Declassified CIA Doc Reveals Plan to Destroy Syria for Oil Pipeline, Predicts Current Crisis

Geostrategically-crucial Syria has been at the center of a decades-long plot by the United States to depose the sovereign government and install one supportive of goals in the Middle East must be revisited — and quickly — before the beating of war drums drowns out the truth of our government’s recently-espoused mission.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated President Bashar al-Assad for ordering a gruesome mass killing of civilians with chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. This accusation, unsubstantiated due to lack of investigation, sparked a bolstering of support for the Syrian regime from both Moscow and Tehran.

Were the account of an ordered chemical weapons attack to prove unassailably true — and Assad isn’t exactly known for being a gentle despot — Trump could have handily earned a congressional green light and perhaps approval from NATO to obliterate Syrian Arab Army forces responsible. Perhaps.

Yet — images of deceased children, women, and men still echoing in shock waves around the planet — the reality show host-turned American President, tellingly, did neither.

Fifty-nine $1.87 million Tomahawk missiles raining down on a Syrian air base not long after the ostensive toxic gassing answered with finality whether Trump would fall in line with a succession of pompously bellicose presidents — as well as whether the neocon political establishment’s longstanding mission to forcibly bend Syria to its will.

“Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

While the preceding bears the names of leaders and nations familiar to current headlines, that assessment, cogently titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria,” from former CIA officer Graham Fuller in actuality discusses Syria under Assad’s predecessor — his father, Hafez al-Assad — and is dated September 14, 1983, amid the Iran-Iraq War.

Fuller’s analysis, points out Activist Post’s Brandon Turbeville, evinces Assad as a nuisance hindering American empire’s lust to control vast fossil fuel stores and protect ally, Israel, against multiple threats in the Middle East. Destabilization of Iraq and Iran also features prominently in the intricate U.S. plan to deal with the irritant, elder Assad — who, incidentally, recognized Western ulterior motives for what they were.

As the six-page document continues,

Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:

— Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;

— Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.

Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through the exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

With Iraq seeking to enjoin support internationally in the war, the U.S. had to scramble to prevent the shutdown of a pipeline — a dilemma Fuller suggests could be alleviated through a change in narrative to present Syria as a more deviant enemy than even Iran. That, alone, would have changed the face of the war bearing the names of the two principal adversaries — Sunni majority, Iraq, and Syria-allied, Shi’a, Iran.

Fuller asserted,

“The US should consider urging Iraq to take the war to the other key source of its predicament: Syria.”

Further, he continued,

“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it is already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria.

“Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq.

“Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon.”

In context, then-President Ronald Reagan faced pressure both to insert military power in Lebanon — a theater of stated neutrality for the U.S. — and to prohibit actual military assistance in the fraught regional entanglement.

That is, until a suicide bomber decimated a U.S. Marines barracks encamped at an airport in Beirut, killing hundreds — just one month subsequent to the date on Fuller’s Syria action plan.

Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations — an albeit establishment- and Deep State-connected think tank — in “When America Attacked Syria,” wrote in 2012:

“The October 23, 1983, suicide truck bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport would kill 241 U.S. military personnel; simultaneously, another suicide bomber killed fifty-eight French servicemen of the MNF several kilometers away. (Two weeks later, yet another truck bomb exploded in the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre, killing sixty.) A FBI forensics assessment called the Marine barracks bombing the ‘biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II.’ According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was ‘tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.’ Within weeks, the CIA determined that ‘the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.’”

That the CIA — master meddler in the affairs of sovereign nations — determined fault for the bombings rested with Syria and Iran left both plausibly responsible, with public perception largely following suit.

That a situation eerily similar — in behind-the-scenes string-pulling and long-term U.S. commitment to deposing an Assad from rule in Syria — appears to be playing out nearly three-and-a-half decades later, bellows resoundingly on failures of interventionist foreign policy.

Or, perhaps, its successes.

“Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies,” Fuller explained in the document.

“This paper proposes serious examination of the use of all three states – acting independently – to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.”

Syria is now a landmine for the Trump administration — as it has been in varying intensity for a lengthy succession of presidents before.

To make proud the neocon warhawks ravenous to rain missiles upon Assad’s forces would duly emblazon the already blood-tinged U.S. government as chief aggressor in a conflict that had been nearing resolution — if not, ultimately, the catalyst for the third world war.

