters of President Bashar al-Assad. 

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil. 

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals. 

Obama, Biden are war criminals under UN Charter: Analyst

Most Americans, their minds focused at the moment on the tragic slaughter of 20 young children aged 5 and 6, along with five teachers and a school principal in Connecticut by a heavily-armed psychotic 21-year-old, are blissfully unaware that their previous president, George W. Bush, along with five key members of his administration, were recently convicted in absentia of war crimes at a tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

They are unaware because the US corporate media have ignored the story, just as that same corporate media have failed to note that the crimes of which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and five White House lawyers, were convicted all could apply equally well to current President Barack Obama and his administration. 

Bush, Cheney, White House counsel (and later Attorney General) Alberto Gonzalez and others were found guilty earlier this month of war crimes and crimes against humanity relating to the executive orders that launched the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as of authorizing and failing to punish torture and other war crimes by US forces, including the military and the CIA. 

But as international law expert Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, notes, under the Geneva Convention, failing to take action to prosecute those guilty of war crimes such as the “Crime against Peace” (invading a country that does not pose an imminent threat to the attacker), and torture, are war crimes in and of themselves.

Speaking last week at a Summit Conference on Human Rights held at the University of the Sacred Heart in the US island colony of Puerto Rico, Boyle said US authorities, including President Obama, are engaged in an “ongoing criminal conspiracy under international law” both to cover up and protect criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and to continue the commission of war crimes by the US government. 

Support for both the Malaysian Tribunal’s judgment against Bush, Cheney et al, and for Boyle’s charges against Obama and his administration, comes, interestingly, from President Bush’s own White House counsel Gonzalez. As I noted in my book The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin’s Press, 2006), about Bush’s and Cheney’s war crimes and impeachable offenses, Gonzalez, writing in a Jan. 25, 2002 memo in support of the torture of captured terrorist suspects, warned President Bush that “it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based upon” the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act. 

He went on to caution that in the event that the president were some day so prosecuted and convicted of war crimes, the potential penalty could “include the death penalty.” In the same memo, sounding more like a mob lawyer than a judicious legal advisor, Gonzalez told the president that as the president’s legal counsel, he was making a determination that torture of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban captives would be legal in order to provide the president and his staff with legal cover that “substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” 

As it turns out, Bush and Gonzalez needn’t have worried. Though Obama, when initially campaigning in 2008 for the presidency, vowed that he wanted to restore the respect for the law and the Constitution, once elected President, he and his attorney general Eric Holder quickly made it clear that they were “looking forward, not backward,” and that there would be no prosecutions or indictments for war crimes of any Bush administration people. 

The thing is, at that moment, both President Obama and AG Holder became war criminals themselves under the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, which declare that covering up war crimes by prior government and military leaders, and failure to prosecute such war crimes, are in themselves war crimes.

But as Boyle noted in his address in San Juan, P.R., Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, and the various secretaries of defense and state, the head of the CIA and the Pentagon Chiefs of Staff, as well as other Obama administration personnel, are also guilty of perpetrating ongoing war crimes themselves. 

Boyle accuses the Obama administration of continuing to conduct a “bogus” war on “international terrorism” including the ever escalating campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and other jurisdictions. He termed the president’s program of “targeted killings,” in which President Obama himself draws up the “kill list,” to be simply a case of “pure murder” under both traditional British common law and international law, and says these attacks constitute a “Crime against Humanity under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court.” 

It would seem that it is unlikely Nobel Peace Laureate Obama will be prosecuted by any country, at least while he remains president, but the recent Malaysian tribunal conviction of Bush, Cheney and several Bush administration legal advisors suggests there could be similar tribunals and convictions of current administration personnel in years to come. 

While America’s outsized military and economic power for now make it unlikely any retired American leaders will find themselves in the dock at the Hague like war criminals from Serbia, Bosnia or Rwanda, it is possible that these kinds of charges and convictions could, at a minimum, make them, like former Nixon administration Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, reluctant to travel internationally in their dotage. 

Four More Years of War

by Stephen Lendman

Fiscal cliff hype is about greater force-fed austerity to free up more funds for America's war machine. Waging them isn't cheap. Profiteers depend on wasteful spending to boost bottom line performance.

It pays to have friends in high places. They assure all the billions wanted. Social America is being sacrificed to provide them. 

Over the next decade, trillions of dollars will shift from people needs to war making, generous corporate handouts, tax breaks for the rich, and hardened homeland repression against nonbelievers. 

At the same time, deficits will keep rising exponentially. Hype about urgently cutting them is fake. Post-9/11 has been the worst of times. Expect more of the same on steroids ahead.

Conditions today are the most perilous in world history. Global war is possible. The threat is real and ominous. Open discussion is suppressed. Media scoundrels won't touch it. 

Nor do they explain Project Censored's top Censored 2013 story: "Signs of an Emerging Police State." It began pre-9/11, accelerated under Bush, then Obama exceeded his extremism.

Tyranny in America is a hair's breadth from full-blown. For those affected, it arrived long ago.

Project Censored's number 4 story is: "FBI Agents Responsible for Majority of Terrorist Plots in the United States." Innocent people are wrongly imprisoned. Media scoundrels convict them in the court of public opinion.

Other top censored stories include criminalizing nonviolent protests, corporate predators running the global economy, Federal Reserve money printing madness enriching Wall Street, Washington joining forces with Al Qaeda, prison slavery, wrecking public education by privatizing it, and NATO war crimes in Libya, but it's much the same wherever this killing machine shows up.

