September 7, 2006

The Next Phase of the Middle East War

The following is an excerpt from an article by Michel Chossudovsky, I just read that seems to really sum up American plans in the Middle East. I am curious what you all think.

Israel's war on Lebanon is an integral part of a US sponsored "military roadmap".

The war on Lebanon, which has resulted in countless atrocities including the destruction of the nation's economy and civilian infrastructure, is "a stage" in a sequence of carefully planned military operations.

Lebanon constitutes a strategic corridor between Israel and North-western Syria. The underlying objective of this war was the militarization of Lebanon, including the stationing of foreign troops, as a precondition for carrying out the next phase of a broader military agenda.

Formally under a UN mandate, the foreign troops to be stationed on Lebanese soil on the immediate border with Syria, will be largely although not exclusively from NATO countries. This military force mandated by the UN Security Council is by no means neutral. It responds directly to US and Israeli interests.

Click here for the rest of the article.

Note: if you couldn’t comment please use an account-free comment. You simply type in your name and website address after you have checked "other" for type of comment. Beta Blogger is not working properly. I hope this gets fixed soon.


  1. no- it is true. i did a lot of research over the summer into the american government and what their background has been and i have been trying to stay a step ahead. the plan is to go into iran through syria. the reason for iraq was oil but it was also strategy. there is a military base being built there for a permanent american presence. the un is being undermined in america by the repubs in favor of nato. un=peacekeepers. nato=defensive military. you also see a nato presence in afghanistan and iraq instead of the un. now, israel is calling for nato troops in lebanon. that is the reason. you have heard the words pnac and bilderberg before on my blog. these are pieces of a very large global puzzle that i have been trying to fit together since my blog's inception. you are on the right track.

  2. Anonymous3:12 AM

    Honestly, my opinion is that the article is incredibly exaggerated and bordering on silly. Step back from your computer screens and you will see that this article reads like a bad movie script.
    My favorite:
    "The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation."

    Conquest of the Russian Federation? Now we're talking black helicopters and a crazy mastermind living in a secret cave lair.

  3. It is interesting at of all the info in that article that you, who ever you are, chose to pick the item about the Russian federation, although I feel even that is not too far fetched. Anyone who has been paying attention to the state of global military and economic strategy can see that the goal of the USA since the end of WWII has been complete military and economic control of the entire globe. People often claim this is an exaggerated statement, but how else can you explain the fact that the US spends more in its military than all other countries combined, has bases in over 90 countries and has been involved in both military and economic wars since its inspection.

    It is in the nature of capitalism to expand and open new markets, and so American capitalist with the aid of a gigantic military and organizations like the IMF and World Bank have been doing that for years.

    There is a quote that says something like, the US will not fight a war with a country that has a McDonalds in it. Well look around the globe and identify the countries that don’t. The Middle East is a gaping black hole that the US wants to fill by opening as a potential market. McDonalds obviously symbolizes a US controlled economy. Globalization is simply another tool the US uses to beat countries into submission.

    So while you may think that controlling the Russian Federation sounds like a bad movie script, it is one that is not too far from reality. The natural gas deposits and the ease of which oil from the Middle East can be pumped throughout Asia and Europe make the idea very attractive to US business.

    Remember while we have been brainwashed to think that WWI and WWII were the good wars, they were really wars fought for control of regions and resources. People would have laughed if someone said that the US entered WWII to gain control of the European, Asian and South pacific regions, but they did and now control those regions. By winning WWII the US set into motion its dominance of all global markets. This new war in the Middle East is not new at all it is simply an extension of the great World War. WW WWII and I are still going and will not end until one nation controls it all. That is the nature of capitalism. That is how it works. Until we the people, the workers unite and demand control of our own markets and resources, the capitalists will continue.

  4. Anonymous8:57 AM

    So if the McDonalds thing is true, then we will not fight Russia or China.
    will post more later.

  5. america had a base in uzebekistan until the dictator there kicked us out. allying or bullying the former soviet states that border russia seems to be within the current regime's playbook. uzebekistan has oil. it is within the realm of possibility and should not be ruled out. america is not the benign entity some think it is.

  6. Anonymous11:34 AM

    What we need to do is round up these US and Israeli capitalist warmonger puppeteers, and concentrate them in some sort of special camp. Then us normal peaceful folks could have some breathing room.

    If only there were some way to tell who was a world-dominating capitalist Israeli sympathizer... like some religion they all belonged to or something... oh well. Someday we'll find a final solution...

  7. If only there were some way to tell who was a world-dominating capitalist Israeli sympathizer...

    The White House is a good place to start. PNAC (Project for a New American Century), Carlyle Group, the boardrooms of Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and Exxon, Coke, big business industrial lobby groups are also good. See the board members of large media, communications, oil and utilities companies. Don’t forget Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the halls of the CIA.

    I know Beta Blogger is acting weird but please leave your comments as other not anonymous.

  8. The US had aspirations about conquering the Russian Federation, since 1917.

    I've heard the Middle east plans in the article before. I wouldn't believe it, except the US is following the script.

  9. i think this is a war of religions and ideologies ... not a war on terror. bush continues to manipulate the american population with his loft speeches and ridiculous claims.

  10. this all scares me so. i have 6 friends over there currently, 1 of which is a civvy that drives supplies to and from 2 posts.

    2 weeks back a grenade was tossed in his driver's side window as he drove thru one of the outskirt towns.. it BOUNCED on his passenger seat and BOUNCED out the window... exploding "harmlessly" outside his vehicle.

    holy crap...

    i am sooo not political, so i may be LITTLE to no value on yer site.. BUT, thanks for your contributions to mine and check out the other 2 when you can if you'd like.

    I'll be back.. i hope you visit me again too...


  11. Oil, Oil, Oil. The be all and end all of Americas involvement in the Middle East is Oil.
    There were plans to build a pipeline through Afghanistan prior to the invasion there, in Iraq the oil pipelines and depots were the first things protected by the troops. They can talk about installing Democracy and replacing despots all they like, the bottom line is the Middle East is oil rich and America is Oil hungry and want leaders in place who are going to blindly toe the US line.

  12. BZ, I am sure that elemnts in the US Government have such an idea in mind. But there is an enormous difference between the idea and the reality.

    The US appears to be having enough problems presiding over the growing anarchy in Iraq, let alone picking war with Iran and Syria. It may have sufficient resources to bomb Iran's nuclear programme (taking out a lot of civilians as collateral damage in the process) but if that were to precipitate an attack by Iran then forces in Iraq would be in major difficulties. You can bet that there would be a lot of popular support among Iraq's Shia community.

    What of creating an effective "coalition of the willing" for this war. There would be enormous opposition from our military (the UK) for a start. The British Army is on the verge of overstretch, if not already there. It could not commit forces to this war. I can't see France, Germany or many other NATO countries being very enthusiastic about it either....and so on.

    I think it's a non starter. I hope I am right.