To withdraw militarily and negotiate a reasonable conclusion to the quagmire in Syria, would mean admitting defeat in the removal of Assad — as well as a black eye from the propaganda-suckered who find solace in the Western policy of killing people to teach people killing people is wrong.

In fact, for Trump and his ilk to save face over Syria and prevent the increasing likelihood of direct military conflict with Russia seems an impossibility at this late hour.

In only the past week, incessant drums of war reached a frenetic and dizzying pace — met only by furious uproar over yet another theater of war — despite Syria unofficially having been precisely that for the United States for decades.

BREAKING: Putin Declares Syria Gas Attack a ‘False Flag,’ Says More Are Coming

A report just released by state-run media says Russian President Vladimir Putin has received credible information additional chemical ‘attack’ similar to a gruesome incident last week will be carried out to, once again, frame the Syrian government — and it, too, will be a false flag.

In a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow, Putin, quoted by RT, stated,

“We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack.”

As many as 86 people succumbed to a noxious chemical in Khan Sheikhoun, in Syria’s Idlib Governate, early last week; but before an independent investigation could be performed or Congressional approval obtained, President Donald Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk missiles launched at a Syrian air base in retaliation.

Crucial unanswered questions — many of which an independent investigation might have — came from critics and world leaders, rightly doubting why, immediately after learning the U.S. had resigned to the current Syrian regime, would Assad carry out an atrocity veritably guaranteed to undermine such progress.

So glaring is that dearth of logic — despite it being the catalyst for the U.S. to attack a sovereign nation not posing any national security threat — analysts and experts harkened back to the George W. Bush regime’s fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction and the feckless push for war with Iraq.

Manufactured terror, Putin reminds, frequently serves as the impetus for the United States to embroil itself in other nations’ affairs — usually with calamitous results:

“President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage.”

READ MORE:  A Free Society where Genders are Equal and Religions Coexist is Successfully Fighting ISIS in Syria

As was the case during the buildup to the Iraq War, public divide over the fast-established official account crucifying Assad as indisputably culpable pinned those urging restraint as inhumane and callous in the face of atrocity — ironically deeming those who would prefer an end to all the killing as monsters … for not advocating further killing.

In fact, this isn’t the first dubious chemical gassing pinned on Assad by the U.S. In 2013, hundreds perished in Ghouta, Syria — just before former President Obama unsuccessfully requested the same bombing Trump just permitted. Notably, that attack has been all-but completely disputed and credibly proven to have had nothing to do with the Syrian government.

This unequivocal condemnation of the Syrian leader plastered American corporate media headlines for days, nearly sans refutation, as Russia — backing government forces to eradicate terrorist groups, including those trained and funded by the U.S. — and Iran loudly reiterated the need for an investigation before a simmering proxy war explodes should American military aggression continue.

Progressively louder demands from Russia, Syria and their allies for the Trump administration to halt this provocation have thus far been laughed off or dismissed as guilty bluster.

Now that Vladimir Putin, himself, warns a second, similarly fabricated attack would be a convenient means for the U.S. to present ‘validation’ Assad gassed his own people — fertilizer for the American War Machine to plant false humanitarian goals in pro-bombing propaganda — any incident mimicking the first should be scrutinized thoroughly.

It’s Time To Pay Attention — In The Last 24 Hours, Trump Admin. Has Pushed US To The Brink of WW3

Falling in unfortunate lockstep with a succession of belligerent previous presidents, Donald Trump is fomenting retaliatory military measures against Syria for a horrific chemical gas attack that killed at least 86 innocent people, dozens of them children — even while imperative questions swirl regarding who, precisely, carried out the atrocity.

While the West’s propaganda machine summarily crucified Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — deeming him a monstrous oaf deserving of the worst possible retribution — calmer minds exhorted U.S. officials to consider the simplest of legitimacy litmus test questions before decimating Syria:

What could Assad possibly stand to gain from gassing his own people to death?

Not only that, but, most necessitously, what could a hasty military response accomplish — mere days after a degree of diplomacy indicated an end to the conflict on the horizon — besides killing yet more Syrians and jarring the world into war?

Beyond the supremely suspect timing and nature of the chemical attack — and a conspicuous lack of extenuating details — Trump would have lacked sufficient motive to remain embroiled in the fraught, multi-faceted proxy war playing out in Syria.

Savagery of the magnitude officials and corporate presstitutes painted Assad willing and capable, however, proffers a convenient humanitarian façade with which this war without winners can rage in perpetuity.

Or, at least for the foreseeable future.