Media scoundrel managed news suppresses these and other vital truths people most need to know. Instead, they get The New York Times running cover for Obama's foreign policy by praising what it should condemn.

On November 11, its editorial headlined "The Foreign Policy Agenda." It reads like it's about someone else, not Obama. It wrongly claims he envisions a world without nuclear weapons.

Under Bush and Obama, Washington asserts the right to use them preemptively. Both administrations violated NPT, the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaties, and Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Others relating to national security also.

In 2010, Obama's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was old wine in new bottles. Rhetoric changed. Policy stayed the same.

Obama won't achieve his goal, said The Times, but his position "offers a framework for reducing America's stockpile and for (encouraging) other countries to follow suit."

Stockpile levels matter less than new, more destructive, weapons replacing older ones. 

The Times also wants tough policies on Iran. It stops short of urging war, but wants sanctions "rigorously enforced and strengthened." Those in place are illegal. Times articles and commentaries don't explain. Nor are readers told that Iran's program is peaceful. Tehran threatens no one.

What's ahead in Afghanistan remains to be seen. Drawdown won't end war and occupation. America doesn't come to war theaters to leave. Permanent occupation is planned.

The Times hope for withdrawal by end of 2013, of course, won't happen. Nor are Times' claims about "severely weaken(ing) Al Qaeda."

Washington enlists its support in all regional wars. It admits doing so. The so-called Arab Spring is fake. America's war on Syria is suppressed. So is claiming a possible two-state Israeli/Palestinian solution followed by peace.

America's foreign policy plate is full, said The Times. What's ongoing and at stake was suppressed or distorted. Military Keynesianism on steroids is official US policy. 

America always glorified wars in the name of peace. They've been waged every year in US history at home and/or abroad against one more adversaries. Peace, stability, personal safety, and common dignity are crowded out by imperial wars and a longstanding culture of violence.

Generations of violence engrained it in US culture. Media violence feeds it. America's addiction to war reflects it. Permanent ones rage. New ones replace others when their energy wanes. Congress provides open-ended funding. The Federal Reserve prints up all the ready cash needed.

Imagine living under a permanent state of readiness. Enemies don't exist so Washington invents them. At the same time, homeland needs go begging. 

Eisenhower's military-industrial complex warning went unheeded. Disastrous "misplaced power" could rise and persist. 

"Every gun that is made," he added, "every war ship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed."

Today's legacy is force-fed austerity. Health and public welfare are sacrificed on the alter of America's addiction. Obama has plenty more in mind. Wars of choice are planned. 

Since WW II, none of necessity existed. America is masterful at inventing enemies when none exist. No matter how many times people are fooled, they're easy prey to convince alleged threats must be challenged.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius has close ties to US intelligence. Be "bold" he urges Obama in term two. "Think big."

"Well, Mr. President, what the hell's the presidency for?" Be "strategic" on foreign policy. Deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program. Find solutions for Afghanistan.

Remove Assad by "managed transition." In other words, oust him by any way that works.

Cut a deal on Palestine that benefits Israel. Choose a new Secretary of State when Clinton leaves to assure whatever America says goes. 

"A successful second term is less about ideology than about results. Think big. Take risks. Get it done."

In other words, Ignatius favors policies that assure US hegemony. Without saying it, he includes war.

Former Bush administration UN ambassador/American Enterprise Institute senior fellow/uberhawk John Bolton wants Obama to prioritize national security threats.

America has none excepts ones it invents. Bolton left that unexplained. The war on terror isn't over, he stresses. Al Qaeda hasn't been defeated. It's "stronger than before and America’s strategic position in the region has steadily deteriorated."

Al Qaeda is used strategically as ally and adversary. It was part of Washington's Libya strategy. It now serves US interests in Syria.

Prioritize "international terrorism," says Bolton. Prevent Iran's "long-sought objective of deliverable nuclear weapons."

Challenge Russia and China assertively. Flex America's muscles aggressively. Republicans should hold his feet to the fire. 

Foreign policy advisors like Bolton risk WW III. Washington has lots more like him.

AP's Brian Murphy discussed Obama's second term "evolving foreign policy."

His mandate involves asserting "superpower confiden(ce and) military strength" combined with "soft power" coalition building.

Murphy ticked off the usual challenges - Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Israel/Palestine, China, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba. Solutions weren't proposed.

Micah Zenko is a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Center for Preventive Action Douglas Dillon fellow. America "will never have another peacetime president," he says.

It follows as one never before existed. America has always been at war at home and/or abroad throughout its history. 

WW II aside, it's truer today than ever. Multiple direct and proxy wars rage. More are planned. Political claims about wanting peace are false. America prioritizes war.

Zenko expects a "period of persistent conflict" to continue. Obama is America's most belligerent leader. He exceeded the worst of Bush. Expect term one policies to continue and be intensified in term two.

Congressional oversight of presidential war-making powers is moribund. Obama is virtually restraint free. Previous warnings went unheeded.

Former Senator Robert Byrd reminded fellow legislators that "Congress is not a rubberstamp or a presidential lapdog - obedient and unquestioning. Oversight, oversight, oversight is among our most important responsibilities."

Senator James Webb didn't seek reelection. In May, he co-sponsored a bill that failed. Passage would have required presidents to formally request congressional approval before authorizing military action.

"Year by year," he said, "skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the US military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would he unleashed, has diminished."

Obama is free to continue term one wars and wage new ones. Expect him to take full advantage.