And that is, after all, the business of the President of the United States — a position whole swaths of the world could rightly term, Warmonger-in-Chief.

Our business is war.

And business — with billionaire mogul, rumored con-man, swamp-filler, and previously-professed anti-bombing Syria advocate, Donald Trump, at the helm — is booming.

In fact, Trump and his administration said to hell with campaign directives promising lessened American interventionism, and instead harkened back to dubious military actions undertaken by former Presidents George W. Bush — of Afghanistan and Iraq ill-repute, among others — and Barack Obama, whose own designs on Syria had to be thwarted in much the same fashion by a concerted revival of the anti-war movement in 2013.

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

And those theaters — each, bristling, geopolitically speaking — hardly comprise the entirety of the list of current U.S. military engagements. They don’t call us hegemonic imperialists without sound reason — various iterations of the U.S. military now exist in more than 150 nations.

READ MORE:  Is "Martial Law" Drill in U.S. Actually Prep for Russian Retaliation due to U.S. Arming of Ukraine?

Give or take a few disputed lands, there are only 195 nations on the entire planet.

That, alone, would have any neutral observer convinced of America’s plan for global domination — though, in theory, that isn’t actually a thing.

Trump, rather than opportune popularity engendered from his Golden Boy, anti-establishment presidential candidacy, has instead let loose officials who eat, drink, and sleep war — but the repercussions this time around likely won’t be held to protracted imbroglio, as Afghanistan and Iraq became.

No, this time around, bloviating on Assad’s depraved act prior to neutral, international investigation and analysis will land the United States a deeply notorious role as the impetus for World War III — the Idlib gassing, no matter the actual responsible party, its equivocal Ferdinand Moment.

Syria’s allies, and allies of allies, have wearied of U.S. warmongering — and its truer antecedents of power, control, and plunder — so, doubtless, won’t exercise reserve and caution under an onslaught of military might against the annihilated nation.

Keep in mind, even those tertiary alliances include totalitarian regimes with a fondness for displaying military might of their own — including nuclear capabilities — and worse, willingness to employ the latter sans hesitation under the right circumstances.

And Trump has done nothing to assuage fears an unbridled military assault on Syria wouldn’t present precisely those circumstances — whether for Russia, Syria’s staunchest ally, or any number of others anxious to expel the U.S. from the Middle East.

Of course, it wouldn’t be an American presidency if proposed were only a single field of engagement — after all, the U.S. military budget for Fiscal Year 2017 tops a mind-numbing $582.7 billion, for which Trump seeks an increase of $54 billion — the same amount he plans to subtract by eliminating scores of nonmilitary programs that budget funds.

In short, he’s requested an obscene sum on top of a profane total — because war, in 2017, is just what we do — never mind those mountains of blood money eclipse the total military spending of the next five nations — combined.

Trump’s feckless alignment with the warmongers and profiteers — months after indicating otherwise, and years after excoriating Obama for the same, but ultimately failed, plan  — doesn’t end with just Syria.

North Korea, unamused with U.S. defense systems assisting its neighbor to the South, has repeatedly tested nuclear and ballistic missiles — ordinarily hollow posturing made darkly portentous by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s chillingly terse statement Wednesday after Pyonyang’s latest launch:

“North Korea launched yet another intermediate range ballistic missile. The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.”

Iciness over North Korea quickly extended to Assad and what must be done concerning Syria — about which every indication screams brute show of force — as Tillerson blithely stated,

“[I]t would seem there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”

READ MORE:  To All Those Who Fear and Hate Muslims -- ISIS Propaganda is Working on You

Russia, the secretary of state underhandedly patronized, should “consider carefully their continued support for the Assad regime.”

Worse, Tillerson advised, “steps are underway” for an international coalition to forcibly remove Bashar al-Assad from the presidency.

Without seeking Congressional approval. Without an investigation to determine whether Assad played any role, much less bore total responsibility, for the chemical attack in Idlib. Without proving the action’s necessity or engendering support from the American populace.

Indeed, this stampede toward Syria is a collision course with the world — there will be no winners this time around.

There will, however, be scores of innocent lives erased, damaged, brutalized, and traumatized because greed trumps all — and Trump knows a thing or two about greed.

As this situation continues to devolve at warp speed, it remains unclear when this overthrow campaign will commence — but nonetheless seems an inevitability.

And when it does, the response to the incursion will decide whether Trump has, indeed, ushered in a terrifying World War III.